The mystery of screaming schoolgirls in Malaysia

[ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48850490

Very interesting article on mass hysteria in Malaysia. Also interesting to see how the problem persists and worsens when the professed cause for the outbreak (like seeing an evil spirit) is affirmed and treated as fact (by performing cleansing rituals), rather than the people involved being encouraged to understand their experiences in the context of reality. Not surprisingly the article points out that this is a phenomenon almost exclusively affecting young girls, that it produces real physical symptoms, that it spreads quickly in places like schools, and that it is most noticeable in countries that have rigid gender roles which limit and oppress women.

What's also fascinating is that the author describes this phenomenon in places like Malaysia with a tone of pity, as if they are a backwards country and nothing like this could possibly happen in our enlightened Western society where science is everything. The TRAs always make out that a belief in biological sex is a form of colonial white supremacy and that anyone questioning gender must be a racist, but honestly could anything be more racist than looking at a country like Malaysia and saying "wow, look at those superstitious people believing that 100s of school girls are really possessed by Jinn, it's obviously mass hysteria caused by a stifling sexist conservative society" while simultaneously believing that the 1000s of school girls suddenly identifying as boys in peer clusters over here are really literally boys (even though that's impossible) and it's definitely not mass hysteria in response to our stifling sexist culture. Obviously only them forriners are susceptible to such delusions, while us Westeners are so progressive and enlightened that anything obviously bonkers happening here must in fact be based solidly in reality.

In addition to all that, the fact that these girls are being subjected to "cures" by faith healers and witch doctors also merits discussion. I've met several women during my time in places like Africa and South America who were taken to witch doctors to be "cured" of various things and it almost always included some form of sexual abuse. One woman said that when she had malaria a group of male faith healers were invited over to tie her up, strip her naked, blindfold her, and take it in turns to spit on her. Even if that isn't the case here the description of the girl being "treated" as "thrashing about wildly on the floor and screaming before being restrained by two men" is really upsetting.

I didn't say sex was irrelevant. I said many people consider gender to be irrelevant.

Gender is irrelevant.

When Malala Yousafzai wasn't allowed to go to school, do you think anyone gave a fuck what her 'gender identity^ is?

When a woman is sat with her feet in stirrups getting an abortion (an abortion that she is actually lucky to get when you consider the worldwide situation) after being raped, is her gender identity really relevant in any way?

When people decide to kill their babies because they are female, do they ask the baby what it's gender identity is?

When a pregnant woman is 'made redundant' whilst on maternity leave, does anyone ask her how she identifies? If they did, would it make any difference if she actually identified as a man?

In the UK one class of human is murdered by another class of human at a rate of 2 per week. Can you take any guesses which classes I am referring to here (clue: it's nothing to do with gender identity).

I could carry on here with many, many more examples, but hopefully I have made my point.

How do you believe gender identity is relevant? Personally, I don't care how someone identifies, or how they present themselves. However, when it comes to making policy and law, I would like to stick to statistics and facts.

Arguments about how gender is separate from sex fall rather flat when they are attempting to change your secondary sexual characteristics.

Sex = female; gender = learned stereotyped behaviours described as feminine / femininity

Sex = male; gender = learned stereotyped behaviours described as masculine / masculinity

They are modifying their gender from learned behaviour that is femininity to adopted masculinity [and vice versa].

They can never avoid being naturally female or naturally male.

Gender and sex aren't the same thing and don't always correspond.

Can you expand on this @Vasya? We all know what sex is, but what do you mean, exactly, by gender?

@OldCrone

It seems that the experience of men who perform femininity and women who perform masculinity are beyond the wit of some, perhaps?

this narrative is IMO quite misleading. IME both men and women in these countries have ridiculous deluded beliefs in spirits, and if you ask people EVERYONE has seen something, or knows someone who has seen something, and this is not at all gender based.

'These countries'? You 'know' this first hand ShootsFruitAndLeaves? I have family in Malaysia and I don't recognise any of this. IMO I find your sweeping generalisation about whole countries insulting and quite frankly bullshit.

Believing in trans rights / that trans women are women and trans men are men is not mass hysteria

Well I wouldn't have phrased it that way myself, more a glass delusion of our time, but if it waddles like a duck......

And yes, the failure of western societies to see their own social contagions and barbaric practices in the same light as those of other societies is profoundly racist.

As I said, I'm not interested in the debate on here. I don't find it helpful or enjoyable. Anyone is, of course, welcome to share their views, but I don't have any desire to be drawn into a discussion of them.

I've read the rhetoric. I've listened to views from all sides. I've read the scientific papers. I'm comfortable in the view I hold, and none of the many posts I've read about transgenderism on mumsnet have done anything except make me feel more confident in them.

Before I joined this site I was fairly oblivious to the debate. I'm a lot more informed now, so while I don't agree with the standard mumsnet position on this issue, I am glad that this site led me down the path of becoming better educated on the issue.

FWIW, I would never want to be complacent and I think there is still a long way to go, but it's pretty clear to me that we are moving in the right direction on this issue. I expect that by the time I am 60, great strides will have been made and acceptance of transgender people will be a fairly settled position.

Trans people have a whole suite of rights but I suppose for the purposes of this thread the one that is likely to be most contentious is 'the right to be recognised as the gender they know themselves to be, regardless of whether their biological sex corresponds'.

Can you explain what you mean by 'gender' here, @Vasya? You talk about it as though it's an important part of people's personality or identity.

Gender, to me, is an oppressive term which pigeonholes people according certain expectations about how someone of that sex should behave. Is this the same as what you mean by gender?

