Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
39
RedToothBrush · 20/04/2024 13:28

Cass presents a 'values based' crisis for TRAs.

Progressives in the UK tend to be educated - often to a university level. They value evidence and good practice (note the correlation between the 'Facts Based' campaigning of Remain and the traction it had with different age groups).

Do not forget this. The exposure of the flaws in good practice and evidence that Cass Reveals is a bloody great iceberg with more and more hidden below the surface when you start to notice.

The whole TRA campaign is an emotive one and an appeal to 'doing the right thing' but not in a clearly identifible and tangible way (like Leave was. Leave was about feelings and ideas over practical tangible policy ideas).

When emotive and emotional campaigning hits reality and starts to fall apart it has issues. It doesn't mean WHY people voted Leave was wrong. People overwhelming want to do the right thing and are well meaning and this did motivate leave and there was a more good faith there than many give credit for. It wasn't just simply bigoted as some frame it.

But on contact with water, huge problems with implimentation exposed that promises just didn't hold up and there were other considerations that couldn't be ignored. Aka 'The Wall of Reality' (a phrase that was termed by David Allen Green - ironically who has what I can only excuse as a brainfart over this issue).

The tide has changed substantially on how people view Brexit, even though it still has sizeable support and is still a thing within British Politics. And will continue to do so for some time.

Thats kind of where we are at. Women's Rights, lesbians, safeguarding and medical ethics are the the Northern Ireland of Trans Rights. This will gradually work through over the next couple of years in various way. Labour may yet attempt self ID but medical ethics, and perhaps more importantly medical insurance, aren't going away. You can't square that circle.

Also remember most people who are pro-trans rights still are under the misconception that the majority of transpeople are post operative. If the issues with medicalisation start to build up, then that has a knock on effect on awareness of how many (few) people (men) are post op. And all the cost implications of long term medicalisation certainly isn't disappearing (and perhaps will be politicised for more nefarious agendas - and ironically will inflate figures in this area in a misinformation paradox that will hit transwomen from the opposite side at the same time).

I stress that this young progressive cohort still have the same priorities in terms of HOW they value things. Remember there was a concerted effort to conceal a huge amount by lead TRAs. The Emotive Faith based mantras have to compete with Reason and Evidence in a cohort who particularly value reason and evidence and have been educated to value evidence and reason.

Thats just what hit parliament. Hard. These are people who overwhelmingly respect and value independent inquiries and know they can't be dismissed as propaganda or misinformation. This trumps the faith based values over trans rights that many had. Theres clearly some who are struggling with this or are just showing themselves up to be loons, but for the most part the values based crisis for TRAs has kicked in, in the place it matters most of all.

Every rock this hits just exposes how shallow the faith really is and may put a hole in the bow of the 'Good Ship Trans' which was as unsinkable as Titanic but wasn't built as well as people thought. The trick is simply to get people to actually notice and to think critically and then let their own values kick in.

Or sunlight, as MN like to call it.

popebishop · 20/04/2024 13:42

WoopsLiza · 20/04/2024 12:43

The reaction to the Review has been wild. I'm finding it boggling - but then I am in agreement with the basic idea that there should be evidenced-based care for trans identified children and young people (and adults).

But I am wondering what my response would be if the report had found good evidence from the same mix of high and medium quality studies that puberty blockers improve life outcomes overall for the majority of patients - albeit with some instances of negative outcomes around bone density or prolonged disphoria/ confusion (as we know there are at the least). And it had found that instant social affirmation was the best approach (perhaps because for example it being a generally lower stakes thing would make desisting lower stakes?)

I'm not arguing for that BTW, just trying to hypothesise for my wider point. Which is that I for one might have felt very challenged and would have still found it hard to let go of my resistance to mass gender affirmation both for children (on the basis of competemce) and adults (on the basis of impact on women in policy terms) because my basic position on trans - namely that you can't change sex, there are no innate inborn genders - is not challenged by even finding that gender affirming health care leads to the best outcomes.

I think I would and will still accept that gender affirming health care is the best approach for gender distressed individuals (if that is where the long term data leads) But I would be advocating for essentially third space accommodations because I just don't and can never see myself accepting that being a female body is not existentially, socially, and politically meaningful; and that the difference between myself and someone who has experienced sex reassignment surgery is not immaterial or unimportant in social, political and existential terms.

All of this is just a wind up to say that I can very well see people on my side of the argument beclowning themselves in the way the TRA side has post Cass. And there are far right supremacist groups that would have threatened her if the report had found in favour of the trans-kids-now side.

