So disgusted tonight

[Mollyollydolly]

Owen Jones and Pink News tweeted about the two Helens, Joyce and Staniland and their YouTube chat .. Jones taking what they said completely out of context it's resulted in some of the most vile abuse aimed at Helen Joyce in particular on twitter tonight. So many death threats.

I wish there was something we could do, it's so utterly vile, it's time they were held to account for their lies. It's really upsetting.

Owen Jones isn't fit to lace Helen's shoes, I cant believe The Guardian still employ him. I've seen threats to murder, throw napalm in their faces from Joss Prior and many many more. It's disgusting and all down to Owen.

How can this stand up to any level of journalistic ethics or integrity.

It's time we did something, some kind of collective action.

Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?

This has been said many times, but obviously bears repeating.

Gay people do not require lifelong medical treatment simply for being gay. To be their "authentic self" a person who identifies as trans does require lifelong medical treatment.

The fact that the medical treatment that trans identified people "need" harms them physically just makes it even more apparent that this is not a safe ideology to buy into.

Perhaps when Janet says 'trans' she means transvestite.

Gay people do not require lifelong medical treatment simply for being gay. To be their "authentic self" a person who identifies as trans does require lifelong medical treatment.

Not necessarily and if they fund that themselves, that isn’t a good enough reason to object to people living whatever lives they want. Lots of people need lifelong medical care, some due to actions within their control. We live in one of the richest countries in the world - provision of medical care is manageable. Someone else needing medical care isn’t enough of a reason to stop them from doing something they want to do. I am gender critical, I don’t believe people can change sex, I want women’s spaces protected and I believe sex is a material reality (before someone says I am a TRA). However, many people who ID as trans say they feel better post-transition and if they believe that, I have no desire to stop them doing something they think will help them. It’s simply none of my business.

that they don't see themselves as being ill, as needing a cure, it's just part of who they are?

I genuinely don't get this. Surely all the fuss is because who they are is who they aren't?

All the cross sex hormones, entering spaces designed for the opposite sex, all the changes in laws to permit changes to official documentation, the need to get everyone and their dog to pretend that they are the opposite, removal of healthy body parts and reconstruction of fake genitalia; doesn't seem to show any evidence that 'it's part of who they are'.

many people who ID as trans say they feel better post-transition and if they believe that, I have no desire to stop them doing something they think will help them. It’s simply none of my business.
This

Not necessarily and if they fund that themselves, that isn’t a good enough reason to object to people living whatever lives they want.

Yes, obviously people should be able to change their bodies however they want if they fund it themselves. No argument there. So are we saying the NHS shouldn't cover any of it?

Do you believe that people should be able to have any medical treatments they want?

What about transabled people who want to be disabled?

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/

This seems to be the closest analogy to transgender people, and some people, like Chloe Jennings-White, are both.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/body-integrity-identity-disorder-disabled-woman-chloe-jennings-white_n_3609392.html

Well if they want to transition and aren’t reliant on external validation, or intervention of public health services, or changes to law affecting others, then yes it’s none of our business. But that doesn’t seem to be the case does it? So it’s everyone’s business.

Well, this is the crux, Janet.

Does being 'part of who they are' mean having a brain in the 'wrong' body?

Isn't that brain (or body) just 'part of who they are'?

Either dysphoria is so terrible people require serious, life-altering treatment for it, or it's just fine, no big deal, 'part of who they are' and absolutely no changes are needed. Which means; No GRA, no meds, no surgery, no worries about being correctly sexed, etc.

At some point, someone is going to have to decide which it is.

I can understand dysphoria, as a rare and difficult condition, and that medical 'transition' is a crude attempt to try and alleviate the distress.

But you can't both have the idea of trans as a condition driven by dysphoria and have the idea of trans as just a personality aspect that has no impact on anyone. A lovely, affirmative rainbow of choices that people can make at any time like a gender pick n mix.

I mean, you can have the latter, but you can't ask the NHS to provide treatment for 'part of who they are' - the NHS don't offer hair dye, false breasts and shoe shopping as treatments for people's personality choices or passing sexual predilections.

Either trans is a condition driven by dysphoria (and therefore dysphoria needs to be treated, or 'cured'), or its an inconsequential personal choice based on an inner feeling or gendered soul (which of course doesn't need to be treated or 'cured').

