'end of story' by a.j.finn (massive spoilers)

[fromthegecko]

I just read this novel (by the author of the very successful 'woman in the window'), and I am quite angry about how misleading it is, both factually, and in that it portrays, as benign and virtuous, actions which are harmful and wrong.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

The main twist is that a bullied, gay, dyslexic boy is transitioned in his early teens by his mother (who takes him out of state for 'treatment') without the consent or knowledge of his father (who is forever after suspected of having murdered them both). This behaviour is surely not heroic and loving, as depicted, but dishonest and medically dangerous.

Twenty years later he returns, and nobody recognises him or notices that he is a man. He has an erotic encounter with a hot heterosexual man. And he goes out of his way to tell everyone repeatedly how happy he is with his life. This going to give readers an extremely unrealistic and rosy view of the whole issue, and is again endorsing dishonesty.

Am I overreacting?

As a plot device, the 'tadaa they're actually male!' reveal has been so thoroughly overworked and done to death it's gaining 'then I woke up and it was all a dream' status. Especially as its usually accompanied by some tepid, sanctimonious moralising on the special brave and stunning nature of the character.

One of the most depressing effects of genderism amd other social justice movemnets has been how its scunnered the arts and created so many piss poor hectoring homilies with clunky 'messages' and ready-made moral conclusions.

It's a plot device (and one I spotted early on). There was more to it than that, and it's not a bad read even after you've spotted the device.

However, I was more annoyed than usual by the whole stunning and brave narrative, maybe because of Cass. How dare the mother do that! And how dare the author proselytise for the ideology like that! Naive readers will be left with the impression that it's really easy, safe, and effective (and better than growing up gay). And that it's OK to lie to people about your sex.

People could make really bad life decisions after reading nonsense like this.

Love your username BTW. Cruciverbalist or detective story fan?

I had to Google that! 😁

Yes, both!

And there's nothing I hate more than propaganda disguised as entertainment.

This author specialises in 'misleading' so not surprised:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/a-suspense-novelists-trail-of-deceptions

Archive link if you can't access above: https://archive.ph/HmGhj

I think something even more sinister may have happened. He wanted to use trans as a plot device, and, because he's steeped in current trans lore, he just didn't see anything wrong with it.

I hope this will all look weird, looking back later. No problem with trans, but rewriting reality is dangerous.

Echos of ‘There’s Something About Miriam’ the reality show where it didn't go well at all.
Everyone condemns that show.

I saw that thread. It seems as though the producers knew, or should have known, that 'Miriam' would be publicly humiliated, and the lads insulted and angry, but didn't care, because money. This sort of thing is why trans people want to go stealth. Since thats not actually possible, we've ended up with compelled speech and magical thinking.

How much better it would be if extremely gender non-conforming people including trans could live their lives totally openly as exactly what they are! But nobody campaigns for that.

@fromthegecko speaking as someone who has actually undergone this journey, this is not an unrealistic presentation of the issue at all.

Thank you @ButterflyHatched : I am interested in your views.

I suspect that you are statistically unusual in having had fixed gender incongruence from a very early age, no regrets in adulthood, and, at worst, negligible side-effects from your own treatment. Not everybody is so lucky.

There is some evidence (see thread below) that gender dissatisfaction can fluctuate in children and adolescents and that this is a common, or even natural, part of growing up, which abates in adulthood.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5063113-healthcare-professionals-should-concentrate-on-gender-non-conforming-individuals-at-early-adolescence-navigating-them-toward-a-healthy-adulthood

Against this background, people are worried about giving children treatments which are irreversible and have serious side effects, when there is no pressing medical emergency, and when they may turn out not to have needed the treatment in the first place.

Deferred treatment - of a fully mature adult body - must surely have some medical advantages. The main disadvantage seems to relate to 'passing'.

Not everyone can pass. So why not do away with the concept of stealth mode and the practice of concealing birth sex? Isn't it time society fully accepted gender non-conforming people just as they are, instead of expecting them to risk their health just to conform to its ideas of femininity or masculinity?

I appreciate you made your own choices for you, not for society. But it's not controversial to say that there are some choices we should not let children make. Maybe this is one of them.

Isn't it time society fully accepted gender non-conforming people just as they are, instead of expecting them to risk their health just to conform to its ideas of femininity or masculinity?

Excellent and compassionate point well said @fromthegecko

I'll do away with stealth mode the moment there is no longer a reason to need it. We are nowhere near that point yet, though. In fact, the political climate as it is now and the way we seem to be steadily regressing back toward a state where the only way to be safe is to be invisible is a pretty sobering indicator that I'm probably going to need it for the rest of my life.