Looking at the reaction from TRAs, it's clear that they are so ideologically committed, no evidence would change their view. And I'm wondering what evidence would change people's minds on our side. I actually can't think of any that would change my fundamental positions on sex and gender.

Personally, whether it's safe or helpful for anyone to change their bodies to emulate the opposite sex is a separate issue from "a woman is a state of mind".

Evidence showing that "changing sex" was actually fine with no crippling side-effects etc would make me think harder about the implications of society doing this, whether men retain their strength, penises etc, how it could help misogyny etc. But realistically this isn't going to happen.

That has no bearing on Stonewall etc's claim that people are born in the wrong body, that souls are gendered, that what you're like can indicate your body is wrong. That is fundamentally wrong.

Signalbox · 20/04/2024 14:20

Helleofabore · 20/04/2024 12:58

.

Hilary Cass Interview in the Times
RethinkingLife · 20/04/2024 14:31

But on contact with water, huge problems with implimentation exposed that promises just didn't hold up and there were other considerations that couldn't be ignored. Aka 'The Wall of Reality' (a phrase that was termed by David Allen Green - ironically who has what I can only excuse as a brainfart over this issue).

Agreed on David Allen Green (aka DAG and formerly Jack of Kent) who has been invaluable over constitutional matters and played a substantial role in the Paul Chambers' Twitter Joke proceedings.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-joke-trial-man-wins-appeal/

Truly no idea what's happened to all the UK Skeptic men (with the honourable exception of Andy Lewis of Quackometer/Le Canard Noir fame).

Twitter joke trial man wins appeal

Paul Chambers, who was found guilty of sending a menacing message after tweeting he would blow up Robin Hood Airport, has had his conviction overturned by the High Court

https://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-joke-trial-man-wins-appeal

everyonetothepub · 20/04/2024 14:42

MrsOvertonsWindow · 20/04/2024 13:16

There's support for the Cass Report from Professor Alexis Jay who chaired the UK's Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales.
She's pointed out that "similar issues of toxic debate and fear of professionals to speak up that let children down in Rotherham also run through the findings in the Cass Review"

"Nothing should be done except in the child's best interests and welfare. That must involve, as Dr Cass has stated, a holistic understanding of the child or young person's needs, supported by robust evidence of the effectiveness of any intervention the various parties concerned recommend."

Good to see her intervention as a senior social work professional with outstanding professional credentials:

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scot-who-led-rotherham-inquiry-warns-of-parallels-with-cass-review

"Queer children", an activist's interpretation of the Equality Act (after Cass's interim report which told everyone about LAC and child sexual abuse in the cohort) and no consideration of self-ID:

www.iicsa.org.uk/news/lgbtq-child-sexual-abuse-victims-and-survivors-blamed-their-abuse.html

x.com/cforwomenuk/status/1598231553594867712?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

EdithStourton · 20/04/2024 14:56

Igneococcus · 20/04/2024 06:20

WTF is our country coming to?
Hilary Cass can't go on public transport.
An 'out' Jew can't cross the road near a pro-Palestinian demo in London without the cops telling him he can't, he's obviously Jewish.

It's so bloody depressing.

RebelliousCow · 20/04/2024 15:03

RedToothBrush · 20/04/2024 12:43

Terrorism tends to be the outlet for economic or social injustice and hardship that has been neglected by political power from grass roots sources. This CAN be state sponsored and encouraged against outside players as part of foreign policy in turn, but the origins tend to be some sort of genuine injustice which doesn't get solved and festers and grows.

This movement is different. These groups did the opposite. It used the framework of social justice and exploited it to punch down on grassroots. This is authoritarianism. It used state and corporate power against the population and in breach of their lawful rights. This is about the abuse of that state and corporate power. Which is why Human Rights were established in the first place. To protect against abuses of institutionalised power against the vulnerable. So this isn't terrorism. This is political extremism within state instruments and structures being misused due to a lack of due diligence to balance and hold power to account where appropriate. This is about a failure of structures to identify unethical and poor safeguarding practices. Indeed discrediting safeguarding was a feature not a bug of strategy in order to achieve aims.

Know and understand the difference and how we deal with both in similar but also crucially different ways.

I hear what you are saying, though it is true that in more recent times we have started to witness lone, often deranged actors, committing massacres or acts of violence, in the name of a movement or ideology.

