Doesn't self-ID only benefit non-genuine cases?

[UpfieldHatesWomen]

I'm trying to figure out if there are actually any benefits to self-ID at all for people with gender dysphoria. The arguments for self-ID are that it costs money, and it's 'humiliating' to have to present your case to a panel of experts. First of all, a GRC only costs £140. Doesn't seem like a staggering amount of money, if you follow the narrative that people will kill themselves in their masses without it. Are there other costs that I'm missing here? The NHS covers hormones and medical procedures in the UK. I also fail to see what's humiliating about a psychological/medical assessment, to see if you actually have gender dysphoria or whether you have a sissification/autogynephelia fetish. Unless, of course, you're never going to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, because you don't have it and simply get off on invading women's privacy/have a fetish etc. Self-ID benefits those who want to keep their penis - but if you have gender dysphoria, why would you want to keep your penis? TV propaganda such as the ITV series 'Butterfly' would have us believe that those with gender dysphoria hate their genitals so much they'll try to cut them off with pieces of broken glass. It seems like self-ID only benefits fetishists and misogynists, so why are politicians never challenged on how exactly self-ID is supposed to benefit transgender people, why are they so insistent on self-ID as the only possible route to trans rights? Are they just woefully ignorant about autogynephelia/transvestism/sissification etc? These fetishes are as old as the hills, why is everyone pretending they suddenly don't exist? Or for that matter, pretending that predatory men don't exist? Female politicians are subjected to the very worst kinds of misogyny on social media, so how can they be so incredibly naive about how misogynistic men and opportunists will use self-ID as a vendetta against women? It doesn't seem that self-ID actually help genuine cases, only those who would normally be refused a GRC because they have shown they're insincere/have other mental health problems/trolling etc.

Remember the 1990s, when Multiple Personality Disorder was renamed as Dissociative Identity Disorder, and all those MPD specialist services closed down — esp. in the US where a great swath of special wards and clinics had been set up?

The reason that happened was that physicians finally realized that the vast majority of MPD cases they were treating were iatrogenically induced.

Some patients are EXTREMELY suggestible. Therapists can and have INDUCED dissociation in patients who otherwise would not have dissociated. The standard of care NOW, if patients dissociate into another identity is NOT TO AFFIRM that identity because that will iatrogenically reify it.

How is the surge in gender identity cases any different from the great surge of MPD cases physicians saw in the 1980s?

The original physician treating “Sybil” later confessed that Sybil’s case was a hoax. Anne Fausto-Sterling has admitted her influential paper describing 5 sexes was something she wrote “tongue-in-cheek” and yet it’s cited everywhere as proof that sex in humans isn’t dimorphic and therefore there are humans that have a “mix” of biological sex.

I’ll tell you how MPD differs from GID: MPD had no drug treatment associated with it, no lifetime need for pharmaceuticals that, while cheap now, won’t necessarily be in the future (take a look at what’s happened with the cost of Epi-pens and insulin for an example. The first taste, from drug pushers, is ALWAYS cheap.)

in fact, the very rare cases of true DID can be well resolved through therapy alone. Why, therefore, have new therapy modalities that have come into practice since the 1970s, the time at which clinicians decided therapy had no effect on gender dysphoria, NEVER been tested? EMDR, cognitive behavioural therapies, trauma-informed modalities that differ from old-fashioned psychoanalysis — NONE of these have been tested with GID.

This is a massive medical scandal in the making, and every clinician that has turned a blind eye to the rush to halt puberty in healthy adolescents and then to sterilise them with cross-sex hormones, to perform invasive irreversible surgeries on health breasts and healthy genitals, is implicated.

Why do you think it is better for a feminine boy or a masculine girl to change their body into a poor approximation of that of the opposite sex rather than accept that such gender non-conforming people exist, and should be allowed to exist?

The reason why I never went to my GP about my feeling that "I ought to be a man" is because I recognised two things from the outset:

• I don't and can't know how it feels to be a man because I have no basis for comparison. What I imagine being a man feels like could be entirely incorrect.
• I'd rather be an intact woman than a "poor approximation" (the phrase I wrote in my journal some twenty years ago was "broken simulacrum", but "poor approximation" works too) of a man.

If I woke up tomorrow as a biological male, I'd be overjoyed: risk of rape and camera voyeurism massively reduced, no more breasts I didn't ask for and don't particularly want, no more sexualisation and harassment, the ability to pee standing without needing a Shewee, being taken seriously at work, able to masturbate without needing a full hour and electromechnical assistance, being able to have sexual agency without widespread social shaming, and never having to worry about pregnancy again. But that's not what the surgery and hormones would give me, is it? And it wouldn't reduce the rape risk and sex-based workplace credibility gap for other women.

Self-id isn't going to help with any of that either. Everyone treating women with dignity and respect would resolve the social aspects.