Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I am concerned to see the message below from MNHQ at the end of the T thread. Regarding posts that I consider "goady", I have a personal policy of not feeding them, not engaging and not rising to the bait. I ignore them. OPs looking for conflict as a way to feed themselves won't get it from me. Firstly, it's exhausting-they are not interested in dialogue, despite what they say, and secondly the best way to deal with them, imo, is to starve them of attention and not rise to the bait. Don't give them what they want i.e. a fight and conflict.

My concern is I predict there will be a lot more new threads and OPs looking for a fight, as the public becomes more aware of the issues and the tide starts to turn against TRAs. They will want to try and get this Place closed down for discussion, and none of us want that to happen.

Personally I have found it empowering to learn how not to engage and to turn it back on them if absolutely necessary, by the use of ridicule and short rebuttals of their nonsense. I am happy to share some techniques if it will help plus learn more from others. There's no point in trying to score points and win all the arguments they make as it's the engagement down their rabbit holes they want - they literally feed off conflict. They're anti-social remember, so any attention is better than none. They want to keep you coming back and arguing, so they can derail, prolong, provoke and generally make life difficult for MNHQ - to force them to take action. The negative attention "turns on" those looking for a fight….so please don't feed them, ignore them and lets keep this place open.

Message for MN:

Hi all

Since this thread is getting near its end, this seems like a good moment to make a really serious point.

We've just made some more deletions on this thread, and we're pretty exasperated tbh - we feel we're running out of ways to say 'please stick within the TGs or risk losing MN as a place to discuss this issue.'

We're really proud of our commitment to free speech, and we put a huge amount of time and resources to enabling this debate to take place - as many of you have pointed out, it's one of the few places left.

To those who haven't yet been able to stop and look at things from our end of the barrel - please understand that you're risking this space for everyone; if you really can't debate civilly with those you disagree with, it might be time to consider that MN is no longer the place for you. We're sorry to have to say this - we don't like it one bit - but tbh nothing else seems to have got through so far: we're at a point of last resort.

Thanks to all those who modify their first instincts and manage to make their points in a calm, considered and civilised manner - even in the face of goadiness. We appreciate it (and so would Michelle.)

Thanks all

MNHQ

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms

Are you aware that any transitioning person after about three months on hormones is either infertile in the case of a trans man or with testosterone blockers a trans woman is chemically castrated

As per your earlier linked information this statement is false, Sue0001.

As per your earlier linked information this statement is false, Sue0001

It is oestrogen and a testosterone blocker - which is the same chemical used for chemical castration.

The amounts of spironolactone taken may not be enough to induce chemical castration as if you take a high dose, that is potentially dangerous for your kidney.

It certainly does reduce testosterone to low levels.

thebewilderness I must admit I'm rather disappointed how feeble these claims seem today.

Just read two studies, one on how many transmen continue to have periods and one on how few transwomen manage to suppress testosterone to female level.

So, not only is the claim false, it once again misses the point that 80 to 95% of trans ppl don't take any hormones at all.

I mean the claim "after about three months"

I am not quite sure, CharlieParley, if the peeps making these contradictory assertions are the deceived or the deceivers.
I suppose that is why MNHQ wants us to model the behavior of Michelle Obama's WTGLWGH.

Yes, there would potentially be legal redress if they did something unlawful

And this is what worries me.
We are going to have to wait until something happens. And we know that women complaining of sexual assault are always believed and taken seriously.........

Mouthtrousers

So if gender is culturally determined, how is gender identity 'inate' ???

And shurely, shurely, gender is assigned at birth, whereas sex is observed

It's all arse-about-face

The harassment laws were supposed to change this unrealistic attitude that threats and intimidation are not real crimes, and nothing need be done til physical injury occurs.

The Telegraph had an item yesterday about the investigation by NHS of crimes committed on mixed sex wards that ought not to be.

Charlie, I think surgery is probably the only really definitive way to reduce testosterone levels to well within the normal female range.

Which is why it really should be essential before even considering someone for participation in competitive sport.

I think it used to be but now isn't.

thebewilderness do you mean <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/11/nhs-launches-sexual-abuse-probe-amid-fears-dangers-mixed-sex/amp/#ampshare=www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/11/nhs-launches-sexual-abuse-probe-amid-fears-dangers-mixed-sex/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this article ?

Sue, I just wanted to say thank you for your input into this thread. I tend to do my own research off the back of everyone's input into threads like these (because I don't want to rush to assumptions, want to research the whole issue, make my own decisions, just as I'm sure you do too).

From what I understand, your focus seems to be on people who take medication/have surgery to become what they would deem to be 'the other binary'. What we used to know as 'transexual'? It sounds like a difficult and long road for them, and I, as well as a lot of people who post on these threads I think, have a lot of empathy for them.