"Lone-actor terrorists who plan, prepare and carry out violent attacks without direction from a wider organisation pose an increasing threat in Europe 2. Through magazines, social media and propaganda videos, jihadist ideologues have encouraged Western sympathisers to conduct terrorist plots alone, while right-wing ideologues have promoted the concept of ‘leaderless resistance’ 3. Other lone-actor terrorists adhere to idiosyncratic, highly personal ideologies 4 or to single issues such as animal rights, anti-abortion and environmentalism, and more recently, to internet-based conspiracy theories"

"Ideological autonomy. While some lone actors share the same ideology as a group, others may construct idiosyncratic narratives or focus on a single issue not shared with a group"

( From EU document on the threats from Lone Actors)

RebelliousCow · 20/04/2024 15:12

There have been numerous examples of cults that when their time has come and the leader sees no way out, or there is no road left - they commit mass suicide. The Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas; or the Jim Jones 'Jonestown Massacre', for example. Some just keep moving country and attract more followers like the 'Raelists'

RebelliousCow · 20/04/2024 15:39

RedToothBrush · 20/04/2024 13:28

Cass presents a 'values based' crisis for TRAs.

Progressives in the UK tend to be educated - often to a university level. They value evidence and good practice (note the correlation between the 'Facts Based' campaigning of Remain and the traction it had with different age groups).

Do not forget this. The exposure of the flaws in good practice and evidence that Cass Reveals is a bloody great iceberg with more and more hidden below the surface when you start to notice.

The whole TRA campaign is an emotive one and an appeal to 'doing the right thing' but not in a clearly identifible and tangible way (like Leave was. Leave was about feelings and ideas over practical tangible policy ideas).

When emotive and emotional campaigning hits reality and starts to fall apart it has issues. It doesn't mean WHY people voted Leave was wrong. People overwhelming want to do the right thing and are well meaning and this did motivate leave and there was a more good faith there than many give credit for. It wasn't just simply bigoted as some frame it.

But on contact with water, huge problems with implimentation exposed that promises just didn't hold up and there were other considerations that couldn't be ignored. Aka 'The Wall of Reality' (a phrase that was termed by David Allen Green - ironically who has what I can only excuse as a brainfart over this issue).

The tide has changed substantially on how people view Brexit, even though it still has sizeable support and is still a thing within British Politics. And will continue to do so for some time.

Thats kind of where we are at. Women's Rights, lesbians, safeguarding and medical ethics are the the Northern Ireland of Trans Rights. This will gradually work through over the next couple of years in various way. Labour may yet attempt self ID but medical ethics, and perhaps more importantly medical insurance, aren't going away. You can't square that circle.

Also remember most people who are pro-trans rights still are under the misconception that the majority of transpeople are post operative. If the issues with medicalisation start to build up, then that has a knock on effect on awareness of how many (few) people (men) are post op. And all the cost implications of long term medicalisation certainly isn't disappearing (and perhaps will be politicised for more nefarious agendas - and ironically will inflate figures in this area in a misinformation paradox that will hit transwomen from the opposite side at the same time).

I stress that this young progressive cohort still have the same priorities in terms of HOW they value things. Remember there was a concerted effort to conceal a huge amount by lead TRAs. The Emotive Faith based mantras have to compete with Reason and Evidence in a cohort who particularly value reason and evidence and have been educated to value evidence and reason.

Thats just what hit parliament. Hard. These are people who overwhelmingly respect and value independent inquiries and know they can't be dismissed as propaganda or misinformation. This trumps the faith based values over trans rights that many had. Theres clearly some who are struggling with this or are just showing themselves up to be loons, but for the most part the values based crisis for TRAs has kicked in, in the place it matters most of all.

Every rock this hits just exposes how shallow the faith really is and may put a hole in the bow of the 'Good Ship Trans' which was as unsinkable as Titanic but wasn't built as well as people thought. The trick is simply to get people to actually notice and to think critically and then let their own values kick in.

Or sunlight, as MN like to call it.

Mary Harrington's recent article was very insightful as to the way that moral consensus is formed, and then re-formed in the light of new evidence or circumstances:

"How does a public consensus come into being? The Sensible Centrists like to imagine that this is a careful, deliberative process. Ideas are debated, among people of good faith, and assessed dispassionately, on their merits, in an ongoing collective striving for truth.

But this is nonsense. As we’ve seen in the wake of the Cass Report, what actually happens is a mixture of magical thinking, conformism and moral grandstanding coalesces under a thin veneer of rational objectivity — and everyone except the most stubbornly reality-oriented falls obediently into line. And amid the chaos of frantic back-pedalling and rewriting of history, this consensus can form and re-form in real time without its basic structure ever changing, or lessons ever being learned.........

