On Mermaids having to listen to Cass: “ This is so blatant and evil I have no idea why decent human beings let this happen.”

[Zahariel]

Cross posting is poor form.

but.

the responses to Mermaids having to listen to Cass on trans Reddit is just staggering and I think an important window into the minds of the people furthest in on this delusion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1gb26kv/charity_commission_is_instructing_mermaids_and/

“Cass and her supporters need to feck right off already. I'm sick of it being peddled around to try to legitimise crap, especially when it's been widely debunked by the rest of the world and professionals within the UK too. They keep LYING and pretending like it's "soo scientific" when it simply isn't and i'm sick of the lies and i'm sick of the British public slurping those lies up off the boots of the red tories.”

While I wouldn't say I was ever opposed to same-sex marriage, I used to think that two of the good things about being gay was that [a] you didn't have to get married and [b] you wouldn't be conscripted into the army.
So although of course I supported same-sex marriage, and equality in the armed forces, I was fighting for rights to things I'd never dream of availing of myself!

I think civil marriage as a legal contract should be available to all adult citizens but I never thought that churches should be legally obliged to offer same-sex marriage, I think that's up to them and their membership/congregations to sort out amongst themselves.

“chopping their tits off” is a blunt but accurate description. If people are u comfortable with a blunt desciption that is entirely accurate, perhaps they need to understand why this bluntness is so uncomforable?

I am with others. If a person is removing healthy body tissue, whole body parts, extreme body modification, why is this considered acceptable on the basis of identity and philosophical belief? Or is it purely censuring people for speaking bluntly?

And I don’t think this is an automatic reaction to same sex marriage, by the way. I fully support same sex marriage. It has however, been a campaign in several countries now. And stated as ‘fertility equality’ for couples to have the same supposed rights that everyone has.

And of course, as I say, no person should have the right to exploit another person’s body in this way.

No I def don't agree w commercial surrogacy either. Even if it's voluntary there's lots of loopholes for pressure.

This was something i discovered once when addressing a poster who declared that the Baroness was homophobic. The poster themselves posted the link to voting for lowering the age of consent for homosexual males to 16 years old. They hadn’t read what they posted though. Because the link also had:

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1994-02-21/debates/e132c2dd-636e-40db-a7d0-25ac060cb788/AgeAtWhichHomosexualActsAreLawful

a vote 20 minutes or so AFTER the other one was voted down.

'.—(1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".
(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".
(3) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Sir Anthony Durant.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 427, Noes 162.

And Emma Nicholson, MP from Devon West, who had concerns about the abuse of minor males by adults, who had already been a director of Save the Children Foundation from 1974 to 1985, AND started at least one other charity for women and children by 1994, voted AYE.

There is a whole lot of misinformation out there and overly simplistic rhetoric about the Baroness that doesn’t quite stand up to scrutiny. Would she have voted aye if she didn’t support equality for LGB people when it is also supported by the vast majority of LGB people and has been evaluated as not producing negative safeguarding impacts on children and women?

I agree with you that irreversible treatments are potentially hugely damaging.
I suppose the nuance and complexity here is how do we work with young people who feel distressed within their bodies, without leaving them not feeling heard, believed or validated? I think that if we dismiss these feelings they have then that can be damaging; I think it’s really important to build relationships, for young people’s distress to be believed and explored. Only within a trusting relationship would a young person believe what the other is telling them (eg. About what might happen in the future should they go through the transitioning process)

I suppose my suggestion would be to have a number of people, including those with lived experience, medics, psychologists thinking very carefully together… not only about the individual but about the family; about their own motivations; about the political climate; about neurodivergence and about trauma; about capacity and consent; about mental health conditions. A coming together rather than a polarisation

Have you seen any feminist who has not supported children and even adults having extensive mental health care if they are ‘gender distressed’? And that children in particular receive this as quickly as possible?

Who are the people you feel do not advocate for this?

I think I disagree with you here in that I don’t think that I can say what makes sense to another person. I am fortunate enough to feel myself within my body, but I know that some people don’t feel that they belong in theirs. I think if I tell them that their feelings don’t make sense and they shouldn’t feel that way, that would be really unhelpful. I think to be curious about this; when it started; what has happened in their lives; how they understand this - is more helpful.
And I think actually some people really don’t feel that their body is who they are… and if other people say that it is who they are that can be hugely invalidating.

