Lucy Spraggan 'When I was a boy'

[NancyDrawed]

A post promoting Lucy Spraggan's book appeared in my Facebook feed and I found it really interesting that she chose to post the following:

There’s a chapter in my book called ‘When I Was a Little Boy’ which talks about, well, when I was a little boy.
I was born biologically female but from a young age I chose to be called Max and lived - completely authentically - as a boy.
I talk about in all the ways that my family nurtured my identity and in all the ways that freedom to be myself, freedom to be Max, helped me to grow.
It was only recently that I discovered how much Max is still a part of me and I talk about that too.
Anyway, I wanted you to meet Max. So here’s some pics of me then

I wonder whether she will go all out and say she is glad, as a happy adult lesbian, that her family let her just work it all out for herself.

One of the comments:

'I love this. However, in todays society, Lucy’s parents would have been encouraged to give her hormones and other drugs to change her body from female to male which DOES have irreparable side effects. I agree with allowing children to be who they feel comfortable being, I don’t agree with giving them drugs and medication to make a life changing decision that they just aren’t equipped to make at such a young age. I too was “all boy” when I was younger but thank god I wasn’t given the opportunity to change my gender, I love being a woman and back then I had no concept of what being a man OR woman meant in the world. I just wanted to play football, and only boys were allowed to do that. Hence why I cut my hair short and tried to pass myself off as a boy for years as a kid. I had no concept though of what I was doing. Nature took its course and thank god it did, I love being a woman and I love all my womanly parts. Children need to be supported in whatever they want to do, but making life changing decisions is something they should decide as an adult.'

I did yes, it's still there for people to read without your helpful input.

No thanks.

I have started a separate thread to discuss Lucy's X Factor experience and new autobiography. This thread has become too meta to be productive, I think.

Thanks TTND.

The conversation not going the way you expected so you start another thread? Ok then.

Oh dear. You might want to look at who started the thread.

It's not that the discussion isn't going "my way"; it's that people are confusing two different interviews and debating the semantics of internet posting rather than focusing on either interview.

She’s got one book coming out, and different interviews are highlighting different chapters. This is not a support thread for Lucy, although the post have been supportive of her, it’s a discussion on her experiences as described in her book. Two separate threads on two different chapters is unnecessary. if someone wants to talk on a point that covers both her rape experience and her identity as a child, which thread are you suggesting they post in now?

You are incessant.

Says the poster who hounded another rape survivor off the thread for posting her opinions that it was a legitimate topic for discussion?

Can you post a link to the other interview? I've only seen the one in the Guardian and the two articles containing extracts from her book (also in the Guardian).

This thread was started to discuss her experiences of 'living as a boy'. You seem a little confused about what this thread is about (the clue is in the thread title).

Hounded off 🤣 so I did. I'm not the ceo of Mn, I reported her comments as I'm perfectly at liberty to do. Please dont use her experience as something to beat me with, that really is appalling behaviour.

@OldCrone nobody is confused. She sensibly suggested it might be wise to create two threads, it's you two who are creating the issue.

I suggested to the other poster to start another thread because she thought it inappropriate to discuss Lucy's donations to Mermaids in the same thread in which someone had mentioned that she had been raped. But I agree that it seems unnecessary to have two threads. I just thought if that poster was uncomfortable with us discussing the Mermaids donations she could start another thread and request that nobody mention Mermaids on it.

I don't know why she's so sensitive about Mermaids being mentioned.

I'm not insensitive to Mermaids.

I just think that the criticism of Mermaids is in poor taste given Lucy's interviews (which yes the OP didnt know at the time)

The PP I apparently hounded criticised Lucy for donating to mermaids. I thought this was wrong and in poor taste but I've only said that 73 times.

Another poster chose to start another thread which I think was quite sensible but since it seems the obsession with Mermaids overtakes any sensible or compassionate thought (see the commenter who asked where my compassion for children was because I didnt think it was the right time to criticise Lucy) , on we go.

