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.”

Just a reminder of how using 'pronouns' is not the harmless, respectful action that some people frame them to be. And I know that OP has not suggested this, but this is for anyone who dismisses using preferred pronouns as being harmless.

Firstly, the Cass report says it is not a neutral act.

cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

But then collectively, using pronouns has allowed activists to leverage ‘but society sees us as women therefore it is so cruel to exclude us’ from where they want to access.

This has meant male people (including at schools) accessing female toilets.

However, it is not limited to this access. On media, social media, and MN is a great example, failure to use preferred pronouns leads to deletions. Less so now, since Isla Bryson. But it still happens. There is significant harm if female people cannot use accurate, precise and clear language to discuss their needs and where they see harm being done.

Shaming women for not using pronouns, or misgendering, is an act of silencing. It is an act of removing the very language that we need to discuss our needs.
And I have seen people dismiss this with 'but what about the individual? Surely you would be 'kind / respectful / just a decent human being / insert whatever shaming phrase you have seen being used,' to an individual person.

However, the reality is undeniable. And it is all language demands, not just pronouns. Individual's have leveraged this act of 'kindness / respect / whatever' to harm female people collectively. Sport is just one of area that this has been done.

Cyclist McKinnon/Ivy stood infront of policy makers and argued that it was cruel and inhumane to deny males trans people the right to compete as their chosen gender. Why? Because surely society at large accepted they were ‘female’ as people used their female pronouns and treated them a female. We are still campaigning to reverse the policies where this person consulted. McKinnon/Ivy talked to the IOC about transgender athlete inclusion in around 2018/19 I believe.

Mridul Wadhwa is another. Applied for a female advertised job role and was made CEO of the Edinburgh rape crisis centre. Because everyone treats this male individual as a female.

I think Naomi Cunningham has summed it up rather well in this interview.

Naomi Cunningham is a barrister and so has some first hand experience in how the effects of language changes impacts policy and law.

I have seen laws and policies changed by that argument from male activists consulting on committees etc. Maybe some people choose not to trace the harm directly, but the harm is there on numerous fronts.

Repeating preferred pronouns has now given life to phrases like ‘used her penis to rape’ which is so wrong on many levels.

Here is Victoria Smith's view.
The hidden cost of pronoun politeness | Victoria Smith | The Critic Magazine

Here is Ivy / McKinnon on video making the statement:
or the Daily Show link which requires a VPN to watch outside of USA.

news.sky.com/story/trans-cyclist-rachel-mckinnon-defends-her-right-to-race-in-womens-competitions-11838131

People using pronouns need to understand what is happening because of this usage and consider their contribution. I don’t believe they can ignore the collective harm that results. They can try to ignore it. But it has already happened and to deny the harms that have already resulted is dishonest.

And this is the problem.

We are spending hours navel gazing and trying to analyse things, when actually we just need to 'be'.

I have to say I do think in time, we will look back at a lot of counselling and come to the conclusion that it did more harm than good. Indeed there are concerns about whether certain types of counselling are appropriate for certain issues at all because there haven't been good studies on their effectiveness.

That's not to say that the right counselling for the right situation is absolutely what is needed.

This whole idea of affirming that you are born in the wrong body though. No. Because ultimately you can't change your body. Legitimising those feelings is liable to do more harm than good in this situation.

That's why we don't use counselling that validates and legitimises anorexia.

Yet we find ourselves in a situation where there is a movement to try and delegitimise any form of psychological support which isn't affirmative as transphobic and worse still there's still an attempt to criminalise other forms of counselling as 'conversion therapy'.

So no I'm really not into this idea that we should be listening to this 'true authentic self stuff'. There's lots to suggest that it's potentially actively narcissistic in at least a small number of cases, and it's being used in a weaponised way to abuse others (hello transwidows).

If someone is diagnosed as having a narcissist disorder then the treatment they need isn't going to be to listen to them and validate their feelings!!! It's going to be to challenge them and say actually no your feelings are not that valid because it's devaluing the feelings of others.

As I say the whole situation is bonkers and we've almost got caught in a trap of not understanding what the purpose of counselling is actually for and what it's ultimate goal is. It's just something you do without real consideration and rather blindly assuming that it's the correct thing to do and that the counsellor has your interests central rather than having their own agenda (as we have seen with the Tavistock this assumption is one that doesn't play out in practice and the sector is rife with deeply unprofessional and dangerous individuals).

This is leaving parents in a particularly difficult situation of not knowing who is reputable and trustworthy.

It should not be like this. There is absolutely no oversight or accountability.

The sanitisation of language is so allies can justify it and cope with the reality.

I don't think it's for the benefit of people with problems because the sanitisation allows them never to confront the reality and what the long term consequences - including damage to mental health FROM THE ACTUAL SURGERY - especially if they have significant complications.

We aren't hearing about the rates and the nature of complications. If you have distress about your genitals then having ongoing complications in that area which require someone to be constantly looking there it's really not going to alleviate that distress is it?!

We have to have difficult conversations and to challenge this notion that feelings are always valid and should be legitimised. Because quite frankly it's total bollocks.

