Hadley Freeman - Indulging killers’ trans delusions is dangerous

[SapphosRock]

I think I've done the share token right:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/indulging-killers-trans-delusions-is-dangerous-mrxfm5lfd

Well done Hadley for highlighting the madness in the Times, I bet the Guardian wouldn't have published it.

It's behind a paywall for me.

Try this www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bc481159-9601-4fea-bbcc-fd5f6c8924e5?shareToken=b52405c5fade7cef43872f62e183056f

Copy the URL and paste it into an archive site.

I'm stupid when it comes to share tokens. Screen shots of the article here.

Last page

Huge debate going on in the comments. I must admit I am challenged by it. I tend, like Hadley, to respect pronouns. But it exposes the fallacy in this for her to say 'why are the police and media respecting a convicted murderer who ...'
Because I do believe convicted criminals are worthy of the respect we generally afford our fellow humans. And because then there is an arbitrary post offending, post conviction stripping of pronouns, respect and trans status. This troubles me and underlines the mess we are in.

I thought 'Barbie Kardashian' was now out of jail.

Not having followed the Blake trial until the verdict was announced, I hadn't known about the puberty blockers etc he'd had. From my lay perspective I'm wondering if altering sex hormone levels drastically leads to insanity. Enough oestrogen-filled men appear to have totally lost their grip on reality.

@Runskiyoga

Because I do believe convicted criminals are worthy of the respect we generally afford our fellow humans.

And you extend that respect to rapists and murderers, do you?🤔

Both Blake and the Kardashian person were seen at GIDS. I know psychiatry and psychology are not exact sciences but I find it hard to understand how any young person so disturbed and dangerous would not have shown signs that could be picked up by an appropriately trained clinical professional. It’s the ultimate condemnation of the service that these children were enabled in their delusions (and possibly, as a result, in their homicidal intentions).

I am glad Hadley had this article printed.
It is not a sin to acknowledge that TW are male and TM are female. It is basic facts.

Fantastic article - Hadley has really tied loads of different strands of this dangerous ideology together.

I thought these paragraphs were worth repeating:

"For the past decade, gender ideologues have said that “youth gender healthcare” — ie giving confused children and teenagers puberty blockers, hormone treatment and occasionally even surgery to help them transition — is essential. “Better a trans kid than a dead kid,” they say, implying that a boy who says he’s a girl must be given blockers, which stop his physical development, or he will kill himself. But last week a study in Finland, led by a former gender clinician, Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, was published, and it suggests this is simply not true.
It showed that gender transition does not help teenagers’ mental health. It turns out that filling an unhappy teenager’s body with untested hormones and their head with the deranged idea that they were born in the wrong body might not have a happy result. Who could have predicted that?"

Both Blake and the Kardashian person were seen at GIDS.

It's scary that they were apparently treated for being 'born in the wrong body' but not for whatever was going to make them so dangerous.

Only males can be transwomen, Scarlet Blake is male, right down to his DNA. It's infuriating that he has been referred to as she/her and that his crime, a man's crime has been recorded as a woman's. I'm pleased to see this getting so much coverage, that it's not being let go unchallenged.

Yes that bit challenged me too. Where do you draw the line between respecting chosen pronouns and disregarding them? Because someone is a criminal? Because you don't like them?

It feels off that women are compelled to use chosen pronouns in the workplace but are free to ignore them elsewhere.

• oth Blake and the Kardashian person were seen at GIDS.

It's scary that they were apparently treated for being 'born in the wrong body' but not for whatever was going to make them so dangerous.*

Evidence presented in the Blake trial showed that the treating GIDS psychologist did pick up on concerning behaviours. What wasn't clear from the evidence is how this influenced treatment of gender dysphoria.

This discussion probably belongs to a separate thread. Within medicine, and equality law, mental health conditions should not determine access to physical health conditions (eg schizophrenia and knee replacement). This is one of the many issues arising from viewing 'gender treatment' as physical rather than mental/emotional treatment. This is cropping up with autism and some suggesting autistic children face being denied gender treatment because their autism diagnosis is being wrongly considered. The same could be said for schizophrenia, personality disorders etc.

It didn't help that many headlines referred to an "Oxford Don's daughter".
I thought that must be a different case initially. 🤷‍♀️

• Where do you draw the line between respecting chosen pronouns and disregarding them? Because someone is a criminal? Because you don't like them?

It feels off that women are compelled to use chosen pronouns in the workplace but are free to ignore them elsewhere.*

I think we all apply these differences all the time in relation to social norms and expectations.

People have different baselines regarding what all humans deserve in terms of respect/dignity and have differing views about what reflects reasonable levels of respect in different contexts.

An innocuous example is that on who it is/isn't ok to fart in front of. This example highlights how it's not always a case of 'more respect' being given the closer the relationship.

I am less likely to pull someone up at work on getting facts wrong relating to a non work related politically contentious point than would be the case at my dinner table at home or in a social gathering at work.

@EarthSight Yes. I work in healthcare. I treat everyone with respect. It can be challenging, of course.

Umm, that is really interesting. Now 2 v high profile cases of boys treated at the Tavistock going on to become ultra violent. I wonder whether there were any indications during their assessment of what was to come. I wonder was the assumption that hormones would fix them? I wonder how the medical staff arguing for a totally affirmative approach square this one.

Also, i would happily argue the toss on pronouns, as long as these fuckers go to man prison and their crimes are recorded as being done by men. In some ways talking about her penis just helps peak the world

Cases like this absolutely make me believe that using chosen pronouns should be optional.

I don't think criminals should be stripped of their human rights, but not sure I should respect them though. There is no human right to be referred to by your chosen pronoun. Maybe you mean 'treat with respect'? But even then, I'm not sure. It's not a neutral act.

What concerns me is the impact of this on the victims, especially of sexual crimes? Having to refer to the perpetrator as the wrong sex is gaslighting. It compounds their suffering. It invalidates their experience (anyone who has been through trauma will know that so much healing can come from being believed and understood). Why is no one talking about that?

Why so much concern for the criminals and so little for the victims?

This is the problem when you pass a law (the Gender Recognition Act) compelling people to pretend to believe what they know to be a lie.

Truth has to be the basis of the law, and every institution. Anything founded on a lie will fall apart eventually. And the lie cannot be confined. It spreads way beyond what the makers of the law intended.

And sorry Hadley, even using people’s chosen pronouns (as opposed to a harmless chosen nickname) helps extend the harm. When one person does it, others are intimidated into doing it too. And the delusion is bolstered.

Let people dress how they like, call themselves what they like. No man is a woman.

I think the problem is couching it in terms of 'stripping criminals of their chosen pronouns' as a punishment.

If you look at chosen pronouns this way:
as a courtesy not a right which does do some harm (to victims of crime, to women being able to talk about the reality of their bodies and spaces, lack of precision in language and the knock on effects, normalising lack of truth in public discourse, confusion for non native speakers and ND people, etc) to the rest of society.

Being a convicted criminal changes the balance of risks of that, and it begins to look very different.

The debate in the comments shows how much this issue has moved in the last year. Years ago women commentators were carefully explaining the basics of how women's rights and child safeguarding were stripped away. Now that's not needed as transactivists have efficiently educated the public with what their bullying & intimidation looks like. The torrent of grim sex offending court cases have exposed all the quiet bits that #nodebate silenced and the tribunals established that organisations will be punished if they allow women and men to be sacked and bullied for speaking about facts and science.

Now to work out why if transwomen rapists and murderers are actually men, how does that happen? Why is anyone else different??