Believing that any of this needs validation is part of the problem. What many of them need isn't validation but to be encouraged to find ways to build up resilience.

This whole concept of validation is fucked up when it comes to your body. You can't change your body. You can modify it, but it doesn't change it and modification doesn't necessarily lead to satisfaction.

The whole concept that validation will lead to resolution is where we fucked up in the first place.

Just to be clear I am not arguing against feminists at all. I would not say that feminists don’t support extensive mental health care for the ‘gender distressed’. My point is that there seems to be a polarisation of views which pushes each camp further away from each other. Like actually I think in many ways we may share the same ideas and questions but it is such a contentious and emotive issue that it seems to lead to people being very much against each other

You may be right about the phrase "chopping their tits off". Unfortunately a very commonly used alternative within trans circles, "top surgery", is just as dismissive of the seriousness of a double mastectomy.

I’m saying that validation of the feelings (not the ‘acting out’ of the feelings) is really important. Often people struggle with their sense of self and their identity when they haven’t felt like they or their feelings are real; when they’ve felt dismissed. Also there is a sense that validating feelings about wanting to change ones body increases the urge to make that an action. Sometimes putting it all into words reduces the need to act. However, when one doesn’t feel believed the desire to act becomes stronger

Can you explain what is the polarisation you refer to, please? I feel I am missing something.

And do you think that someone bluntly using language, such as saying ‘chopping tits off’, is someone who doesn’t support people getting extensive mental health care? Because of blunt language?

There is a difference though that between ‘validating’ and ‘listening to’ don’t you think?

What other feelings that are not based on material reality and is only on philosophical belief should be validated?

I disagree. I think it’s a disrespectful and objectifying way to talk about another human being.

Not at all - I think people are complex. I felt that if someone I loved who had experienced real distress in their body for whatever reason and was being referred to as “chopping their tits off” then I would feel deeply saddened. I don’t think the person who wrote it is bad or doesn’t support mental health care. I believe people (myself included) can use (for many reasons) dismissive language at times as well as being supportive of other human beings.

I suppose i have noticed that as it is such a complex and emotive topic, it seems that people have been pushed into “us” and “them” polarisation (like if you look at the language in this thread you might notice some of that); that it is hard to stay curious without being seen as somehow the ‘enemy’. Like I have not been feeling negative at all about feminists and yet it seems that this has been interpreted from some of my posts. Like I can’t identify as a feminist and also deeply empathise with the distress experienced by some children and young people who are so deeply unhappy in their own bodies.
And also that I can’t find the CASS report really important and be really curious about the factors which impact the Mermaids response

And you can disagree.

Is that your only point you are using to compare ‘sides’ being polarised?

Because do you think this is symmetrical to activists who have actively campaigned, and successfully so, for clinics to have used affirming only care? And for changing policies on many aspects of life to prioritise gender identity, a philosophical belief, over sex, a materially real fact?

I should have said emotionally validate; I’m not meaning to validate the acting out of the feeling.
This might not equate, but I suppose I’m thinking about someone who has very intrusive thoughts and/or hears voices and feels distressed by them. One approach is to say that they are not real and to stop having those thoughts or hearing those voices. How does that leave the person feeling? An alternative is to validate the feelings which these thoughts/voices lead to; to be curious about when they started; to develop an understanding of them

I'm intrigued. You would feel deeply saddened that someone used very blunt language. Would you also feel deeply saddened that someone had had their healthy breasts removed for reasons of distress?

Who is saying you can’t deeply empathise with the distress experienced by some children and young people? Has anyone on this thread indicated that you cannot? And has anyone on this thread indicated that they are don’t similarly and just as deeply empathise?

People are saying that listening to children doesn’t mean ‘validating’ their belief.

I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse. Do you think that calling a trans male (who describes themselves as being is comfortable in their body) someone who has “chopped their tits off” is appropriate? It feels objectifying and dehumanising to me. I think that we need to remain thoughtful and respectful of others in this conversation

Are you a trained therapist?

I am not, but I can see a therapist listening to someone in the situation you are describing and not ‘validating’ emotionally or otherwise that this person is really hearing voices.

They can, as you say, explore what the person is experiencing, how long and fully explore the issue without ‘validating’ that the person is hearing voices at all. Merely that they understand that the person they are speaking to ‘believes’ they are hearing voices. Is this what you are describing as validating?

A trans male would be a male who has a gender identity that they would describe as a woman.

Yes