“So no I'm really not into this idea that we should be listening to this 'true authentic self stuff'.”

Just to pull out this point from red’s post which as usual gets right to the point.

This is where it all falls down.

A male person demanding we allow them to be their authentic self or to centre their ‘lived experience’ in policies, laws and programmes for female people are completely contorting reality.

Their ‘authentic’ self is as the ‘lived experience’. Only ever as a male person who demands society treat them as a female. They are not authentically female. They are not even living life as a female person.

Their every interaction with life and society is as a male person who is living their concept of how a female person lives, how a they expect a female person to interact with society and situations. But only ever as a male person because that is the body they have.

No matter what extreme body modifications they make.

And for a male person to demand that their experience is a female one is the epitome of misogyny.

Just to add. It takes a while to understand that the ‘moderate’ position is actually the position being discussed by the people using the blunt and uncomfortable language. Just because you (general you) don’t like the language, doesn’t mean that the position you are dismissing isn’t the ‘moderate’ position.

It also takes a while to realise that there is no fucking symmetry in this situation. On one hand you have activists pushing for children to receive life limiting and even life shortening chemical and surgical treatment for a philosophical belief.

On the other hand you have a group of people raising the alarm using whatever means of alert they can. ‘Moderate’ would indicate that there is a ‘middle ground’. And how many threads have gone around and around and around . Only to end up understanding that in this situation, those demanding that there is a middle ground really are saying ‘we agree with all you say, you just are not saying it nicely enough’!

The position that in this situation there is a ‘middle ground’ that still protects children and vulnerable adults is a falsity.

Because for that to be true, gender identity would have to be a robustly definable and objective concept. And it isn’t.

Because for that to be true, gender identity would have to be proven to be unchangeable over time. And it isn’t.

So where is that middle ground where children are fully safeguarded but living a happy life as their ‘authentic’ selves? Umm. That ‘middle ground’ is what so many of us are here advocating for, yet being portrayed (even if unintentionally so) as ‘extreme’.

And yet, and again this is that lack of symmetry- we are being told our language is extreme while the people who are fully supporting children undergoing brutal medical treatments are in reality the ‘extremists’ and they are the ones using the ‘kind’ and ‘nice’ language. The dissonance takes a while to sink in, I grant you. But once it does, you can never see these discussions in the same way again.

This is pertinent.

Very interesting analysis, thanks for all of these contributions.

There was a thread on twitter, which I now can't find, but one great response summed this up. It was along the lines of ...

'So you want us all to shut up about the horrific nature of 'gender affirming care' so that you can go back to supporting it in peace'?

And of course, language is a key part of that.

I find the cognitive dissonance on this absolutely fascinating. People feel like they should support the radical TRA cause (interesting to consider why this is).

But they can't deal with being faced with the reality of it. So they want to suppress information, deny it's happening, get mad at those pointing it out, sanitise language, police language.

All so that they can support something that they're actively avoiding understanding the details of. Because they know, deep down, that there's nothing good here.

So 'chop their tits off' is unacceptable and offputting, and mentioning that it is mutilation is bad too. Presumably so is pointing out that it will lead to a woman never being able to feed her child, but also vulnerable to infection and pain if she gives birth and lactates and the milk has nowhere to go. We used to be warned throughout our later teens 'not to close doors on ourselves'. Back in the day that was about not giving up exam subjects that might be important in that future life that is so hard to imagine when one has lived less than a fifth of ones expected lifespan. It is much more important when there's a danger of people being lured into doing irreversible damage to their bodies (and brains) with drugs and surgery.

Offensive language - how about 'yeet the teets'?

And yet, and again this is that lack of symmetry- we are being told our language is extreme while the people who are fully supporting children undergoing brutal medical treatments are in reality the ‘extremists’ and they are the ones using the ‘kind’ and ‘nice’ language. The dissonance takes a while to sink in, I grant you. But once it does, you can never see these discussions in the same way again

And does this come down to another phenomenon of the modern age?

It's much more important to be seen to be virtuous than to actually be virtuous.

It's all performative. You must model 'being kind' with your words, but not concern yourself with actually helping people? If there's conflict, you should always choose the former.

Yep.

I stopped telling my child to be kind when I realised that I was advising them as an 11 year old to accept abuse because the other child ‘might have issues that need to be addressed’. I realised just how fucked up that was and I am so glad I stopped perpetuating that cycle.

And then I analysed what else the fuck I was allowing to happen with that mantra of ‘I must be kind’ and of course, realised that being kind was being used against women and children. That we were told to ‘be kind’ and ‘speak nicely’ to stop us from actually having discussions. That we could have a long discussion using all the acceptable language and still not work out an equitable solution because the real issues were not really addressed.

They were obscured with nice words that affirmed the group’s belief and hid the real issues.

I think many people now have seen the abuse normalising attempts for the care of children have hidden behind nice language.

Does everyone remember Susie Green (head of Mermaids at the time) calling the police on Kellie Jay Keen for saying that she had had her son castrated on his 16th birthday?

She actually managed to persuade the police to call a woman in for interview, for using the word castration. There was nothing more to it than that.

That should tell you everything you need to know about why proponents of this ideology are determined to stop people using blunt language.

