The Grauniad on a damaging “reality” show

[RapidOnsetGenderCritic]

Another slanted take from The Guardian on a trans story. It seems to me that the main take from this sad tale should be that lying, or concealing the truth, has consequences. But the article doesn’t really mention that angle.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/apr/25/she-was-tough-but-it-broke-her-why-theres-something-about-miriam-was-reality-tvs-most-shameful-low

i am not talking about anyone other than Miriam. I am not sufficiently informed about any others. And WRT Miriam i can only go on what is in the public sphere.

I don't think I expressed myself well here. Perhaps this puts it better.

I don't think any family (unless maybe the very poor families who have sons in the Ladyboy trade) encourages a child to transition simply to make money off them.

I do think that when a trans child has become a source of fame, money and/or status for their family, it will become very hard for anyone in that family including the child theirself to untangle their own self image from their self image as "the famous trans child" and their own decisions from their desire to please their parents.

I don't think any of this is necessarily done consciously on the part of patents or children.

I think it's perfectly possible to confuse young children about sex if you tell them that they can change sex, or choose their sex, or that some people are somehow not the sex their body would suggest - there is an age below which they will absolutely believe this is possible, and that a change of clothes/hair will change them into a boy/girl.

When it turns out to be not possible as they grow into better understanding and approach puberty, they will definitely be confused, and possibly angry, and definitely distressed.

And, given that our reproductive instincts are pretty accurate, children can definitely be confused if authority figures, such as teachers, tell them that another child is a boy, when their instinct is that this is a girl (or vice versa). They know one thing instincitvely, but adults are telling them otherwise - I am pretty sure that this will confuse them. Especially if they are taught that it is necessary to use pronouns that don't match the sex of this other child. That is sowing confusion, and I see it as gaslighting.

''...when a two-year-old comes up and says 'Mommy, when is the Good Fairy gonna come with her magic wand and change my penis into a vagina?' you're
like, okay, this is not typical, this is not something a normal child would do.'

Another damaging reality show, of course, is 'I am Jazz', and all of the previous TV appearances, starting age 6, Jazz was exposed to.

Of course it's not anything a normal child would say at aged 2 - do they say penis and vagina? Where do they get the idea that these are interchangeable and equivalent organs that can be swapped? Sounds like bullshit to me, or grooming a child by asking leading questions.

'Toddlers are learning to make 3-word sentences.'

https://raisingchildren.net.au/toddlers/development/language-development/language-2-3-years

A two year old talking about a magic penis fairy waving a wand is bullshit.

There is no way you can train children to be confused about sex. We are animals. Our reproductive instincts will always override our "socialisation".
This is basically the same regressive argument that children will be "turned gay" by education about homosexuality.

The regressive bit is surely thinking that it's the end of the world if a straight teenager experiments with other teenagers of the same sex. After all, people can be confused about their sexuality - gay people often say they didn't consciously realise they were gay because they grew up without gay role models. The difference is that thinking maybe you're bisexual or whatever doesn't lead you to serious medical interventions, cause diagnostic overshadowing if you have mental health problems, or make you confused about boundaries, risks or biological sex.

Of course, you’re right, that’s the fundamental issue with adults and gender ideology and the harm to dc

My 2 year old girl would say things along the lines of, when I grow I will be a boy, or, boys have a willy, I will grow a willy. She was pretty forward with language for her age. She certainly wouldn't have been capable of a sentence like that until well past 3.

At no point did I assume she was trans for saying this, it is the simple complete non understanding of a 2 year old about how anything really works. They are learning about the world.

I also didn't start to coach her on phrases to memorise to tell people she is actually a boy, but that's just my parenting 🤔

Oh for god's sake. Would you please not be so vile about Jackie and her parents?

Have you seen Susie Green's Ted talk, or read the transcript of it, Butter?

I have, and in my opinion, MissLucy has summarised it perfectly.

Are we talking about Susie Green here?

No fucking chance.
She's the woman who deliberately did everything in her power to remove safeguarding and forced the Tavistock to behave in a way that was abhorrent.

She deserves locking up for that alone.

Monster.

And yet again women are being told what we can and cannot talk about by someone who was born male. Laws of misogyny being demonstrated in real time.

To be clear, I feel sympathy to anyone who suffers any disability, physical or mental, who does not receive the treatment which has been proven by well trained and logical medical practitioners.

People are being unrelentingly awful about a family trying their best to help their daughter within the current limits of technology. The prior policy of restricting access to blockers for under-16's was clearly not fit for purpose since it was needlessly limiting their efficacy for those without favourable genetics or other similar factors like subclinical DSD's - a finding Dr Cass mentioned in her report.

needlessly limiting their efficacy

There is no efficacy. You seem familiar with the Cass Report but seem intent on blatantly ignoring the parts that deny your narrative.

It is difficult to grasp the promotion of “puberty blockers” when they have never undergone a full clinical trial to discover the possible beneficial or detrimental effect they may have.

Banning their use may provide the pause that is needed for an ethical and impartial test of the medication. This should be performed for any medication which is currently used for a purpose for which it was not designed. It seems profit for pharmaceutical companies is more important than life threatening side effects.

It is concerning that only now is medicine actually looking a female bodies to observe the many differences to male bodies. Men are not the default human being. Nor are they an authority on women’s lives, thoughts, feelings, beliefs or how we should speak.

Again, I ask, have you listened to or read that talk from Susie Green?

They did not do "their best" by that child.

Everything I said was directly taken from Susie Green’s TED talk. If you can find an error of fact, please state what it is.

I agree that it is vile: vile to castrate your child because you think he’s gay.

yep, Butters, Susie Green's TED talk covered that. Her husband didn't like the "gay behaviours" of their son (playing with dolls IIRC) and was therefore happy to trans away the gay.

I'm neither gay nor lesbian and it took me too long to realise how homophobic the TRA movement is. Shockingly long. But bloody hell, once you see it, you can't unsee it.

And sometimes when i see TW from countries which generally have a "typically macho" culture especially with added religious pressures, i do wonder about young gay men and if some of them take the "path of least resistance" or maybe the "path of being able to support my family" etc etc. And i cannot fault the individuals for thinking that.

Wider society for coercing it (even subconsciously)? never.

Do you think that the initial tiny puberty blocker trials for gender incongruent children were about making profit for pharmaceutical companies?

Given the approved uses of these drugs, I have some serious questions about the motivations of the adults that decided to use them on children in this experimental fashion full stop.

The pharmaceutical companies certainly have seen a business opportunity here. I don't know when they decided to formally pursue it.

Frankly I don't care.

However you cut it, there were some very dodgy unethical bastards who decided to try this out on children.

Hopefully there will come a time when the motivation of these adults will be exposed via the Criminal Justice system. At the moment the challenge is to remove these activists away from having any influence over vulnerable children.