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

[MarcTheGenderSkeptic]

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.

@Lacksie question - do you do anything apart from taking medication for your ADHD, as recommended by NHS England?

But sex isn't determined by the way you think. It's determined by bodies.

ok you understand a person can't change sex, and them wishing with every fibre of their being that they were the opposite sex is a mental issue. Which may, or may not have a medical cause behind it.

Why do you think we should dismantle, in any way, the concept of sex in order to accommodate it?

I assume you didn’t see my earlier question @Lacksie (as you are answering questions). When you talk about it not mattering of transwomen have access to some female-only spaces, are you talking only about those with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria?

You have answered all I need to know by having no knowledge of Giggle vs Tickle. Thank you @Lacksie

You have answered all I need to know by claiming to have no knowledge of Giggle vs Tickle.

Psychiatry routinely uses nutritional, behavioural, environmental and physical interventions as well as medication, and psychiatric drugs themselves have effects throughout the body.

What psychiatric conditions are routinely treated with surgery?

Your focus on diagnostic procedure suggests to me that you think that rights should be restricted to those with a diagnosis.

Is this right?

They used to do lobotomies on patients with some mental illnesses. Perhaps that's what @Lacksie is thinking of.

Isn't it obvious? It means: you must adopt current local cultural expectations of your target sex. But also: you are not required to adopt current local cultural expectations of your target sex.

If you mean psychiatric conditions routinely treated by surgically altering an otherwise anatomically healthy body part, there aren’t many close analogues

There is one, as I mentioned earlier: Body integrity identity disorder (BIID), which is sometimes called Body integrity dysphoria. It's a very close analogue to gender dysphoria. The patient thinks that they should be disabled and seek to have a limb amputated or to be made blind, for example.

Do you think these surgical procedures should be carried out on these patients? The symptoms are very similar to those of people with gender dysphoria, and the medical 'treatment' requested is also similar.

I think that's genderism in a nutshell.

It's all about stereotypes. But it isn't about stereotypes.

And what other psychiatric conditions are treated by reorganizing the rest of society?

For what other psychiatric conditions is an important part of the treatment to force me to pretend to go along with the patient’s delusions on pain of being labeled a bigot and treated to social exclusion, loss of jobs, violent threats and so forth?

@Lacksie the impossibility of answering these questions is why trans identifying people have to tell you that being trans isn’t a psychiatric condition and you are guilty of transmedicalism. At which point it all falls apart.

I think if you keep asking the right questions, Lacksie. you might actually get there.

This is it.

And I'm sure anyone who was honest with themselves would know it.

They might look at women doing stereotypical female things and really want to do them, but feel unable to do them because they're male. And vice versa, of course.

They must, surely to God, understand why the biggest pushback they ever get is from feminists.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17632451/

'The modern therapeutic approach to most psychiatric diseases involves a combination of well-supervised psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and electroconvulsive therapy. Patients who fail to adequately respond to these modern treatment methods and remain severely disabled may be considered for surgical intervention. Cingulotomy, capsulotomy, subcaudate tractotomy, and limbic leucotomy are the most common psychosurgical procedures performed today, with response rates in the 35% to 65% range. Modern stereotactic techniques have reduced complication rates, but controversy remains regarding the optimal surgical procedure. The major psychiatric diagnostic categories that might respond to surgery include treatment-refractory major affective disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and chronic anxiety states. '

I’m a retired doctor so knew the answer when I asked the question.

The simple answer is that no psychiatric condition is ever routinely treated with surgery. There is very very rarely surgery used for refractive OCD or depression but I don’t think there is any good evidence that it’s effective. Now what does that remind me of?😀

@Lacksie I will, very reluctantly, accept that for some small number of adult people the genuinely best way to alleviate their profound distress is surgically to remove their breasts or penis.

I cannot for one second understand why anyone with a brain would think that anyone and everyone must accept that person - or another person not having had surgery - as having changed sex. It’s beyond nonsense.

It doesn't need to be, I didnt have parental or any other feedback on mine as wasn't able to provide . It relied on questions to me alone. Also diagnosis of gender dysphoria , where possible, also often involves questions to caregivers . The two are very similar.

What is the nexus between what you’ve spent a long time describing as a genuine medical condition, and allowing its sufferers the right to use changing rooms and other facilities reserved for the other sex?

I suppose the move from ‘exactly like’ to ‘similar’ is something. Maybe we’ll even get an answer on the necessity of a gender dysphoria diagnosis in order to access to female-only spaces.

Well obviously it's not exactly the same- the questions are obviously different t for example.
But exactly tje same in the sense of depending on asking the patient questions, taking a clinical history from patient and other close persons where possible , applying clinical criteria, clinical observation. These things are exactly equivalent

Entitlement?

She’s not answering the question, because it’s not answerable.

That’s why I think she’ll get there in the end.

Anything on access to those female-only spaces?

Yes, it's the second part that really flummoxed me.

'living in a gender role that is congruent with their gender identity;'

Okay. We can imagine this means wearing clothing that is generally associated with the opposite sex. Women wearing trousers, for example. [I'd say my tongue was firmly in my cheek, here but it appears whoever wrote these guidelines is quite serious]

'this must not entail a requirement for the individual to conform to externally imposed or arbitrary preconceptions about gender identity and presentation'

Let's break that down a bit further.

'externally imposed or arbitrary preconceptions about gender identity and presentation'

This implies there are internally imposed preconceptions? Which I suppose is the root of claiming that gender identity is 'innate'. Which means either that people are born magically drawn towards, say, frilly dresses, or that they are born gravitating towards the 'identity' (collection of stereotypes) that include frilly dresses.

Frilly dresses being associated with one sex is entirely arbitrary.

Is this sentence suggesting that there are 'non-arbitrary preconceptions'? Isn't that a tautology?

ADHD is diagnosed using structured questionnaires & scoring of symptoms. No such formal process is even available to diagnose being “trans”.

We have had TRAs on here arguing that gender identity/stereotypes are innate. I'm pretty sure I remember someone citing the theory about girls liking pink because we were hardwired to collect berries.

I'm not even joking.