Transactivists deny Gender Dysphoria exists - The aim is to STOP kids having access to hormones and surgery.

[MoleSmokes]

This does not fit with "follow the money" explanations for transactivism but fits much better with "queering society" theories.

"Being Trans just means saying you are Trans" is the ultimate aim, going by one of the Keynote Speeches at Epath 2019:

Full text here:
epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Dinah-Bons.pdf

My highlights bolded

Dinah Bons (strategic director TGEU)
“DEPATHOLOGISATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES”
(What does depath mean and how it affects trans people’s health)

" . . . the World Health Organisation finally removed trans identities from the mental health disorders chapter in its latest edition of the International Classification of Diseases and included them in a new chapter called “Conditions related to Sexual Health”.

Let’s not forget that this change includes a diagnosis for children, Gender Incongruence in Childhood, contributing to their pathologisation when no medical treatment is needed.

We urge you to join our fight for this category (Gender Incongruence in Childhood) to be removed as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, this long-awaited change lays the foundation for a new era in which the rights and lives of trans people are valued and respected, and trans people are seen as what they really are, part of human diversity. This will ultimately assist trans people in exercising their right to self-determination at all levels.

We will be able to have our legal gender recognized without any kind of medical requirement."

" . . . When we see trans people in the media, their stories won’t always be about how we feel about our bodies, how terrible it is to be trans and how we desperately need to physically transition.

"I want to make note of trans-led grassroots health services providers, in the UK and in the Netherlands, that mark an important development.

(There is nothing further said about the UK but I am guessing that this relates to the decision by NHS Specialist Commissioning to set up "Trans Health Services" across the UK, with the first to be piloted in Manchester this year:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3556114-Greater-Manchester-Trans-Health-Service )

EPATH Conference Programme (featuring some familiar UK names on their usual soap-boxes):
epath.eu/conference-2019/program-overview/

I came across that EPATH speech after some ferreting around for references to the "European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence (ENIGI)".

This was because I was originally going to post here about a recent article in Nature about ENIGI (I will do a separate post).

However, one paragraph in the Nature article jumped out at me:

"Although transgender issues are becoming more mainstream, the topic remains politically charged. The European groups sometimes encounter transgender activists who oppose any medical intervention — T’Sjoen says he has had talks disrupted by people arguing that transgender people should not give in to social pressure. Although that could be true for some people, he says, for others, “even if they were living somewhere on a desert island, they would still want to change their body”.

(The "European Groups" are, I think, trans-led Gender Clinics in Holland, Belgium, Germany and Norway.)

This suggests that non-dysphoric trans people (the non-binaries and "gender queer") are definitely seeking to take over the trans movement at the expense of dysphoric transsexuals.

Going back to that EPATH speech:

1) CHILDREN DO NOT NEED HORMONES OR SURGERY TO BE TRANS

Where does the massive rise of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), especially among girls, fit in with this?

If it DOES fit in then the only explanation I can think of is horribly cynical.

How relieved would so many parents, public service funders and insurance companies be if . . . if the Trans lobby started advocating that childhood dysphoria does not exist and there is no need for hormones or surgery to be trans?

Cue: the end of ROGD as "Self-ID" is ushered in?

IF it is true that lots of kids are parroting pro-forma "right words" to get on the Trans Train to hormones and surgery then it is also true that they do not have dysphoria.

That is, that the massive rise, the clusters of kids in peer groups, etc. is due to "social contagion" . . . and the next "social contagion" to replace ROGD? The non-binary "no pain" path to "Gender Diversity"?

2) TRANS HEALTH SERVICES

Exactly what the Trans Lobby has persuaded the NHS to pilot this year.

Cue: redirect funds from Gender Identity Services to "Trans Health Services" - with some token funding left over for those annoying kids and adults, that tiny minority who have some vague, officially undiagnosable problem that some medics insist on referring to as "gender dysphoria" (the wrong-side-of-history transphobes!)?

3) NEW ERA - NON-MEDICALISED SELF-ID

Exactly what the Trans Lobby persuaded the Commons "Women and Equalities Committee" is the way to go?

Who would benefit from complete "depath" of Transgender Identities - soon to be renamed "Gender Diversity"?

It can't be the people profiting from sale of hormones and surgery because the argument is that they are not necessary . . . or is that just for children? The EPATH speech only argues for removing "Gender Incongruence in Childhood" as a Diagnostic Category.

