Another great Times article today

[SelmaAndJubjub]

This time about how regressive it is to trans children link. Sorry, I don't have any share tokens, but hopefully someone who does will be able to share the whole thing.

If there is anyone left in UK politics with a functioning brain cell, I hope they read The Times

If it was this one in the Scottish section the tone seemed a bit reactionary to me, although I do agree with it. Judge for yourselves:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-fetish-is-a-truly-shameful-modern-invention-g7036fr0g?shareToken=e6458d17803752b3a3c263bc5a69cc6c

That's the one - thanks. What did you think was reactionary about it? (Genuine question, not being goady)

Good comments too (mostly, and thus far). Hopefully the word is spreading.

I don't know - I think it was the words fetish and shameful in the title which conveyed disgust rather than concern. I am deeply concerned by what is happening but I don't think shame should come into it. I know older men transitioning may have AGP but if there were no shame they would be able to function in society as men.

That's interesting Stop. The article isn't about AGP or adult TIMs, and I read "fetish" and "shame" as relating to government policy, not to trans people. I agree that men should not be shamed for having an AGP fetish.

I think you are right that they are not helpful words to use, even though I don't think the author intended to shame trans people (and of course it was probably the subs, not the author, who came up with the headline). I still think the body of the article is excellent though.

Yes that's probably true re headline. Mu daughter identifies as MTF - she is neither a fetishist nor should be ashamed, she is a vulnerable, confused young adult who needs support and love, not criticism, (nor surgery or hormones)

I think the author is a left wing academic? I think his intention was to suggest that with the ongoing individualisation of society - via such things as Thatcherite neoliberalism, the loss of communal institutions like churches as we secularised, the defeat of unions and the social networks they created, etc etc - it is no surprise that people are looking inward rather than outward for solutions to their problems. So people aren't coming together to change society, they are acting individually and changing themselves.

It was a spiky article but I don't think the umbrage was directed at vulnerable individuals.

Fair enough. I do think something is missing in our lives that dogma has rushed in to fill the void.

This was a really interesting article yesterday, again in the Times, about heresy and Germaine Greer

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/universities-are-reviving-the-notion-of-heresy-cmjvb87mz?shareToken=a2ad4f72fc28e8cf047d295b289baa1b

Stuart Waiton seems to have totally thrown his hat in the ring. On various scottish proposals, he says:

“In a liberal society, it is up to individuals to make decisions about their lives for themselves but this does not mean that we should be cheering on this culture of narcissism. “Eighteen year olds can do what they like with their bodies. But for a government to suggest that 12-year-olds, immature young people, who don’t have the ‘right’ to go to bed when they want, let alone anything else, can have gender reassignment should be seen as a form of state sponsored child abuse.”

Which means that at least they have someone to quote from other than the religious right.

"I know older men transitioning may have AGP but if there were no shame they would be able to function in society as men."

Although I think for some of them the shame is part of the fetish (see forced feminisation, or rather don't......). I think using fetish here was meant to be a loaded term, but I think he is using it to refer to the response of the state/government to the issue, not the motivation of individuals. I think the point here is that concern for youth with issues isn't really being addressed by this blanket neo-liberal response.

SomeDyke - yes. I think the varied reactions to the article show that the transgender umbrella has extended to cover so many different things - transsexualism, fetishistic cross-dressing/AGP, dysphoric youth, etc. And these things in actuality have little in common so can't be talked about as the same thing. I wish he'd expanded into a longer article and delineated that.

"And these things in actuality have little in common so can't be talked about as the same thing. "
I think this is the key observation. We are saying that the situation is complicated, and depending on the exact situation (a child experiencing distress and dysphoria, and adult with a fetish, and an adult who has made a reasoned decision that they just would like to have a body that looks different etc etc), the responses need to be complicated too. It is the TRA's who want a simple answer (there exists an innate gender identity, which is what anyone says it is, and they should be able to do whatever they want about it, and we should just all accept it and STFU....), and who desperately want to stop us talking about the "complications".

I just wondered since that article was so short, but a quick google and look at the University web-links shows that he has made similar comments in the past. I hope the University has good spam detection software, cos I'm sure his inbox will be full of nonsense fairly soon. Maybe he will write a longer article when he has recovered from the reception he is probably getting for this one..............

yay

SomeDyke - exactly! I, for instance, am perfectly happy with any adult getting body modifications and presenting how they want. I'm also happy, with sufficient gatekeeping, for transsexuals to obtain a GRC. However, I'm against cross-dressers having access to women's spaces and programs (and getting GRCs) and I'm highly concerned about the rush to medicate GNC children. This is the evil genius of the trans umbrella - either you're for all of it, including the obvious dangerous nonsense, or you're a bigot.

I expect the poor man will be suffering a deluge. More power to his elbow, say I!