Which do you say it is, Janet?

I really do think the trans community and trans activists need to stick to a narrative about what being trans actually IS, because at the moment there are two very different, conflicting stories. For contrast, I don't remember any gay rights activists claiming that being gay was an illness or condition that required treatment: it was always an innate identity.

On the one hand, being trans is a dire health emergency requiring immediate treatment lest the poor individual kill themselves or live a life of abject misery trapped in the wrong body. So urgent is this medical need that children need to be treated as soon as possible in order to prevent the agony of going through the wrong puberty. Gender dysphoria is represented as torture, an unbearable state of being, which renders trans people one of the most vulnerable minorities and prone to catastrophic mental health problems. Trans activists demand better medical treatment, including more clinics, quicker diagnoses, informed consent models, free surgeries, hormone treatments for children, free hair removal etc.

On the other hand, being trans is an identity, a core part of one's being, which is a cause for celebration. Trans people are like gay people. Being trans is something which is part of the fabric of humanity, something to be accepted and cherished. Being trans is a source of great pride and strength, and isn't a mental illness or any illness at all. Trans people are perfect just the way they are, and don't need invasive medical procedures or sterilisation. The medical model should be moved away from towards a self identification model.

The problem is that trans activists switch between both paradigms when it suits them, and it leads to confusion. Joyce was discussing trans in the context of the first model, in which it is a serious medical condition but is being attacked by people who are assuming being trans is more like model two.

So gender dysphoria is not a crippling condition that blights the life of trans people?

Good to know. Because we are constantly told otherwise.

And if that's the case, then eye wateringly expensive treatment on the NHS isn't necessary.

None of it makes sense, does it?

It has to be a crippling condition, in order to qualify for free treatment. But, no cure is sought or considered.

Here's my question to you GoodJanetBadJanet, what do you think is the cause of gender dysphoria?

And can I ask for a decent, genuine answer, not some ideological waffle.

And I'm fine with people doing whatever they wish in their own time, money and spaces.

As soon as that involves telling children they can change sex; telling women they will be including males in women's sport; telling women they can't object to males in their spaces; telling women they can't object to male HCPs or carers; telling women that they are privileged over males; funding enormously expensive experimental treatments with our tax-paid healthcare system; removing the word 'woman' from every piece of legislation and thereby removing every protection women spent the past 100 years fighting for?

Yes, it's our business.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?

Being gay = being sexually attracted to the opposite sex. A set definition which doesn't involve any stereotypes and is a commonality between all gay people.

Being a transwoman = feeling you are a woman.

So a question for you - what is a woman?

Can you answer that without using stereotypes?

Can you answer that by confirming a commonality between women and transwomen that doesn't require stereotypes that don't apply to all women?

Interested to hear your answers.

When it becomes heavily promoted as a "cool" thing to do, particularly amongst the young, then it becomes everybody's business. When surgery is marketed as a desirable commodity, it becomes everybody's business. When it becomes a political issue, it is absolutely everybody's business.

When it affects other people, it becomes other people's business.

Crispin Blunt, that odious MP who supported the sex abuser MP Imran Ahmad Khan, was very open about the [shelved] reform of the GRA being stitched up behind closed doors, wasn't he?

He went crackers at Liz Truss in the House of Commons when she made the 'shelving' announcement, and in his fit of pique revealed rather more than he and his cronies perhaps intended. I was watching live, and will never forget the fury on his face and in his voice, and what he said.

Crispin Blunt, that odious MP who supported the sex abuser MP Imran Ahmad Khan, was very open about the [shelved] reform of the GRA being stitched up behind closed doors, wasn't he?

He was. His LGBT parliamentary group had made a secret pro TRA report which he assumed would be used in the decision making behind closed doors, as you say. He was very offended that it was disregarded.

But being gay doesnt require you to chop off your tits and have a potential lifetime of bone density issues? There is simply no comparison?

There is lots of talk on Twitter comparing what Helen Joyce said to 'imagine if this was said about disabled people'.

So is being trans compared to being disabled....or to being gay?

Make it make sense!

This.

I really would like someone to actually talk through this because it's just such contradictory nonsense to me, and when people like Helen Joyce do try and bring it up they are accused of inciting 'genocide' and all sorts of bollocks.

