Roisin Murphy

[WarriorN]

Is it true? Did did say this?

"Puberty blockers ARE FUCKED! Big pharma laughing all the way to the bank!"

I'm so pleased, it's such a great album! Really good news x

@fromorbit

Good.

@ArabeIIaScott

Some people have projected their world-view onto her.. That wouldn't be a serious problem for anyone but them, until she does something that she wants to do, which doesn't fit with the projection or benefit them in some way.

Then, they get nasty.

The psychology of that is interesting to psychiatrists. But I'm not sure we should let it spoil our enjoyment of the music or allow it to obstruct us in our lives.

How many of the people who want to destroy her career have children of their own ?

I so very much suspect none at all.

Well come on

Get it right up ye, ye bunch of po-faced bams.

On the ' Ninja Tune to bankrupt TERF ' story

..And on the 'activists outraged that a woman has held a man's hand and the stork came, etc..

We haven't even got to the bit where 'Mother expresses herself emotionally, as only a mother can, to child welfare questions.. And people fly off-the-handle'

Quick edit 'mentally-unstable people fly off the handle.'

@ArabeIIaScott

Yes, I recall that cultural moment well.. We'd had 'Sing It Back' UK no. 4 and then 'The Time Is Now' UK no 2 (!)

But then you get 'Pure Pleasure Seeker' and then 'Indigo' and maybe some people simply couldn't handle that ?

Their reactions at the time sort-of parallel what we're seeing today.

https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/wjbwx9/the-story-behind-moloko-sing-it-back

On that review..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/08/guardian-trans-row-music-review-roisin-murphy/

Thanks for the link to the Telegraph article, the person who wrote it has got an awesome name, here's an archive link

https://archive.ph/1VaqQ

She sounds like the latest wireless kitchen appliance, lol.

Just read the Guardian review of the album, which seems to spend a long time going on about medical studies, with a note saying that the article has been edited.

Sounds a lot like activists have complained, and so the article has been edited to claim puberty blockers are safe (and make children much better), and edited to make Murphy's comments seem a lot worse?

Why is it that everything that is unrelated to trans issues (like music of fantasy books), that briefly grazes the subject (usually via the author) then spends an inordinate amount of time in articles explaining those issues? If I want to read a review of Hogwarts Legacy computer game I have to read 30 minute articles going into length about various trans subjects.

How was the guardian piece edited?
How did Ms Snapes misrepresent "the content and impact of Róisín Murphy’s Facebook comment"?

In making the unspecified amendment, the Guardian still seems to think that a TRA rant belongs in a music review.

What annoys me is that there will be long deep analysis of artists such as Eric Gill, who groomed and sexually assaulted his daughters and made a dildo doll sculpture, trying to balance the impact and value of his work balanced against the crimes in the Guardian. No hyperbolic language about stains etc.

And then artist reviews such as the one Roisin gets. A woman who privately shares concerns about a dangerous unlicensed and un evidenced drug, where there are fetish forums describing its use on children in the stories there.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchling-exhibition-rachel-cooke

How was the guardian piece edited?

"describing transgender children as “mixed-up kids”" -> "expressing concern about “mixed-up kids”"

"A study showed that young trans people who can access puberty blockers experience a decrease in depression and a 73% reduction in the risk of suicide; they have also long been used to stall precocious puberty in cisgender children." -> "A US study [link added] which followed 104 trans and non-binary youth over 12 months at a gender clinic found that those who received puberty blockers, gender-affirming hormones or both had 60% lower odds of depression and 73% lower odds of self-harm or suicidal thoughts. Puberty blockers have also long been used to stall precocious puberty in cisgender children."

"Murphy’s comments dismayed her vast LGBTQ+ fanbase" -> "Murphy’s comments dismayed many within her vast LGBTQ+ fanbase"

"Naturally, the division only worsened, with fans who felt betrayed cancelling their album preorders, and those with an interest in amplifying Murphy’s original views, as well as anti-cancel culture bandwagoners, making the hashtag #IStandWithRoisinMurphy trend on Twitter." -> "Naturally, the division only worsened, with some fans who felt betrayed cancelling their album preorders. Other supportive fans, and those with an interest in amplifying Murphy’s original views, as well as anti-cancel culture bandwagoners, made the hashtag #IStandWithRoisinMurphy trend on Twitter."

@WarriorN exactly. Gill's art is sublime but he was an awful man - a sexual abuser of his daughters, sister and even the family dog.

Yet his art remains in place and public bodies still use his font. TBH I think they should, but there is a greater claim that some of his art is tainted (for example some of the sculptures where he used his daughters as models).

I've just noticed the careful parsing around the 73% there. Removing the "73% reduction" which did not happen, and changing it to "73% lower odds of".

As Jesse Singal said in the piece I linked above

“Mental health problems plummeted among kids who went on X” is a very different claim than “Kids who went on X didn’t experience improved mental health, but had better outcomes compared to kids who didn’t go on X.” That difference matters a great deal here. After all, in the present debate over blockers and hormones, a very common refrain is that these medications are so powerfully ameliorative when it comes to depression and suicide that it is irresponsible to deny or delay their administration to kids. It’s frequently argued that if kids don’t have access to this medicine, they will be at a high risk of killing themselves. I don’t know what this claim could possibly mean if it doesn’t mean that upon starting blockers or hormones, a trans kid with elevated levels of depression or suicidal ideation will experience relief. These researchers, firmly enmeshed in this debate, found that kids who went on these medications did not experience relief — and yet they don’t mention this worrisome fact anywhere in their paper.

Could there also be a placebo type effect? Simply the act of being listened to and thinking they have a drug that will "make everything better" could cause temporary mental relief from dysphoria? A (really rather unethical) experiment would be to give one group a placebo and see if it had similar impacts on mental health.

Oh completely. It's known that a commonly perform shoulder operation works purely because of the placebo effects.

I'm sure Snapes has merrily and happily typed in Gill sans.

Simply the act of being listened to and thinking they have a drug that will "make everything better" could cause temporary mental relief from dysphoria?

But it didn't even do that, according to that study! They found no relief.

Whole thing is desolate, big pharma laughing all the way to the bank.

'anti-cancel culture bandwagoners'

Is Snipe a pro-cancel culture bandwagoner ?

Gill was an abusive rapist bastard.

But I see the Guardian was happy to publish a woodcut he did of his naked daughter. The utter bastards.

It's actually possibly quite a thoughtful and balanced article but I'll need to read it later when I'm less raging. Maybe after I'm dead.