People can paint me out to be tje bad guy all the like, but I think anyone who reads her articles and chooses to post about how she must not know how dreadful mermaids are, bla bla bla , says more about them than it does about me
The womans gone through hell and back but no, let's criticise her to further our agenda.

I don't know why she's so sensitive about Mermaids being mentioned neither do I. As far as I can see in this thread, the comments about Mermaids have been very benign. It’s feeling like some weird form of The Streisand Effect.

Only for people obsessed with it.

I wouldnt have cared if shed.decided to give her life savings to the dogs trust and people criticised it.

It was inappropriate and poor taste, to push an agenda at this time

Sorry if that offends you so much but it really is telling how obsessed you are with the same point I made pages ago that you are determined to rip to shreds and go on and on and on about it. Streisand effect indeed.

I'm still reading but choosing not to post as it's pointless and rather tedious if someone is going to report every single post I make.

I think there's an interesting conversation to be had but some posters are very keen that we don't have it.

I'm glad criticising someone to further your own agenda when theyve been to hell and back, not just in this one topic but as is heavily documented, is interesting.

You may claim as others did that I'm censoring debate, but on the other side you're having one in poor taste because your political opinions, and thats what they are, come first above all else and MUST be heard. You may be used to an echo chamber but there is a line of appropriateness and it was crossed.

Ironically you probably could have had your debate here when the new thread was set up but PP chose to go on and on and argue about that too.

See how I didnt report your last post as it wasnt offensive, but thanks for confirming I didnt hound you anywhere.

Right

i am a bit confused and i don’t want to upset anyone

so the thread is about lucy who lived as a ‘boy’ called max and when puberty hit went back to being Lucy

a poster who expressed disappointment in Lucy giving to mermaids (a charity which specializes in helping ‘boys’ like max never going back to lucy

and its in bad taste/inappropriate because Lucy was raped

is that right…or have i got completely the wrong end of the stick

*bangs head off wall

Where does it say that Spraggan gave the fee to Mermaids? I can't see it in the X Factor article?

That's how I understand it.

We shouldn't discuss Lucy's donations to Mermaids and/or Lucy's experience of 'living as a boy' because Lucy was raped.

It's on both book extracts. I posted the links earlier, but here they are again. I've added a screenshot for you in case you have difficulty finding it at the end of the articles.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/15/all-four-judges-had-their-eyes-on-me-big-grins-on-their-faces-lucy-spraggan-recalls-her-x-factor-audition

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jul/17/lucy-spraggan-on-reality-tv-and-redemption-x-factor

Outright lie. I never mentioned the living as a boy.

I made a comment several pages ago to one poster that I felt criticising her given her rape and her other documented issues was in bad taste and crass. That's it. If you read super carefully i said the OP wasnt the issue. I have no issue with the discussion of living as a boy or of Lucy in general. I do however have an issue with criticising her on her choices, given what she's been through not just as revealed recently but in general.

You are all so utterly obsessed with mermaids and/or any excuse to wade in on trans rights you've completely ignored and deliberately misrepresented what I said.

It's so utterly tedious now its pathetic, and I really can't be bothered explaining myself every page because you've stirred it up again.

I'd forgotten how much punishment comes with going against the echo chamber in here.

And if I needed a spokesperson, I'd ask.

I can't see that it's anything other than utterly relevant that Lucy S has donated her fees to Mermaids for an article that describes normal childhood gender confusion followed by desistance, which is exactly what the original Mermaids would have supported and is now what the post-Susie Green era Mermaids would describe as narrowly escaping suicide. Her story is orthogonal to the aims of Mermaids as it now campaigns.

Exactly this @ToriaB .

It doesn’t lessen my admiration for what she has achieved, or my sympathy for the tough time she’s had. The fact she’s donated her fees to charity (whichever charity) is commendable. It’s just an odd choice of charity to me given what she’s come through, and I don’t understand why it’s “bad taste” to say that.

if we hadn’t been leapt on for even noting the donation (the first calling out was for a poster simply stating the fact with no commentary) then it wouldn’t have been such a big derail and no doubt the conversation would have moved on, maybe including those who actually read the book?