As I said, I'm not interested in the debate on here. Then why are you here?

I expect that by the time I am 60, great strides will have been made and acceptance of transgender people will be a fairly settled position.

We do accept that some men prefer to present themselves as feminine according to patriarchal constraints that dictate what is femininity .. that has never been an issue.

The issue is that these men are not women and never can be women.

In the UK our law is very clear about this.

I do not know in what part of the world you live but in the UK we have a very different situation.

Then why are you here?

Because I found OP's comparison so absurd from a psychological perspective that I wanted to challenge it. That doesn't mean I'm interested in rehashing old arguments for the 20th time with people who have no desire to listen or change their minds (and to whom I have no desire to listen in return).

Just to clarify, my mass hysteria comparison was specifically relating to young girls who are experiencing ROGD. The main points of comparison are the sudden appearance of physical symptoms without any medically detectable cause and their rapid spread through schools and, more usually, friendship groups, the fact that these symptoms persist longer when affirmed, and that "patient zero" for the "outbreak" tends to be a young woman who has had extremely rigid social roles imposed on her.

I definitely do not think that people who believe TWAW/TMAM are experiencing mass hysteria, just like I don't think the faith healers brought in to "cure" the school girls in Malaysia are suffering from mass hysteria. I suspect for both groups that the majority genuinely and sincerely believe what they claim to believe - that TWAW or that people can be possessed by Jinn. Some will be grifters out to make a buck, and some (as per the last paragraph of my OP) will have more sinister motives. Personally I find the concepts of Jinn possession and gendered souls equally absurd, and it amazes me that anyone could dismiss the first as a backwater superstition while championing the latter as a scientific breakthrough. I suspect that racism explains the cognitive dissonance.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves

this narrative is IMO quite misleading. IME both men and women in these countries have ridiculous deluded beliefs in spirits, and if you ask people EVERYONE has seen something, or knows someone who has seen something, and this is not at all gender based.

Right then. Another day another bit of racist bullshit. “These countries”. Which countries? The ones which aren’t European?

That doesn't mean I'm interested in rehashing old arguments for the 20th time with people who have no desire to listen or change their minds (and to whom I have no desire to listen in return).

So no debate then?

We all know that no human can ever change their sex ... so yes, there is no debate about that.

We also all know here that no-one is ever compelled to collude with the delusions of any other person that their sex can be changed.

We also know here that 'gender' is a set of prescribed behaviours, enforced by patriarchy that men should behave in particular ways and that women should behave in articular ways and that women should behave in particular ways.

None of those behaviours is indicative of anyone being able to change their sex. What is indicative is that some people role play those behaviours.

As I said, I'm not interested in the debate on here. I don't find it helpful or enjoyable. Anyone is, of course, welcome to share their views, but I don't have any desire to be drawn into a discussion of them.

Lol!

I have to say this is a new style of plopping I've not seen before though.

Because I found OP's comparison so absurd from a psychological perspective that I wanted to challenge it.

But you didn't. You just stated your personal faith belief.

Quite. As michelle prophetically pointed out up thread.

Which is a classic piece of pathology from certain types of personality disorder and social dysfunction: that giving conflicting facts and opinions doesn't matter and isn't seen by the person as relevant since everything said serves the emotional agenda of getting what is wanted.

DejaVulva

For goodness sakes, am not saying anything about whether people can change their sex. Please read what I have written instead of projecting what you think I am saying.

I know the bloody difference between gender and sex.

'Right then. Another day another bit of racist bullshit. “These countries”. Which countries? The ones which aren’t European?'

I live in Indonesia; they share a language, religion and much culture with Malaysia, this is my experience from talking to people.

So no debate then?

Yes, I made it clear I don't want to debate with you. As a general rule I don't find it helpful to debate with people who aren't open to listening. You and I both know there is literally nothing I could say, no article I could cite, no research I could point to, that would lead you to reconsider your position. You might protest otherwise because it suits you to pretend that if sufficiently compelling evidence was presented you would be receptive to it - that way you can maintain the pretence that you're open to alternative ideas. But we both actually know that there is nothing I can say or do to persuade you. So why would I waste my time on it?

So why would I waste my time on it?

Well, I personally, have no idea why you are. Only you know that.

You and I both know there is literally nothing I could say, no article I could cite, no research I could point to, that would lead you to reconsider your position.

You cannot possibly know this about everyone else posting here. Please post a single article which you believe to be compelling and I will read it and discuss it with you.

Interesting turnaround from vasya there. I don't say gender identity is irrelevant, if you have one you're welcome to. It might be relevant to whether you buy clothes from the women's department or the men's department for example. All we said is gender doesn't overwrite sex. Single sex provision is in almost all cases for obvious reasons single sex not single gender. Single gender provision is not even remotely practical for most uses given the proliferation of different genders out there. But if you want to hold a women and trans feminine dominoes evening you should be free to, as long as this is made clear to all. (Then wait for the non binary people to screech about being excluded.)

It's a bit much when someone says something, refuses to back it up, but blames the people they've said it to.

Then keeps repeating this, but claims it's not a waste of time.

It's a complete waste of time.

You and I both know there is literally nothing I could say, no article I could cite, no research I could point to, that would lead you to reconsider your position.

Is this the phenomenon known as DARVO? Or just plain old projection?

Of course in reality it is genderists trying to say sex either doesn't exist, does change or it is transphobic to mention it. Sometimes the same person saying all three depending on what argument they're trying to make at the time.