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.”

A trans man (maybe rather than male) is in my understanding someone who was assigned female at birth and identifies as a man

Yes you are a trained therapist?

or yes you are calling thorough exploration of the situation but not agreeing with the patient that they are hearing voices ‘validation’?

or both?

I think it's interesting so many now are unaware that same sex marriage was controversial even within the gay community, and many weren't that interested in it for a variety of reasons.

But aside from religious freedoms, and those who say marriage as itself illiberal and wrong, there was what you might call the social conservative approach, and this was not just a straight thing.

Essentially this viewpoint did not see marriage as fundamentally being about the people being in love, or even having sex, or anything like that. Rather, it said that the social purpose of marriage was about managing the realities of being a sexually reproducing species, with all of the inequalities and problems inherent within that. In particular, it's meant to protect women and children who are most affected when men have no obligations to their partners.

The main arguments used against this perspective at the time are interesting to look back on, because I think they are relevant to what we see today to some extent. One, probably the most immediate to many at the time, but least important in the bigger picture (because there are many ways to deal with that problem) was around things like pensions being attached to marriage.

The second was that even if it was the case that marriage existed as an institution as a means to manage reproductive roles, allowing a small number of gay and lesbian people to access it would not change anything about it fundamentally. I think we can, in hindsight, question whether that is something to be so sure of - we have moved to a much more transactional view over the years which is partly about seeing the partners as interchangeable.

And the third was that it's a right for any pair of people to access marriage, regardless of reproductive role - that is, being male or female. This is a really interesting one because the message seems to be that it is illegitimate for the state to recognize sex as an important real category in making laws and policies. And this idea has caught on in ways that were perhaps unexpected at the time (although - if you read conservative sources back then, you would find some people suggesting that could be an outcome.)

Anyway - all of this is to say, there is a tendency now to assume these were simple discussions and changes, and I think that wasn't so. It took a long time for there to be a weight of opinion even within the gay community because people had a lot of different viewpoints on these questions.

That is a ‘transman’. That is not a trans male.

She isn't a man though.

I see where you are coming from here and I can understand how changing policies has been deeply disturbing for women.
But I don’t think that means that we stop listening to the lived experience of trans people or objectify them (I’m not saying that you personally have done this; I don’t think you have).
I’m wondering how a trans person or parent or a child who is deeply distressed in their own body or who identifies as non-binary or trans (or who has socially or physically transitioned) might feel reading this thread. I’m not sure that they would feel included in the discussion or respected, but I may be wrong.

My mistake

This post sums up what I mean. I’ll leave it there. My apologies if I have upset anyone. This has not been my intention.

No, any obtuseness of mine is not deliberate. I am still intrigued that the thing that seems to bother you most is the bluntness of language used. I was asking if my impression is correct, or if you are also concerned about the material reality of surgery as a treatment for distress.

If (God forbid) my trans-identified son goes the whole hog and opts for "bottom surgery", I may just use the very blunt language of "you're telling me that you're going to get your balls cut off?" partly out of distress that he would even contemplate something so drastic, and partly as a last ditch attempt to get him to understand just what he is proposing to do. I am already horrified that he has been considering cross-sex hormone treatment (complete with unwanted side effects) to deal with a mental health issue; when he mentioned this, I very carefully took him seriously and gently mentioned that the health consequences are not negligible. I have no idea whether using blunter language would have had any different effect. I'm now past caring about what he thinks of me and my use of language. The only thing that matters is his future health.

With the trans-identified female in my life, no I'm not going to talk about "cutting 'his' tits off", nor am I going to glibly call it "top surgery". If the subject comes up, I may go as far as to quietly question the ethics of a surgeon who cuts off healthy flesh. I thought that was something they were trained only to do if there is a very high probability of even more serious consequences without the surgery. With "gender affirming care" there doesn't seem to be the evidence to justify it.

And of course, no amount of brutal body modification including the brutal side effects of testosterone on a female body, makes any female person a ‘man’. No matter what that person identifies as.