If the idea is that in this "New Era" that Adults will still need access to a medical diagnosis and therefore a route to medical treatment . . . we know already who those adults are. They are men who want "feminising" hormones and surgery.

Is that still part of the Big Trans Plan??

I am having difficulty squaring the lack of any call to remove "ADULT Gender Incongruence" with statements about the "New Era" being one in which Trans people are happy with their bodies and do not need to physically transition, ie. transgender people deny gender dysphoria exists. (How very "dysphoriaphobic"!)

Apologies for the length of this post!

Post operation a male who has had penis removed should be treated as female if they wish this.

I also disagree. I don't know what the solution to this is, but I don't think anything should be contingent on someone having major surgery/ sterilisation. I know for a lot the bathroom debate is about being validated/ controlling women, but I'm also sure there are plenty of MtF trans people who genuinely feel too unsafe to use the mens/ change with men. They need and deserve a place they can feel safe so that they can engage fully in public life, the same as women. Making access to a place of safety contingent on sterilisation is, to me, a human rights violation. This is why we badly need a third space. Safety and dignity for all, needless medical intervention for none. I mean, if trans people choose as adults to get surgery with no coercion or pressure then fine, whatever, I uphold their right to do that. But I won't deny that I'd like that to be seen as the last resort in almost every case. I don't think anyone should be cutting off healthy body parts and becoming life long patients unless they really really really have to.

www.reddit.com/r/detrans/ has a lot of interesting stories on it.

I've had a look before for evidence of trans people in classical history, but can't find much. The wiki page on it really scrapes around and fudges a lot of stories to try and make them fit (women dressing as men in order to vote for example, or cross dressing as a form of humiliation post battle in Ancient Rome). The evidence by contrast for homosexuality is strong and consistent within every culture, every country, every period of time. I don't think it's as new a phenomena as it appears to us, but if it was as commonly occurring and innate as is claimed I'd expect to see much more historical evidence. Would be interesting to read more deeply on it though.

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving I take your point about avoiding major surgery. However someone who's gone to that extreme is at least not a chancer. Someone with a penis they're keen to use who self defines as a lesbian is a creep, and clearly doesn't have gender dysphoria or any kind of dysmorphia.

Wanting access to women only spaces is a really big ask. The transwomen of my youth showed evidence of real suffering and commitment, which is why they were included under an honour system.

It also makes me wonder, when de-transitioners say that they do not regret the path that they took because it was part of a journey to "a better place", whether they would have got to that "better place" with counselling or by some other means if it had been available?

The one on the programme I linked to actually said that she was told that hormones and surgery were the only treatment for her condition, and that she thinks alternatives should have been offered. It's a while since I watched it, but her testimony is heartbreaking - she certainly sounds like someone who feels that the treatment she received for her condition was poor.

It's good that the detransitioners you mention don't regret what they've done, because there's no way back, but there are bound to be some who do - and that's tragic.

journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/655

This project has received three quarters of a million pounds to try to convince people that men should have no legal barriers. The state should apparently withdraw.

I don’t think access to women’s facilities should be contingent on surgery. That’s pushing people down the surgery route. Far fairer to say ‘No, no matter what you do, you will never be a woman. If you feel unsafe we can arrange for a third space for you to use, but you will never, ever be a woman and the choices you make might make you feel better about yourself, but they have no bearing on how the rest of us see you.’

ABOUT THE PROJECT
What should gender’s future be? Should gender fade in significance, become a matter of personal choice, define new ways of living and being, or remain a category of domination and inequality? And what can law contribute to these changes?

Currently in Britain, we all bear a legal gender, starting with the sex we are registered as having at birth. But are there good reasons for retaining a system in which people are gendered in ways that carry formal legal status? What might change involve? And what are the implications, in terms of the challenges, risks and benefits, of radical reform? These questions form the basis for our three-year critical law reform project, begun in May 2018, and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/#

Worth a critical read.

That is the next step after self id.
No birth registration of sex at all. All rights are discarded and have to be fought for in the courts one person at a time. Which is pretty much where Canada is already.

And after that, race will be demolished via transracialism, and while racism will remain, race won’t exist as a legal category, just as sex will not.

With unions simultaneously weakened and most of the workforce on gig contract, worker rights will be decimated. No more class action suits to bother large corporations.

No birth registration of sex at all. All rights are discarded and have to be fought for in the courts one person at a time. Which is pretty much where Canada is already.