I think you may be slightly out of date in your assumptions that this is the extent of 'transgender'. You kindly linked earlier on in the thread to an article co-written by Tara Hewitt, who seems to be very influential in advising on trans issues.

As part of my research after your name-checking of Tara, I watched a film of Tara lecturing a group of healthcare professionals about trans people and cancer.

Tara explained the definition of trans. Tara included "two types of cross dressers, one who 'fetishistically cross dress' so they 'dress up in a very over-stereotypical way to get a sexual desire of that clothing of an opposite gender, generally men in women's clothing".

Tara then jokes about the fact that they don't know many women who'd get a sexual kick out of dressing in men's boxers.

Tara tells the room "We're all very diverse with diverse sexual appetites as wel'. It's challenging when people make judgements about people - as long as people are happy"

Tara also included 'drag kings and drag queens who dress up for entertainment' as part of the definition of transgender. I was also slightly confused about this, as if you're doing this compartmentally for entertainment, how does this affect you when you go for medical treatment?. If I dress up as Elsa to entertain at children's parties, will that affect my medical treatment when I have cancer?

I'm confused as to how any legislation that protects sex-based requirements and needs can include such a wide spectrum of people, from those who are surgically altering their body, have gender dysphoria, to those who, by Tara's own statement,fetishistically dress up for sexual desire, to those who do drag for entertainment'.

I think that may explain why, after 20 minutes of the lecture, noone in the room had questions. As healthcare professionals, they were all probably a bit baffled!

(Oh, that and probably one of Tara's last statements, which suggests that a transwoman who has to have her (surgically added breast) removed after cancer may experience more trauma than a female. . I had to breate deeply after that statement!) #WTGLWGH

Yikes, worrying I've killed the thread.

TL:DR on my post above - I appreciate the varied viewpoints that other people bring to the threads, as they make it less of an echo chamber.

The varied viewpoints make me do more research to ensure I'm not being informed by an echo chamber. Even when they seem to be derailing a thread by posting stuff that's nothing to do with the theme of the thread

I did more research. It made me go 'huh'? even more! Hopefully I addressed my 'huh?'in a non-inflammatory post.

Walking through treacle right now!

I have heard that a lot from males over the years, pombear. That is why it is listed as the:
11th rule of misogyny: whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.

one of Tara's last statements, which suggests that a transwoman who has to have her (surgically added breast) removed after cancer may experience more trauma than a female.

Wow. Was any research or evidence offered for this? How large was the sample and how did they measure the trauma?

Oh, that and probably one of Tara's last statements, which suggests that a transwoman who has to have her (surgically added breast) removed after cancer may experience more trauma than a female

...

(Deep calming breaths)

Narcissism is a hell of a drug.

Yes, thank you, flowers, that is the news item I saw.

No evidence given. I'm sure it is a difficult experience, different from a female one, but no doubt difficult.

But getting back on track to my initial post. It was to highlight that Sue's arguments for why many of us are apparently 'hysterical' about imagined scenarios focuses on those undergoing medical or surgical treatment. Sue only refers to a historical definition of a 'transexual' experience. And suggests that many of us are whipping up hypothetical circumstances.

Sue referred us to Tara as an expert earlier in this thread.

When I researched Tara, as an expert given by Sue, I found that Tara includes those who cross dress for sexual desire as part of the transgender umbrella.

Whilst I acknowldedge that many people have diverse sexual desires, centreing policy-making that affects women's rights to include these people concerns me greatly.

I am a 'civilian'. I have been here for many years. I shamefully have been silent on so many feminist and women's rights. I am starting to find my voice. Thanks to people like Sue. And Tara.

The phrasing is interesting, isn't it? Not to be aware that a transwoman may have a different experience of the trauma, or have an additional need in relation to the trauma that needs to be understood and met, but that it will be more than a woman will feel. The core beliefs underpinning that subconscious way of putting it are pretty clear.

And, as seen in my last post, my spelling is crap, which is why I rarely post here, as the grammar police used to be more scary than the gender police!

Most grammar police have discovered the hard way that any internet comment criticizing a typo or error in grammar will invariably contain an typo or error in grammar.

@CisPinkHoodie

The diversity and inclusion trainer got very confused and flustered when asked for clarification on sex and gender.

The response was it's all going to change soon to gender, the law is changing to gender.

It was a room full of young women early in their careers. All being told their biology is irrelevant.

Privileged. A big section on privilege. Women dutifully speaking up saying they recognised they are privileged.

In essence the argument comes down to replacing terms that refer to material reality with terms that refer to individuals beliefs.
History shows that we have mandated belief by codifying it into law before now. It never ended well for the citizens.