As for why people say that they wouldn’t want to be cured, that’s not necessarily confined to trans people. I have been diagnosed with autism as an adult. It has caused me various problems and distress throughout my life. Yet if you asked me if I want to be ‘cured’, ie neurotypical, I wouldn’t necessarily say yes (in fact, I probably wouldn’t). It’s who I am. Therefore, I can imagine that even someone who suffers from something quite debilitating would say that they are not looking for a cure - they just want to live in the way that they wish as the person that they think they are. That doesn’t mean that the condition doesn’t exist.
As for what causes it, I don’t think anyone knows but again that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something

In my case it's OK for me to ask all sorts of invasive questions as to have known them for almost 40 years and was their post surgery support human. I've asked lots of invasive questions over the years and, specifically to my friends, have never had a consistent answer. Why would there be one? Being trans is who they are. The dysmorphia is horrendous, something that remains even after all the surgery possible. That wouldn't be missed... except it is what moulded them as adults, is core to who they are. Would they lose the mental health issues? Yes. Would they lose their personality, their loved ones, friends, settled life? No.

Much the same as anyone else really.

But these specific trans people are not TRAs and don't find the idea of making the initial stages of transitioning slower, less medicalised, more psychological. That is what they wanted, back in the 80s and 90s, and is what they continue to access, when needed, now, in their late 50s and 60s.

Well, they are difficult as nobody can actually define what it is they have, what it is they want and anything other than complete capitulation to anything they demand results in tantrums.

I'd say it was an extremely inciteful take, bearing in mind anyone that tries to have a reasoned discussion is jumped on and accused of wanting genocide.

I have a.quite detailed answer to that upthread @AlisonDonut It wasn't even acknowledged. As is par for the course when confronted by a logical answer, an answer that includes compassion for those I, as a GC woman, am supposed to hate, there never is a direct response. Inconvenient and irksome, I suppose.

GoodJanetBadJanet · Today (5/6/22) 11:43
"Would you ask people who are gay if they wanted to be "cured" if they could?
No, I'm guessing of course not, so why is it OK for you to if they're trans? Are they fair game or something?"

[Others have dealt with this, possibly more clearly than me. Here is my explanation, fwiw.]

This idea that gay and trans are similar comes up again and again. It is a canard. ( Sc. 'an extravagant or absurd story circulated to deceive the credulous,' as OED pithily puts it.)

Here's why.

Suppose I am a man:

If I think I am attracted to other men, I am gay. No question, and why? - Because to think I am attracted to men is to be attracted to men. That's in the nature of what attraction is, or if you prefer, that's part of the meaning of 'attraction'. And, if I, a man, am attracted to men, I am gay.

However, if I think I am a woman, I am mistaken. No question, and why? - Because {men} and {women} are discrete (sets); no man is a woman, no woman is a man. That's in the nature of what a man (or woman) is, or if you prefer, that's part of the meaning of 'man' (and 'woman'). And, if I, a man, think I am a woman, I am trans.

See now? To sincerely say one is gay is to be gay; to sincerely say one is trans is to be mistaken.

This, now, is a distinction that might well make a difference, particularly as regards desirability of ameliorative treatment. No?

How difficult is this to understand? Too difficult for Owen Jones, clearly. GoodJanetBadJanet ? Who knows? But, well, in any case it is clear - is it not? - that T just does not belong with L, Gand B.

That doesn’t mean that the condition doesn’t exist.
As for what causes it, I don’t think anyone knows but again that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

I don't think anyone has said that the condition gender dysphoria doesn't exist. But society needs to manage it as a health issue, because people find it distressing from a mental health perspective. So accommodations need to be found for dealing with the people who have it, in ways other than pretending it's possible to be considered a member of the opposite sex in every single way.

However, if I think I am a woman, I am mistaken. No question, and why? - Because {men} and {women} are discrete (sets); no man is a woman, no woman is a man. That's in the nature of what a man (or woman) is, or if you prefer, that's part of the meaning of 'man' (and 'woman'). And, if I, a man, think I am a woman, I am trans.

See now? To sincerely say one is gay is to be gay; to sincerely say one is trans is to be mistaken.

But does a man who is trans think he is a woman, or does he just want to be a woman?