Observer view on gender identity services for children

[Popuptent]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/20/observer-view-cass-review-gender-identity-services-young-people?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Love how he compares it to racism. He must know it's highly likely Sonia wrote it and I think she's of Indian descent. Surely his time is up. He sounds deranged.

JK Rowling has re-tweeted it btw.

I think this is likely to have been written by @susannarustin who is well worth following on Twitter.

Susanna is great, but I think she's at the Guardian rather than the Observer. So more likely to have been written by Sonia Sodha.

Jolyon is a bit dim, isn't he?

'Black people are a danger to white women. I don't think they should get public services I take for granted. And how dare they call me out as a racist - don't they know I have free speech rights?'

Dear lord, I can't believe he was reckless enough to put this on Twitter. I hope this sort of tweet, plus the Good Law Project being more or less branded as a vexatious litigant, is making people realise what a truly nasty, self serving, odious little man with a large chip Fox Killer actually is.

Sonia has tweeted about a certain lawyer ..

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1505833479879200775

Extract below:
"I hear a certain lawyer has been throwing around unfounded accusations of bigotry at journalists who he disagrees with (and has blocked) again. I’m afraid this kind of bullying doesn’t work, especially when it comes to important stories about child wellbeing and safeguarding."

I think it is totally unsurprising that people compare this to race. And it needs to be addressed seriously because it's a rather nuanced point.

What this comes down to is taking true observations about groups - and I mean here statistically true - and making generalizations or laws or having viewpoints abut individual members based on those statistics.

Profiling is a good example, and it works. Sometimes it works really well. Police forces or the military don't use it just because they are jerks, they use it because in a lot of cases it works. (See Trevor Phillips film which looks at this a little bit, he discusses the fact that some crimes have a strong association with certain ethnic groups, even though we like to think it isn't so.)

But we are all taught from really a very strong place of righteousness that it would be completely immoral to a) make generalized statements about those crimes relation to that group of people along the lines of, oh those Malfesians, watch out, so many of them are elephant-smugglers,) or even worse, have worries or views about any individuals's likelihood of being connected in that way (watch out for that guy in the shop, you know how many of those Malfesians are shoplifters.)

So it should be no surprise that for many people, it seems obvious that it would be wrong to say the same thing about trans people. Or for that matter, even about men - people struggle with that kind of generalization about sex-segregation, because it seems that it goes against what they are taught about making generalizations.

And it's really not about the numbers in the end. We wouldn't say it's ok to make generalizations about race even if the numbers were comparable.

We've spent decades teaching this stuff to kids in schools. That was what was so interesting about the Trevor Phillips film, the title,Things We Won't Say about Race - That are True, is spot on. Kids are taught that they cannot say those things, cannot make those generalizations, because it is racist. Universities and workplaces also support that.

It's an example where our attempts to limit people's thinking because we think it will have better social results leaves people unable to sort through complicated issues.

We wouldn't say it's ok to make generalizations about race even if the numbers were comparable.

It's hard to say. I completely agree that making generalisations about race is bullshit, unless it is informed by something where race really plays a part (medical risks for example).

I think people can't imagine a world where one race (however you would even identify that?) was, by definition, entirely responsible for one type of crime and 98% responsible for another type of crime.
Because male abuse of women has been so ingrained throughout history "we" can't see how absolutely crazy it is.

I like to imagine a thought experiment. What would the world be like if men committed crime - all types of crime - at the rate of women? What would our justice systems, medical and mental health services, schools, etc look like?

What this comes down to is taking true observations about groups - and I mean here statistically true - and making generalizations or laws or having viewpoints abut individual members based on those statistics.

I can't let this go without pointing out that 'having viewpoints about individual members' of a sex class is entirely different from having viewpoints about how to treat a sex class AS A CLASS.

Most people are not burglars, but you can't live your life assuming that everyone isn't because only a small number are.

As this entire forum shows, people are terrible at assessing risk at class level and applying it to individual circumstances. Covid has been a very stark example of this.

It just keeps getting evidenced and evidenced doesn't it? Absolutely unreasonable assertions, no room at all for anything or anyone else's needs or views, anything but absolute compliance is

We really are tipping out onto the other side of seeing the world beginning to look critically at this and ask questions.

Or for that matter, even about men - people struggle with that kind of generalization about sex-segregation, because it seems that it goes against what they are taught about making generalizations.

Do they, though? The vast majority of people realise that we segregate the sexes not just for the safety of women and girls but for privacy and decency. We understand from a very young age that we don't take our clothes off in front of the opposite sex. Perhaps that is cultural and social rather than innate, but if so it is a practice that is both geographically widespread and time-honoured.

@RoyalCorgi

Or for that matter, even about men - people struggle with that kind of generalization about sex-segregation, because it seems that it goes against what they are taught about making generalizations.

Do they, though? The vast majority of people realise that we segregate the sexes not just for the safety of women and girls but for privacy and decency. We understand from a very young age that we don't take our clothes off in front of the opposite sex. Perhaps that is cultural and social rather than innate, but if so it is a practice that is both geographically widespread and time-honoured.

Quite.

And either people's feelings, lived experiences, privacy, dignity and wishes matter - all people's -

or they don't.

We cannot have the 'it is wholly unacceptable that that person should feel outed or uncomfortable or afraid, but those people must reframe their trauma, shut their mouths and deal with what they get'

Many people want and need privacy, dignity and to feel comfortable and safe. Many - if not most people think in sex based ways. To access situations in which they feel unsafe, vulnerable, particularly at times of crisis, need and illness, you'd have to lack a great deal of capacity for empathy to not understand. Tolerance works both ways. It's time this began to be required.