Tasmania:

'Tasmania considers removing gender from birth certificates'
startsat60.com/discover/news/politics/tasmania-vote-remove-childs-gender-birth-certificate-transgender

Yup, the strategy is two pronged, first you go after the smaller counties like Ireland, Malta, tasmania etc. Where there is a only a few people to manipulate. Then you get the bigger ones by saying look, you are falling behind the smallest countries.

This drive comes from the Netherlands, Canada and USA.

Agree it's sinister/ manipulation. Minimising the importance of medical changes in the guise of protecting people. Really it's so you don't have to have any intention of transitioning to be able to demand access to anything you want.

Really it's so you don't have to have any intention of transitioning to be able to demand access to anything you want.

This is the Non-Binary trojan horse.
Non Binary means access all areas. There can be no sex-based spaces / services / rights once non-binary identification is mandated.

Also increasinglay also access to personalised range of medical & surgical interventions as preferred by the individual.

I read a paper last year by a woman in international gender development for women and girls basically saying where did all the money and drive go. One minute it was the focus, next minute, nothing.
It's all been diverted into this.

And this was about the northern hemisphere aid givers who control the Southern hemisphere aid receivers. Money and focus shifted.

I will try to find it again.

Today, the starting point is not what, if anything, do all those indisputably defined as women share; but how should the criteria of woman be defined so that certain identified groupings – most prominently trans women (or trans women who haven’t undergone body modification) – get included or excluded (see also Ahmed 2016a: 30).

I would just loooooove for all of this waffling ivory tower "what even is a woman" fuckery to fuck off and stay fucked off forever now please.

or remain a category of domination and inequality? And what can law contribute to these changes?

Note the bullshit manipulation words they use. Yes, really, it's my birth certificate that caused decades of sex discrimination. If my birth certificate didn't say female I would have been treated equally.

What a shitty lie.

futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/q-a/

This is interesting

This is interesting

It is. I'll have to read it again as there's quite a bit of word salad there, but at least they appear to acknowledge biological sex and that there is a view that it can't be totally ignored in favour of 'gender'.

Although given this paragraph, I don't think any scientists were consulted in the drafting of the Q&A.

The aim of this project is to explore different perspectives on these issues, as well as the different ways the terms of “sex” have been characterised, including as facts, beliefs, and claims. This means exploring the controversy over whether or not “sex” is a scientific fact (recognising people will also disagree about what it means for something to be a “scientific fact”).

This is the rabbit hole of postmodernism: people will disagree as to the various ways “sex” has been characterized; whether or not “sex” is a scientific fact, whether or not there is such a thing as a “scientific fact,” whether or not there is such a thing as “science,” whether or not there is such a thing as a “fact” —

And bob’s your uncle we’re back to the time where knowledge means only competing belief, and belief is handed down by some kind of priesthood.

Meanwhile people will keep fucking and having babies, and people will continue to know which of the fuckers is the one who’ll fall pregnant and which of them is the one who won’t. They just won’t have any language or politics with which to describe the power dynamics in being the one who falls pregnant versus the one who doesn’t.

How long before before we see a single tick-box for "Cis Gender" replacing options for "Female" and "Male"? The sex distinction will be redundant when "Gender" becomes the primary concern and has already been stated.

YY I agree.

This project has received three quarters of a million pounds to try to convince people that men should have no legal barriers. The state should apparently withdraw.

I've just read it. FFS.

I would just loooooove for all of this waffling ivory tower "what even is a woman" fuckery to fuck off and stay fucked off forever now please.

I feel your pain having just read that impenetrable word salad of bullshit

As a deliberate legislative undertaking, conceptual plurality can be sustained (or introduced) in different ways (see also Clarke 2015). State law might insulate legislative fields from each other, draw on different interpretive frameworks within different legal areas, use overlapping but distinct terms (sex and gender, for example), devolve authority for gender-based decisions (to bodies working with different gender accounts), legislate policies that don’t rely on gender’s explicit naming or definition (for instance, in relation to welfare, taxation, immigration, low pay, collective property rights and public space);

My bold.

Post operation a male who has had penis removed should be treated as female if they wish this. Before operation their sex is male and they should not be put in female exclusive zones such as prisons or changing rooms with no cubicles

Really very insulting towards women. A woman is not just a man without a penis.

Trousering that is an interesting and important point which I had not thought of - I would be interested if you do find the link.