What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

[FredFlintstonesTunic]

For me, it's really exposed how large media platforms (i.e., a few very rich and powerful people) can shape public perceptions (e.g., by blocking, shaming, nudging and belittling certain ideas and/or people, and promoting others).

I'm no longer so quick to dismiss other people's unusual opinions, or to label them "conspiracists" without looking as openly as possible into what they're talking about (including from sources associated with intelligent people not necessarily in the mainstream media). I don't trust Wikipedia (or Urban Dictionary) without question (which I shouldn't have anyway, but...). I have more respect for people who are willing to say unpopular things (e.g., left-wingers who don't like the EU). In general, I'm far more likely to take news stories with a pinch of salt.

Anyone else?

Maybe he just doesn't see it as his department?

And how the blanket, and inescapable, prevalence of porn is teaching them to become aroused by the degradation and humiliation of women

Yes. And it links up with this ability for men in particular to develop fetishes to almost anything. Porn is indeed now programming a vast swathe of men into becoming aroused by what was previously considered extreme, niche, unpleasant stuff. Through sheer weight of numbers, they are now gaslighting women into accepting it morally and physically - accepting porn use itself, accepting the ridiculous consumption rate of it, and accepting the increasingly extreme content. I genuinely cannot see where it will end in terms of extreme content, nor when it will end given that so many men are now addicts and have a vested interest in internet content that facilitiates their orgasms.

AGP, porn, extreme content, prostitution: it's all men working towards the normalisation of their sexual fetishes/predilections basically and then the mass co-opting of others into servicing them.

Porn. It's like teaching people to drive by showing them car chase scenes in movies.

Possibly. I can't remember exactly what I was reading when I formed the opinion that he doesn't really see it. He was almost questioning 'reasons', without the bloody blinding obvious staring him in the face.

Sorry that was in response to tinsel

One thing that occurs to me is that it's revealed to me the damage accepting weak arguments can do in the long term. There have bene plenty of areas of activism where certain phrases or tropes have been allowed to stand, and they were always questionable or weak. But maybe people found them simple or pithy or whatever.

And then all of a sudden they are being used to support something else that is clearly problematic or even dangerous.

The other part of that is the damage that happens when those kinds of things aren't subject to strong criticism because to do so is seen as bigoted in some way.

The one that always immediately comes to mind for me is the "Love Is Love" campaign. Seems nice on the face of it, in line with everything pop tv and music say, lends itself to slogans on t-shirts and nice little graphics, and seems to support equal marriage campaigns so if you look askance you must be bigoted, right?

But you really don't have to dig deep to see that it's meaningless, untrue, and can lead to all kinds of nasty conclusions. But when people are hesitant to object for fear of being labeled, none of that comes out. And then you see it appearing in some other area where maybe you had assumed that of course, no one would ever support that idea.

Justhadathought perhaps it would be a good idea to start another, separate thread about how Jungianism relates to ideas about male and female and femininity and masculinity? I feel a bit bad for starting that discussion because I think it's derailing this thread

Fair enough! But in the first instance I was responding in good faith to the question posed in the thread starter - about what broader issues has the trans debate opened my mind/eyes to.

Perhaps you could start one, if it is of greater interest?

I don't think it's of greater interest, but it was derailing a potentially interesting thread.

I don't think it's of greater interest, but it was derailing a potentially interesting thread

I wasn't addressing you - I was addressing Mermoose

I posted my thoughts on the thread starter......some people questioned my views. I explained them further. A few other people with interesting and valid thoughts and questions became involved. Far more interesting than a shopping list of pet hates.

You seem to be someone who doesn't like dissent or any alternative view on matters, judging by your responses. Posting a considered view and detailing it in response to question is not a derailment.

My personal view for what makes an interesting thread is obviously quite different to yours. But you know, there is room for multiple views and conversations in any one thread. You don't have to engage with every single one of them, if you don't feel inclined.

To go back to the OP, "What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

The fact that not all differences in behaviour or choice are socially or politically constructed in the way that it has been common to assume in some circles.....and that personal identities and feelings about the self are often shaped by far deeper forces and by collective archetypes (& thus stereotypes) than many give credit for. And that these archetypes and stereotypes originate from actual differences between the sexes.

Possibly. I can't remember exactly what I was reading when I formed the opinion that he doesn't really see it. He was almost questioning 'reasons', without the bloody blinding obvious staring him in the face.

Blanchard got taken to task over this by feminists on Twitter a while back, so maybe you saw it there?

He really didn't like it.

Blanchard got taken to task over this by feminists on Twitter a while back, so maybe you saw it there?

I didn't see it, no. Let me know if you have a link.

When I first read what he had written about AGP, etc, I didn't realise he was fairly accessible via Twitter.

It's only when I subsequently saw what he was saying, in the context of a huge pushback by women and feminists, that I realised they didn't form part of his narrative at all.

You see it a lot, actually. Particularly with men, who totally understand fetishism, boys in girls loos etc, but because it's not seen through a feminist lens, they're not connecting the dots. So they might get sport and dormitories but not appropriation of the very word woman.

