Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

1000 replies

MarcTheGenderSkeptic · 22/09/2026 13:17

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
ArabellaScott · 30/09/2026 07:51

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 07:24

Look maybe there are lots of people claiming they are trans when they dont have a genuine condition of gender incongruence . I can't imagine why they would, but of course they could. Just like a person could claim to have adhd or be gay, or have ME or chronic back pain. Who knows. None of that means those conditions aren't real for many other people. In the same way, if there are people claiming trans identity that doesn't mean that gender incongruence isn't, for many people, a very real, neurocognitive/ psychological condition

To make a diagnosis of gender incongruence, according to ICD 11, which is what the NHS refers to, doctors must first exclude the paraphilia, transvestic fetishism.

I've always wondered how they do that.

[Edited autocorrect error]

Rollingpinofdoom · 30/09/2026 07:52

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 07:44

its actually bonkers that you think that if there isn't a test to prove something it can't be a real condition and we shouldn't recognise / treat it. You would dismantle a huge proportion of healthcare if you applied that principle generally

Edited

What other medical condition would a doctor not run tests for and just rely on a patients testimony?

BackToLurk · 30/09/2026 08:02

There is no requirement to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to be trans. Given that you think there is though, would a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be the passport into some of those female-only spaces that you think transwomen should be allowed into?

(does not hold breath for an answer)

Shedmistress · 30/09/2026 08:06

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 07:38

I have asked my self that many many many times, and considered and thought and researched. And talked to people.
And I still ask myself that.

Edited

And yet out of all the countries, governments, medical institutions, endocrinologists, doctors, nurses, medics, experts that have 'treated' this condition it comes down to 'feels wrong' or 'likes the wrong things' and the treatment is to sterilise them?

Not one can define trans and not one seems to rule out other conditions in any way?

I mean, what are the chances, really? And the one untested off label drug just happens to suit both sexes, just like that? Like magic?

iwishitwouldstartraining · 30/09/2026 08:10

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 07:44

its actually bonkers that you think that if there isn't a test to prove something it can't be a real condition and we shouldn't recognise / treat it. You would dismantle a huge proportion of healthcare if you applied that principle generally

Edited

I’m still not sure where this gets you in practical terms when discussing rights and policies.

Many people have psychological conditions that can only be ‘proved’ in the sense that the patient’s description of their symptoms is persistent.

However it does not therefore follow that, having accepted that a patient suffers from dysphoria, their perception of the world can be accommodated by others.

Helleofabore · 30/09/2026 08:12

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 06:44

You know what being trans is.
you've just decided that it must be always be superficial "ideology" and "stereotypes", imposed externally.
you refuse to consider that for many it could be a real , natural, neurocognitive / psychological experience that comes from within a person.

There's nothing I can say to you that will dislodge your assumptions, because you are fully determined of their certainty.

The point is, that the person who has categorised themselves as being in anyway the opposite sex has done so only via their own constructed understanding of what constitutes as being the opposite sex or the rejection of what they categorise as being their own sex. The conceptualisation is purely subjective and it is completely individualised in that way. What it doesn’t reference is the material reality of their own body.

There is no other way that this can be done. Just because someone says they are something, does not make that subjective belief based on material reality in any way.

And by acquiring female language for any male person for description or any reference, by logic, does attempt a societal change to that language.

All the denial in the world doesn’t change the material reality of this action or the impact on female people of this action.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/09/2026 08:13

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 06:44

You know what being trans is.
you've just decided that it must be always be superficial "ideology" and "stereotypes", imposed externally.
you refuse to consider that for many it could be a real , natural, neurocognitive / psychological experience that comes from within a person.

There's nothing I can say to you that will dislodge your assumptions, because you are fully determined of their certainty.

With the greatest of respect, so what?

Just because something is "a real , natural, neurocognitive / psychological experience that comes from within a person.", it doesn't justify changing the definition of woman from physical to mental, nor vice versa.

We can accept that someone has "a real , natural, neurocognitive / psychological experience that comes from within a person." that is very real to them without being obliged to reorganise language, society, law and every other human on the planet's own self knowledge to align with it.

(Still catching up with the thread. Looking forward to seeing whether Lacksie has finally posted some concrete examples of how her ideas about this might work in practice, or if this is all still handwavy "first, you agree to redefine yourselves and give up your rights and language. Then we will see what that actually means for you. But remember, no take-backsies!")

Pingponghavoc · 30/09/2026 08:14

Psychiatrists recognised certain behaviour and named it gender identity behaviour.

Medics and surgeons were able to change people bodies.

Neither of these proves that there is anything deeper to the condition than wanting to present as the opposite sex.

Before drugs are prescribed and surgery performed, the doctors and surgeons need to know that the feeling are permanent. This is because drugs and surgery has long term effects and they are protecting the patient and themselves from the consequences.