.......It is a 'truth universally acknowledged” stakes a claim to objectivity: the kind of fact that, as “classical liberals” such as Ben Shapiro like to put it, doesn’t care about your feelings. This mode of knowing, central to the Enlightenment privileging of reason and objectivity, was (and still is) masculine-coded. It gains its power from asserting that its truths will remain true whether or not you acknowledge them as such........The punchline lies in the implication that what lurks under the bonnet of “truth universally acknowledged” is often not truth but this feminine-coded matrix of embedded meanings. Any effort at detached objectivity will be leavened by status-signalling and aspirational manoeuvring.

....In truth, though, “experts” are a front for the TUA: the chattering-class moral consensus. And this is manufactured by people who care less about being right than looking virtuous. Career moral entrepreneurs such as Hunt; vacuous grandes dames such as Allsopp; “communicators” such as Rutherford whose job is to make consensus look sciency. Downstream of their posturing, children were irreversibly harmed. They didn’t care; they wanted to look kinder than you."

( And they are still determined to do that it seems. Old habits and articles of faith die hard)

RedToothBrush · 20/04/2024 15:54

RebelliousCow · 20/04/2024 15:39

Mary Harrington's recent article was very insightful as to the way that moral consensus is formed, and then re-formed in the light of new evidence or circumstances:

"How does a public consensus come into being? The Sensible Centrists like to imagine that this is a careful, deliberative process. Ideas are debated, among people of good faith, and assessed dispassionately, on their merits, in an ongoing collective striving for truth.

But this is nonsense. As we’ve seen in the wake of the Cass Report, what actually happens is a mixture of magical thinking, conformism and moral grandstanding coalesces under a thin veneer of rational objectivity — and everyone except the most stubbornly reality-oriented falls obediently into line. And amid the chaos of frantic back-pedalling and rewriting of history, this consensus can form and re-form in real time without its basic structure ever changing, or lessons ever being learned.........

.......It is a 'truth universally acknowledged” stakes a claim to objectivity: the kind of fact that, as “classical liberals” such as Ben Shapiro like to put it, doesn’t care about your feelings. This mode of knowing, central to the Enlightenment privileging of reason and objectivity, was (and still is) masculine-coded. It gains its power from asserting that its truths will remain true whether or not you acknowledge them as such........The punchline lies in the implication that what lurks under the bonnet of “truth universally acknowledged” is often not truth but this feminine-coded matrix of embedded meanings. Any effort at detached objectivity will be leavened by status-signalling and aspirational manoeuvring.

....In truth, though, “experts” are a front for the TUA: the chattering-class moral consensus. And this is manufactured by people who care less about being right than looking virtuous. Career moral entrepreneurs such as Hunt; vacuous grandes dames such as Allsopp; “communicators” such as Rutherford whose job is to make consensus look sciency. Downstream of their posturing, children were irreversibly harmed. They didn’t care; they wanted to look kinder than you."

( And they are still determined to do that it seems. Old habits and articles of faith die hard)

Edited

Oh they all want to look good. They just now, have to find ways to look good whilst realising that following The Faith is blowing up in faces and it might be wise to distance themselves from that shit show cos the evidence doesn't look great now.

The LDs have a particularly difficult pickle to contend with.

On the one hand they have perhaps the most virilant TRAs of any party (SNP included). But they are also the party that place greatest weight on reason and evidence based policy. And thats why they are Turtling on this subject ahead of an Election. They KNOW its a problem for them as they have this big split between the Faithful and the Reasoners (often older) thats not resolvable as it stands.

Labour can argue over other issues to distract from this one. The LDs not so much....

EmpressaurusOfCats · 20/04/2024 15:59

The LDs have the added complication of having received about £1.5 million so far from puberty blocker manufacturers Ferring Pharmaceuticals. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk//?currentPage=1&rows=10&query=Ferring%20Pharmaceuticals%20&sort=AcceptedDate&order=desc&tab=1&et=pp&et=pp&isIrishSourceYes=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&prePoll=false&postPoll=true&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&optCols=Register&optCols=CampaigningName&optCols=AccountingUnitsAsCentralParty&optCols=IsSponsorship&optCols=IsIrishSource&optCols=RegulatedDoneeType&optCols=CompanyRegistrationNumber&optCols=Postcode&optCols=NatureOfDonation&optCols=PurposeOfVisit&optCols=DonationAction&optCols=ReportedDate&optCols=IsReportedPrePoll&optCols=ReportingPeriodName&optCols=IsBequest&optCols=IsAggregation