Because the only thing that person can ever be is a female person who wants their concept of what the life of a man to be treated as real. When it is only ever their personal concept of what the life of a male person is like. When they are treated as a male person, they can only interpret that situation as being a female who is living their personal concept of a male person. Always they react as a female person, with a female body, despite any body modification that has been done.

This is the reality of their life. It cannot be anything other than the reality of their life.

The latter. I believe the person that their lived experience is that they are hearing voices.

I have also met people who I believe feel deeply that they were born in the wrong body. If it was my role, I would want to explore rather than dismiss that; encourage them to think and put thoughts and feelings into words; not encourage them to act it out by changing their bodies without the most serious and timely consideration. And I will end it there!

thanks @Helleofabore for your interesting and thoughtful comments, I’ve learnt some stuff from our to and fro

@RVEllacott
and it made me feel ill.

Same.

And yet, you have had a parent of a person with a trans identity post replies to you (the hint is in their username) and I don’t believe you listened to them.

And why should feminists shape our language or discussion to suit another person’s need? Do the people you want feminists to fully centre with their discussion centre others in their discussions? Or their language? When women are called bleeders, vagina havers, cervix owners, gestating people and a huge list of things, are you on their threads censuring their language?

I agree with you. I like to think myself a free thinker, eager to learn, grow in knowledge and so on. Yet I embarked upon a thread ref trans ideology with the view that we should live and let live and what's wrong with respecting ones personal ideology in favour of the trans movement. I don't feel like this any more after participation on here.

I know for me that there was no place I was seeing or accessing information to say ' hang on this is not right and here is why'. I think people in general are much more likely to be presented with ' respect the pronouns, respect the ideology ' more so than ' this is dangerous and here is why'. I feel you have to seek the latter out.

I am very concerned about surgery as a treatment for distress. And I think what you write about the consequences of surgery vs not surgery is a really interesting point (for another discussion). And thanks for your post. I do think a lot about language and how it shapes thought and action.

I’m sorry if I did not listen to that post of a parent of a child with a trans identity. I am trying to learn from our conversation but a lot is lost virtually.

where I think we might differ is I do think we all need to be thoughtful about the language we use. I think language is very powerful.

And for what it’s worth I do challenge unhelpful, reductionist and derogatory narratives about women.

TempestTost, hmm, I can see what you mean about it leading to the state not recognising sex in other matters, & about the role of marriage in meaning men can't just abandon their partners & kids.
But would you personally say that a straight couple who know they don't want or can't have children, gain nothing from marriage? Surely it's still important for protecting their rights even if there's no chance of kids?
What do you mean by a more 'transactional' view, and that being caused by partners being interchangeable? Do you mean it's seen as more transient & likely to end in divorce?
I understand that you feel that bc sexes were judged an unimportant category w regards to marriage, it opened the gates for sex to be judged not so important to other stuff too. But there'll always be people who try to jump on the bandwagon of a reasonable change & push it somewhere unpleasant. After all, in the 1800s, sex was judged a reasonable category to exclude women from being doctors or able to vote. Just bc sex is judged not a crucial category for some things, it doesn't mean it's
Similarly there's awful groups like MAPs trying to argue paedophilia is a discriminated against orientation. 😡 But their jumping on a just cause to further their evil ends doesn't mean change shouldn't've been made. If that argument was always followed, change would never happen. But it def does mean after a change, people should be alert for others trying to hijack it for their own ends. Personally, I was familiar w the religious arguments against it & but not the one that wanted to extend civil partnerships to both straight & gay couples. I discovered the assimilationist argument recently : I don't think it's surprising that people my age don't know these as we were only 7 when it passed, & have grown up believing gay couples are just as deserving of marriage.

I have watched the use of blunt language shift the Overton window to allow discussions to happen when previously the discussions were not allowed because people
who demanded moderate language wouldn’t allow those discussions. They cancelled the women who wanted to have them, because to even consider saying words they didn’t want to hear was called hate.

Language that you feel is not useful, can push people to evaluate whether it accurately describes the situation. It strips away euphemisms, it strips away emotionally manipulative language (such as ‘top surgery’) and it forces discussion.

You, personally, can disagree all you like. You don’t seem all that well informed to be honest. And you feel compelled to censure others because you, personally, feel uncomfortable.