Nothing in the process establishes an underlying condition. Nothing defines gender, nothing indicated that the person should have been born the opposite sex, nothing of the treatment makes a person into the opposite sex.

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 08:17

So by your logic @Lacksie an anorexic ‘feels’ fat. Do we go along and ‘affirm’ that feeling with weightloss drugs?

OldCrone · 30/09/2026 08:27

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 07:44

its actually bonkers that you think that if there isn't a test to prove something it can't be a real condition and we shouldn't recognise / treat it. You would dismantle a huge proportion of healthcare if you applied that principle generally

Edited

But most health conditions, whether they can be objectively diagnosed or not, don't require a total reordering of society to accommodate them.

They don't require people who don't have the condition to redefine themselves and give up some of their rights.

They don't require the rest of society to pretend to believe in a fantasy.

TheKeatingFive · 30/09/2026 08:41

It is interesting to see the lengths to which @Lacksiewants us to go to here, to accommodate a demand from a group of men.

Here are some of the things that have been suggested in this thread.

Women hand over their sex based rights

We redefine the word ‘sex’ to persuade women to hand over their sex based rights

We reorganise how society works based on in a condition that doesn’t exist, on the off chance that it ‘might exist’

This is extraordinary, don’t you think? Does @Lacksiesimply think women should find a way to accommodate any male request, no matter how unreasonable? No matter how problematic to women?

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 08:54

What do you think @Lacksie about the young women disproportionately affected by invasive surgery - double mastectomies - who think they are men? They are generally more likely autistic or lesbian but cannot face womanhood and have been affirmed massively since mid 2010s. Where are the courageous people saying surgery will not fix a feeling in your mind?

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:07

Rollingpinofdoom · 30/09/2026 07:52

What other medical condition would a doctor not run tests for and just rely on a patients testimony?

LOADS!

Medicine is full of conditions for which there is no definitive diagnostic test and where the patient's history and reported symptoms are central to diagnosis.

Migraine, IBS, fibromyalgia, ME/CFS, chronic pain disorders, insomnia, tinnitus and many functional neurological disorders are obvious physical examples. Then there are ADHD, autism, depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, OCD, bipolar disorder and many other psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions and so so many more.

Doctors may examine the patient or order tests to rule out other explanations, but that is quite different from having a test which proves the condition itself.

"Relying on a patient's testimony" really makes it sound much stranger than it is. Taking a clinical history — what someone experiences, when it started, how persistent it is, how it affects them, and whether it fits established diagnostic criteria — is one of the basic tools of medicine. If you decided that subjective symptoms didn't count unless they could be independently demonstrated by a blood test or scan, you really would dismantle a huge part of healthcare.

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:09

Helleofabore · 30/09/2026 08:12

The point is, that the person who has categorised themselves as being in anyway the opposite sex has done so only via their own constructed understanding of what constitutes as being the opposite sex or the rejection of what they categorise as being their own sex. The conceptualisation is purely subjective and it is completely individualised in that way. What it doesn’t reference is the material reality of their own body.

There is no other way that this can be done. Just because someone says they are something, does not make that subjective belief based on material reality in any way.

And by acquiring female language for any male person for description or any reference, by logic, does attempt a societal change to that language.

All the denial in the world doesn’t change the material reality of this action or the impact on female people of this action.

The point is, that the person who has categorised themselves as being in anyway the opposite sex has done so only via their own constructed understanding of what constitutes as being the opposite sex or the rejection of what they categorise as being their own sex

That's an assumption though. What basis do you have for being so certain about it? There could be many alternative aetiologies.

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 09:09

@Lacksie so can you answer my question re anorexia? Patient tells doctor they feel that they are fat. Doctor prescribes weight loss medication. Is that the affirming route or unethical?

Rollingpinofdoom · 30/09/2026 09:10

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:09

The point is, that the person who has categorised themselves as being in anyway the opposite sex has done so only via their own constructed understanding of what constitutes as being the opposite sex or the rejection of what they categorise as being their own sex

That's an assumption though. What basis do you have for being so certain about it? There could be many alternative aetiologies.

So name them. We’ve worked out it’s not a medical condition, so if it’s not external factors. What are they?

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 09:12

@Lacksie can you give us an idea of what point you are trying to make please?

You say you are not an activist. You post lists of pseudo science.

It feels like you think each post will be a gotcha and we will all suddenly ‘understand’ gender nonsense.

I would love to know your view on Giggle vs Tickle. That tends to give a wider picture of a persons stance in all this.

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:14

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 09:09

@Lacksie so can you answer my question re anorexia? Patient tells doctor they feel that they are fat. Doctor prescribes weight loss medication. Is that the affirming route or unethical?

Edited

I don't think that's a useful comparator. If you gave a person with anorexia weight loss medication they would be a risk of serious illness and death.