I despair at the 'tiers of validity' it creates. It seems incredibly unfair - and I reel in horror at the thought that NHS policy changes are going to mean the only people who will have a chance at reliably attaining what I did will be those who have affluent, supportive parents who can afford medication costs.

I mean, we've already pretty much been there for years due to the previous service's complete collapse. How incredibly, bleakly dystopian.

@ButterflyHatched Yes, I think we can agree that the NHS has screwed up pretty comprehensively.

I'll do away with stealth mode the moment there is no longer a reason to need it. We are nowhere near that point yet, though.

Butterfly, can you see that your ‘stealth mode’, by allowing men into women’s spaces, puts women at risk from male predators? And that women have the right not to be put at risk?

I'm not sure I follow your meaning.

Stealth mode is only possible for some trans people and only beneficial on an individual basis: the existence of the concept (and anti-outing measures) heightens general anti-trans sentiment because people dislike what they see as dishonesty. You are Spartacus!

(The poster you responded to is concerned about single-sex spaces. On this thread, I'm worrying about people feeling that they must have certain medical treatments and having unrealistic expectations about their effectiveness and safety.)

While it is indeed only possible for some people, I think that's true for a lot of things. We each are equipped to navigate the world in different ways and due to the circumstances of my childhood, I am blessed with the ability to peacefully exist in public. I can show my face in any place that any other ordinary woman is able to without fear of censure or abuse; wear what I want without fear; I can have bad hair days; I can nip down to the shops without bothering with makeup; talk on the phone with confidence. All these are things most people take for granted. I really can't overstate how significant that is and I'm not ignorant of the fact that it's an immense privilege to do so.

While I don't want to question the moral fibre of anyone else in this position and can't speak for them, it seems rather insensitive and wasteful not to make the most of this amazing gift; to leverage it for positive ends! I consider it a moral imperative of sorts to continue to demonstrate the efficacy of this treatment while using my ability to operate behind the scenes and serve as a thought-provoking conundrum in discussions on the subject.

There is nothing iniquitous about allowing non-trans people to correctly identify me as a woman. I'm acutely aware of the impact that awareness of my presence in a social situation can have on other trans women and I am similarly careful about disclosing this detail of my past because I have seen it cause harm before. There really is no compelling reason to go out of my way to reveal my past to anyone I meet, and it's a little ridiculous to expect someone in this situation to do so.

It's clearly not only beneficial on an individual basis. On the occasions where I have disclosed my history to a non-trans social group, in some cases after many, many years, it has positively challenged preconceptions, promoted dialogue and helped demonstrate that we are just ordinary people like anyone else.

I can't support your claim that stealth trans people are to blame for anti-trans sentiment. That doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny at all and feels like a deeply unfair victim-blaming reversal of the situation. We hide -if we can- because of anti-trans sentiment, and the more intense that gets, the deeper we burrow underground for safety.

If a transphobe lashes out at anyone they suspect may be trans just in case - that's a problem with the transphobe and their prejudices; not trans people. Why do they even care so much? What point are they trying to achieve? It is quite clear from even a cursory examination of some of the more feverishly trans-hostile communities on the internet and the ridiculous nature of the 'we can always tell' pantomime that this particular phenomenon has more to do with spite at the notion that a tiny group of people is able to escape censure. It isn't trans people's responsibility not to exist in order to prevent others from spiralling into paranoid transvestigatory rabbitholes, I'm sorry.

Hm. Of course, women confronted with a male will respond in a certain way. When in person. They'll respond completely differently, say, on an anonymous internet forum.

The risks we're concerned with on this board, the feminist board of a site called 'Mumsnet' is the risk posed by male people to women. Because we centre women.

It's clear that my Utopian idea of defeating transphobia through a culture of total transparency is not going to wash with you, @ButterflyHatched . I still maintain that valorising perfect passing is feeding a medical industry that is damaging children's health, and that it doesn't have to be this way.

Stealth trans people don't themselves cause transphobia, obviously.

The problem that women have is not with trans people but with men, who, in aggregate, pose the biggest threat to our health, safety, and welfare worldwide. They are bigger, stronger, faster, more criminal, more aggressive, and able, if intact, to impregnate us against our will.

Women need to know who the men are, and that alone means that concealing someone's sex is a social injustice (obviously I'm leaving people with DSDs out of it, as should you). And being forced to pretend that an obvious male is female is just adding insult to injury.

Did it really have to be like this? Is there no scope for the existence of a transwoman who acknowledges that there are some things about her body that might legitimately exclude her from some female pursuits? Or that she once had a life as a man, that was interesting and valuable in its own right, instead of needing to be obliterated as if it had never been?

I hope that you'll answer, even if only to say 'no'. Thank you for at least letting me ask the question.