Have you considered that girls and women having ‘their tits chopped off’ is a brutal act and that the language reflects this? That ‘top surgery’ as some people want it to be described is emotionally manipulative because it hides an extreme surgical procedure being done for a mental health condition (as previously described) which is alarming but even more so for a philosophical belief as we now have been told.

The term ‘double mastectomy’ also hides the purpose and the brutality of the surgery behind a polite and acceptable non-emotive term.

How many people initially question a person with a trans identity getting a double mastectomy vs how many people immediately question a female person getting their ‘tits chopped off’ because of a philosophical belief?

As you say, language is powerful. Would you have posted if someone had not used the term?

“And for what it’s worth I do challenge unhelpful, reductionist and derogatory narratives about women.”

Like pregnant people? Like people with periods? Like front hole havers?

Who do you challenge about such language and what is the reaction you receive?

And is it just the use of ‘tits’ that is your issue or the ‘chopped off’ part too?

In my experience, it's common for people who are starting to realise they called this one wrong to focus their attention on language.

'It's not what you say it's the way that you say it' is a last gasp attempt to make those calling this out the problem.

But it's a side show. There's only one question. Do you support double mastectomy's for mental distress or not?

Just caught up on the interesting discussion on this thread.

Choice of language is important but there is absolutely no universal "right" or "wrong". There are loads of threads about this - this one was particularly good IMO because there is lots of discussion about the times and situations when it's helpful to use the language of those who believe that we all have a gender identity, in the way that JKR sometimes does, and also when it's helpful to be more "blunt" (in the way that JKR sometimes is):

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5185497-jk-addresses-language-policing

And also that I can’t find the CASS report really important and be really curious about the factors which impact the Mermaids response

@Montydone I find this a really interesting comment. If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you may have lots in common with the majority of PPs here. On this board, there is a lot of (understandable) anger about the impact that autogynophilia has on society. Equally, there is a huge empathy for children and vulnerable young people who feel distressed about their bodies and need access to help in order to unpick their feelings.

On the point of language, I agree with PPs that I don't think you mean "validate" when talking about how some people feel like they are in the wrong body, or that they are hearing voices, I think you mean "empathise". Is that fair? E.g. the difference between "if your body feels wrong, it's important that I believe you and that we work togethe to find out what kind of approach will help you feel more like you. Would it help if we started with which pronouns you prefer?" and "I'm hearing that you feel your body is wrong for you. It sounds like it's something you feel deeply about and that it's really important to you. Have I got that right? [and then go carefully on to explore other factors to see if they are applicable, as per Cass]".

Have you seen the image below? It demonstrates really well how those on the left side are totally different to those on the right side. Also, I found this blog from a self-declared autogynophile really helpful (and refreshingly honest) in understanding how this paraphilia manifests itself:

https://archive.is/2pQIq

@Montydone i am a parent of a child with gender dysphoria and know lots of other parents in the same situation as me.

Unfortunately there are people out there living with the reality that their teenage daughters have "chopped their tits off" in a ill conceived attempt to address anxiety, depression or other mental health problems. I was talking to one Mum this week who has one daughter who has already done this and is now trying to convince her younger sister to do it too.

Gender ideology is an absolute shit show which is fucking up lives and destroying families around the world. That's before you even consider the implications for women's rights.

Every single person who adds their pronouns in their email or waves their metaphorical pom poms for organisations like Mermaids is actively endorsing this. They're cheering on the whole fucking mess. That includes government ministers, celebrities and loads of influential people who are actually saying it's a good thing for vulnerable young people to remove healthy body parts and permanently destroy their bodies. They have blood on their hands.

Sorry for the rant but lots of us are living with the reality of "be kind" and it ain't pretty.

Every single person who adds their pronouns in their email or waves their metaphorical pom poms for organisations like Mermaids is actively endorsing this.

The pronoun one gets me more cross than the active endorsement of Mermaids. I have no doubt that the vast, vast majority of people who put pronouns in their email signatures (or ask girls with short hair/boys with long hair what their pronouns are) are doing so to be kind to the feelings of people who feel that they are in the wrong body. However, I don't think they realise that they could be signposting an idea to vulnerable children and young people.