The question isn't whether medicine should "affirm" or "not affirm" what a patient says as some abstract principle. You have to look at the specific condition, what is actually causing distress or impairment, what the available treatment options are, and what the evidence says about the benefits and harms of treatment, non-treatment, and alternative treatment.

StandingDeskDisco · 30/09/2026 09:16

Helleofabore · 30/09/2026 08:12

The point is, that the person who has categorised themselves as being in anyway the opposite sex has done so only via their own constructed understanding of what constitutes as being the opposite sex or the rejection of what they categorise as being their own sex. The conceptualisation is purely subjective and it is completely individualised in that way. What it doesn’t reference is the material reality of their own body.

There is no other way that this can be done. Just because someone says they are something, does not make that subjective belief based on material reality in any way.

And by acquiring female language for any male person for description or any reference, by logic, does attempt a societal change to that language.

All the denial in the world doesn’t change the material reality of this action or the impact on female people of this action.

This.
To repeat the point in less elegant language:
A man who thinks he is a woman, or wants to be a woman, or 'identifies' as a woman, has no idea what it actually means to be a woman, i.e. live in a female body. Because he has never lived in a female body, so he doesn't know what that is like.
All he has are his own ideas of what being a woman might be like, based on his perception of social stereotypes.
All he has is stereotypes of being "feminine".

Being 'feminine' is most definitely NOT the same thing as being a woman.

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 09:16

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:14

I don't think that's a useful comparator. If you gave a person with anorexia weight loss medication they would be a risk of serious illness and death.

The question isn't whether medicine should "affirm" or "not affirm" what a patient says as some abstract principle. You have to look at the specific condition, what is actually causing distress or impairment, what the available treatment options are, and what the evidence says about the benefits and harms of treatment, non-treatment, and alternative treatment.

What??? So removing healthy body parts and messing with someone’s natural hormones is not comparable?

Please explain why?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 30/09/2026 09:16

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 08:54

What do you think @Lacksie about the young women disproportionately affected by invasive surgery - double mastectomies - who think they are men? They are generally more likely autistic or lesbian but cannot face womanhood and have been affirmed massively since mid 2010s. Where are the courageous people saying surgery will not fix a feeling in your mind?

I'd be surprised to see any response from a poster who made such a fuss about women accurately sexing men, was furious about being accused of policing women's language and apparently shouldn't be called called a transactivist. Then it turns out they have been asking themselves / researching trans "....many many many times, and considered and thought and researched. And talked to people....."

It's impossible to calculate the harm done to the young by this ideology. The medical quacks making a living out of performing double mastectomies on healthy young women and experimenting with brutal surgery to make a facsimile of a penis won't face the consequences they deserve. So strong is the grip that trans ideology has on the NHS that those prescribing health & life limiting drugs to mentally vulnerable young people will get away with it.

These young women (and young men) will pay the price and it's completely despairing.

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:17

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 09:12

@Lacksie can you give us an idea of what point you are trying to make please?

You say you are not an activist. You post lists of pseudo science.

It feels like you think each post will be a gotcha and we will all suddenly ‘understand’ gender nonsense.

I would love to know your view on Giggle vs Tickle. That tends to give a wider picture of a persons stance in all this.

Edited

The point I am trying to make is that people seem to believe that gender incongruence is some kind of superficial, false, externally imposed ideology, rooted in gender stereotypes.

When in fact, for many people, gender incongruence is a very real, neurocognitive/ psychiatric condition that comes from within a person and can cause debilitating amounts of suffering when it is untreated.

Pingponghavoc · 30/09/2026 09:17

ArabellaScott · 30/09/2026 07:51

To make a diagnosis of gender incongruence, according to ICD 11, which is what the NHS refers to, doctors must first exclude the paraphilia, transvestic fetishism.

I've always wondered how they do that.

[Edited autocorrect error]

Edited

Given Dr Hayton states he has AGP and has had surgery, its likely that they arent able to.

Rollingpinofdoom · 30/09/2026 09:18

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:14

I don't think that's a useful comparator. If you gave a person with anorexia weight loss medication they would be a risk of serious illness and death.

The question isn't whether medicine should "affirm" or "not affirm" what a patient says as some abstract principle. You have to look at the specific condition, what is actually causing distress or impairment, what the available treatment options are, and what the evidence says about the benefits and harms of treatment, non-treatment, and alternative treatment.

But you said doctors should believe patients testimony. So if someone with anorexia goes to a doctor claiming they are obese, according to you, the doctor should believe them and treat the obesity….

Lacksie · 30/09/2026 09:19

BlueLegume · 30/09/2026 09:16

What??? So removing healthy body parts and messing with someone’s natural hormones is not comparable?

Please explain why?

Because providing hormonal treatments and removing body parts doesn't necessarily result in serious illness or loss of life.

There are many, many, many medical conditions for which we provide hormone therapies and surgical alternations of the body.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.