The last thing you are allowed to describe is exactly what it says on the tin.

I remember datun.

I remember the endless posts on the use of mutilation. All because the word was emotively negative and people who want to think that affirming only care is the righteous approach don’t want any discordant emotions clouding their full support.

Extraordinary isn't it. Castrating your child is 'stunning and brave' but actually saying those words is criminal.

I remember Glinner tweeting about how one of his comedy ex-mates disowned him for posting that picture of the trans woman basketball player who was about a foot and a half taller than the actual women on the team.

The ex-mate objected to Glinner 'drawing attention' to the height discrepancy. While supporting the rights of this man to play on a girls team.

Fantastic post. I’m still struggling with the language battle myself. Pretty much refuse to use gender-affirmative pronouns, but also avoid so-called misgendering in some cases. Crime and sport - easy, it’s „he“. Certain other circumstances, I compromise with „they“. In person, I favour names. But this approach is, in itself, arbitrary. I do know this. And does that make me part of the problem at times? To a degree, yes. Cases like Debbie Hayton trouble me most of all - a self-confessed AGP, meaning I‘m participating in a fetish that effectively degrades me if I use „she“. But how do I tell the difference between Debbie and eg. a committed homosexual transexual? I can’t. I really resent being put in this position. I just read the blog entry by the AGP guy shared by Bonfire? right to the end - I’d only got a little way through before - & feel as though I’m now levitating a few inches way above the mountain-top I reached several years ago and have been comfortably perched on for a while. I was already pretty au fait with this side of it all, but somehow, without telling me much I didn’t already know or suspect, his first-hand analysis really crystallised the implications of what - to an undefined greater or lesser degree - seems to be happening here. It’s terrifying, frankly.

The language is designed to manipulate you into saying things you don't believe, you don't want to say and that aren't in the best interests the most vulnerable groups in society - including those who may sympathise with the concept of being trans themselves.

It is entrenched in guilt.

That's not healthy.

Is it just me who's noticed that it's mostly childless people who support woman face?

I would love to know if that is true or not. For the IRL people who's opinion's I know on this subject, being 'progressive left' as an essential part of 'who they are' appears to be the major factor.

The TWAW idiot I know has young children and declared that they would fully support transition in one of the most chilling conversations I have ever had. They were almost salivating at the thought of it happening.

Sorry for double posting.

Regarding language. Honest, straghtforward and connected-to-reality language is needed. When someone is using 'occupied uterus' we need everyone who is brave enough to be willing to push back and use 'pregnant' or even better 'pregnant woman'.

It's also no coincidence, of course, that WPATH had files related to 'eunuch making
pornography'. Including, if I remember correctly, in children?

WPATH call themselves the world professional association on transgender health.

No wonder they don't want people using words like chopping off tits, and castration.

We need to call it affirmative healthcare.

FFS!

So a woman is now a gestator who is incubating a foetus, making her someone with an ‘occupied uterus’. And the child is the uterus occupier, I guess.

This is not quite as systemically offensive as ‘black birthing bodies’ or the term ‘bleeders’ which have both been used by organisations who thought this was acceptable language, but it is getting close.

Yes and we are definitely definitely not allowed to use the c word to make comparisons but organisations using this language is just absoluetely FINNNNEEE.

And people wonder why women on MN feel passionately on this entire subject and are angry about it.

Perhaps those reading along are beginning to understand another dynamic at play here too. Because language that is deemed ‘offensive’ around these discussion is now a very complex issue.

If organisations and spokespeople are being lauded for using language that is truly offensive when you consider it, such as “bleeders” and “black birthing bodies” and “cervix havers” and calling vagina’s “front holes” or “bonus holes”, do readers begin to understand that to shock people out of thinking this should be accepted, that one way is to use language that is just as offensive. Because if people accept the use of ‘black birthing bodies’ and celebrate the organisations using this, is anyone going to stop and think about a sentence that reads ‘people who are transgender should access double mastectomies so their bodies fit how they feel they should look’?

I mean, really? After you have just desensitised yourself to accept dehumanising language as normal and in fact, desirable so that some people don’t feel ‘unsafe’, did you even blink and consider the ramifications of :

‘people who are transgender should access double mastectomies so their bodies fit how they feel they should look’?

But reading the shocking and offensive ‘getting their tits chopped off’ did evoke a reaction. It did cause a ‘hang on a minute’ moment.

And the next question should be ‘why the fuck are feminists using this offensive language? What the actual fuck?!!!!’

Maybe, just maybe the message is seeping through that desensitisation coming from the normalisation of this sanitised language that hides the reality of what is happening. And the new normal of willingly accepting that we lie with our language with pronouns etc

The blunt language forces a discomfort response that hopefully leads to seeking more information. It won’t in some people because the programming is too strong for many reasons, including heavy personal investment/cost.

I think the logical question to people who disagree with the language is to ask ‘how do you convey the brutality of these operations in as fewer words as possible to disrupt people’s comfortable bubble and cause further questioning’ ?

There isn't a partnership.**

Yes, I'm sorry about that mistake- I was misled by Reddit. Shan't trust anything else I read there without checking!