It's effectively saying "I can see you're a girl (or I can see you're a boy) but are you happy about that? Would you prefer to be the opposite sex?".

I lost track of the number of adults in mental health settings who asked my daughter what her pronouns were a couple of years ago. That's why we now use a safeguarding statement with all her medical appointments and any external agencies (e.g. sports clubs) which explains her needs on this subject, and how it relates to the conflation of autism and gender identity. The core part of the statement is a table that was submitted, by a health professional, for her EHCP.

I was talking to one Mum this week who has one daughter who has already done this and is now trying to convince her younger sister to do it too.

😢

I know this thread has moved on, but this sort of situation is one that always gets me.

By that transman's own philosophical belief, they are a heterosexual man. What the fuck business do they think they have interfering in the life of a lesbian?

It's always so cake and eat it

I think several things that rattled around in my head from last night. One was as keating points out, that someone just beginning to get their head around the fact that they might have the wrong end of the stick has one last gasp at positioning themselves as being ‘the moderate’ one. And usage of language is a major part of that last hurdle.

But I have found personally, that it says more about the judger than those being judged when it comes to censuring others over blunt language.

Because, if you (general ‘you’ not aimed at anyone) are so concerned that someone who is not the target of the conversation (ie the thread, the article or whatever) is going to be offended by the blunt language than you are about the act that is being described, aren’t you someone who also then filters out facts and worthy discussion because you don’t like the language being used?

This concern at being seen to be kind is what underlies the discussion on pronouns. If a person’s language demands, a person who is not privy to the discussion, still expects others to modify their language to suit them and you accommodate this, that is some powerful drive to please another person. Particularly when the language demanded means contorting established and understood language protocols so that the speaker has to stop and consider the language carefully before allowing the words to go free.

When what it means is the the speaker has to show to others that they believe that a human can change sex and that that person’s comfort is paramount, it is so much more important than the ability to accurately communicate a message. It may be programming. A % of society have been programmed to do this.

What the realisation that you are doing this may bring is deeper realisation of what you, personally, have been part of the mechanism that allowed this to happen. That through the perpetuation of using the programmed language that hides the brutality, hides the horrific reality, obscures the reality, you have participated in allowing the minimisation of the harm while also normalising the acts that are happening.

Another point is also that the female people dehumanise themselves to detach themselves from this reality. How many teenaged and young adult female people and their parents, their supporters and their medical staff were using the horrific ‘yeat the teats’ and other phrases?

I had a conversation with a friend about a well known women’s rights campaigner from another country. My friend told me she didn’t listen to the woman because she used the words ‘mutilation’ to describe surgeries, and ‘cheating’ when describing male athletes in female sports. I asked my friend, apart from the blunt language had the woman said anything that was not factual and accurate. Of course, she had not. But my friend found the stark reality of children having their ‘tits cut off’ (it is a country where girls of 15 have been known to have this surgery) for a philosophical belief uncomfortable. But she blamed the woman calling it mutilation and thought no further about it.

When I pointed out what was happening, she was shocked. But still was censuring the woman using accurate language. Because it is state sanctioned mutilation to remove a completely healthy body part for no purpose except to support that person’s philosophical belief.

And I and many others have detailed on many threads just how activists have used society’s compliance to language to force open female single sex spaces, sports, opportunities and even the right to be represented by a female person. Because the argument is always ‘society treats me as if I am a female, therefore it is cruel to exclude me’. That is what using pronouns has allowed. And it is a weak argument these days to try to deflect from this by focusing on the individual’s needs. Because those activists were treated as individuals and used that in the fight for their collective privileges.

So, yeah. I understand why people feel the need to voice their discomfort in language. However, that doesn’t make the censure appropriate in the scheme of things.

Sometimes the shock of such language causes enough disruption in people’s minds that they actually start to evaluate why they are upset about the language.

And if any answer revolves around centring people who are not part of the discussion group, just in case those people don’t feel ‘centred’, well that really has to start ringing the dissonance alarm surely??

And I mean there are so many layers to unpick with that there.