Search - The Electoral Commission

https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk//?currentPage=1&rows=10&query=Ferring%20Pharmaceuticals%20&sort=AcceptedDate&order=desc&tab=1&et=pp&et=pp&isIrishSourceYes=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&prePoll=false&postPoll=true&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&optCols=Register&optCols=CampaigningName&optCols=AccountingUnitsAsCentralParty&optCols=IsSponsorship&optCols=IsIrishSource&optCols=RegulatedDoneeType&optCols=CompanyRegistrationNumber&optCols=Postcode&optCols=NatureOfDonation&optCols=PurposeOfVisit&optCols=DonationAction&optCols=ReportedDate&optCols=IsReportedPrePoll&optCols=ReportingPeriodName&optCols=IsBequest&optCols=IsAggregation

NoWordForFluffy · 20/04/2024 16:04

Bit difficult to condemn using puberty blockers when you're funded by the company who makes a living out of them. There ain't no way that circle is being squared!

Topofthemountain · 20/04/2024 16:09

It is desperately sad for anyone to lose a child by suicide, however the issue is so much deeper than the length of the waiting list.

The moment a child or young person uttered the words "I'm trans" they were referred to the GIDS waiting list and then, well nothing. If it is anything like a child with autism, CAMHS won't intervene, just citing that the other service(s) is where they should go, however lacking those services may be.

The young person in the article was let down by wider services, and early intervention needs to be so much better.

BloodyHellKenAgain · 20/04/2024 18:03

EasternStandard · 20/04/2024 08:39

Dawn Butler is a danger. As is Moyle. I dread more politicians along those lines after the GE

Yes, I do too.

binaryfinery · 20/04/2024 19:55

RedToothBrush · 20/04/2024 12:51

You forget one crucial point.

Your discomfort and your concerns about the whole issue were build on the fact you RECOGNISED what was being said and promoted by trans activists was not reflecting the evidence NOR was it reflecting the outcomes which were known. You KNEW there was a problem with detransitioners.

Ultimately anything that was evidence based would NEVER be able to uphold the claims that tras were saying. All Cass was, was legitimising everything that women had diligently found out and were exposing via other means, in a report which was robust and has methodology which is difficult to question.

So you'd never have been so concerned and so worried if none of this hadn't have been present. And had Cass come to different conclusions, then you'd have had much bigger concerns about medicine and health care in this country than trans issues because of the implications of ideology and lack of robust health research...

Don't lose site of this and try and draw up false equivalence whilst trying to empathetise and understand whats going on with trans activists now.

We are only in this position because due processes were not being followed as they should and its been flaming obvious to those who have scratched the surface and have understanding of what protocols should be followed.

I agree. Long before the Cass review it was very clear what was happening. A mass of evidence as being formed.

Your views were not based on mere belief but on the gathering data.

TRAs views were based on belief and anecdote from other believers and a refusal to consider all the accumulating counter evidence.

I agree with the above poster than you are drawing a false equivalence

endofthelinefinally · 21/04/2024 06:24

In the past we have sent thank you cards to brave women.
I think it would be a good thing to send some to Professor Cass.
There must be an official address where staff are screening stuff.
I am going to buy and send a card today.

EdithStourton · 21/04/2024 06:54

endofthelinefinally · 21/04/2024 06:24

In the past we have sent thank you cards to brave women.
I think it would be a good thing to send some to Professor Cass.
There must be an official address where staff are screening stuff.
I am going to buy and send a card today.

That's a very good idea.

endofthelinefinally · 21/04/2024 06:58

Oh, she is Dr Cass. My mistake.

SpringLobelia · 21/04/2024 07:25

Brilliant idea. I am going to send a card as well.

endofthelinefinally · 21/04/2024 07:57

I have send an email to the review team asking where to send a card.
Hopefully they will let me know.
I suppose they have to screen everything.

Snowypeaks · 21/04/2024 08:01

What a great idea. Perhaps e-cards would be better? No worries about ricin or bombs, malware checks run automatically.

FrancescaContini · 21/04/2024 08:01

Lovely idea. I’m going to do the same.

borntobequiet · 21/04/2024 08:31

I’ve sent a message of support via the Review website, thanks for the good idea.

EmpressaurusOfCats · 21/04/2024 09:01

Great idea.

Swipe left for the next trending thread