It's why, for me, it's often frustrating even listening to men talking about it, it's too one-dimensional (with some notable exceptions).

It went on for a couple of days IIRC.

This was one of the tweets, you can see him getting cross in the replies:

twitter.com/blanchardphd/status/1212815433616805888?s=21

I'm not surprised when men like Blanchard don't instinctively get it, but when they actively refuse to do so and dismiss women's concerns that's a different issue. I'm sure part of it is the "expert" idea - he sees himself as one so who are these random women telling him that he doesn't know how to do his job? Which of course isn't what they're doing, but at that point ego is involved.

The whole incident was quite instructive in unintentionally displaying how the situation where ordinary women were not considered, came about.

It was indeed. The response to the suggestion that perhaps women's needs should also be taken into account is first confusion that anyone might deem such a thing necessary, then anger when the women asserting their needs fail to apologize for bothering the important men and agree that their needs are irrelevant.

Thanks tinsel, I'll have a read of that.

You'd think I wouldn't you, that he'd listen to, for instance, transwidows.

Not only are they about as expert as you can get in the entire process, they are impacted by it every bit as much as the person concerned, if not more. And their narrative will be more truthful. He himself admits that there is a lot of deceit and self deceit.

So, very definitely, one of the things I've noticed after looking at this issue, is how sympathetic other men will often be.

Wasn't it James O'Brian who dismissed Posey when she said she didn't want to change with males, with a blindly self entitled what on earth do you think we're going to do?

And then agreed, in hushed, reverent tones with a transwoman on the phone when they said they didn't want to get changed with males.

He did retweet something I wrote about the spousal exit clause afterwards, so at least he is aware of the issues now.

Blanchard that is.

Hey, it's a start!

It was indeed. The response to the suggestion that perhaps women's needs should also be taken into account is first confusion that anyone might deem such a thing necessary, then anger when the women asserting their needs fail to apologize for bothering the important men and agree that their needs are irrelevant.

That's nailed it, kittens. A woman pointing out that he is a man, and this only benefits men, so can he stop, riles him up so much he blocks her. For being rude 🤣

Once you see the mentality, it's a shocker.

It has revealed to me that most people will be easily led.

And it was quite ironic to see smart women on here, who were flabbergasted how the government and politicians left and right endlessly repeated obvious untruths like 'transwomen are women' and at the same time fall for the government's smears of Assange hook, line and sinker.

Consequently I have come to see Hannah Arendt as one of the greatest thinkers of all times.

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

With regard to Blanchard - in a way it's not surprising that for doctors, they are not considering wider social issues so much. They are concentrating on their patients. That's the way medicine is constructed to a large degree, the way they are trained, and the way they are used to thinking.

Doctors aren't necessarily the main people who should be talking about or making wider decisions about what is appropriate in terms of social changes or structures. They will be able to provide certain kinds of expertise, but their duty in many ways is to look out for the interests of the patients as they see it.

I wonder if maybe one of the things we have seen around this issue is that we don't have a very good mechanism any more for certain types of sophisticated public discussions. Large parts of journalism, and many public intellectuals, and the political sector, don't seem to have anything like the same level of discussion or ability to think or even make nuances statements. It often seems to me that it isn't the bulk of us who are different, but the people at the level that would be leaders in the discussion.

People imagine we should leave these treatment decisions to doctors who are experts, but they don't seem to have a concept that doctors expertise is narrow. They are not philosophers of medical ethics who are necessarily prepared to think about the wider issues.

With regard to Blanchard - in a way it's not surprising that for doctors, they are not considering wider social issues so much. They are concentrating on their patients. That's the way medicine is constructed to a large degree, the way they are trained, and the way they are used to thinking.

Twitter comment by Ray Blanchard linked previously:

"My view: Transsexuals have a mental disorder whose discomfort is ameliorated when society and individuals indulge them with reasonable compromises. This is a traditional psychiatric view although it is rarely stated that bluntly."

31/3/2020 Ray Blanchard:
"Trans women are biological males with mental disorders causing distress with aspects of the male appearance & social status and desires for the corresponding features of women. This can be ameliorated by social acceptance as women & legal fictions granting partial female status."

twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1244998953046814721

Blanchard is a psychologist & sexologist who was part of a group of sexologists/psychologists/surgeons who decided it was within their gift to grant some men access to women's spaces & services whilst constructing false narratives that they could became women/ 'partially female'/live as the female sex or could change their 'social sex'

Dr Em's recent articles are important reading:

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part I: Benjamin, Ihlenfeld, Money & Ehrhardt'

(extract)
Dr Em explores how the founding fathers of ‘scientific’ research on transgenderism/transsexualism were motivated by sexist beliefs.
uncommongroundmedia.com/sexist-science-transsexualism-part-i-benjamin-ihlenfeld-money-ehrhardt/

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part II: Robert Stoller, True Trans'
(extract)
Dr Em reveals how ‘true trans’ doesn’t exist & Robert Stoller’s work shows how the ‘science’ of transsexualism/transgenderism has always been anti-feminist."
uncommongroundmedia.com/robert-stoller-true-trans/