Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

icowden

Shaman
Objectively these men are no different from any other men.
But subjectively they are. They have reached a stage and been through enough clinical care (at the moment) that they have obtained a certificate confirming that they are now living as a woman and have the legal right to call themselves a woman. This is a very small subset mind you.
 

icowden

Shaman
This was the story from only yesterday. The suicide of a trans child. You know - the ones you say never happen! The one's where you call grieving parents ''shroud wavers''.
https://inews.co.uk/news/sussex-pol...een-who-committed-suicide-court-hears-3827406
Genuine question here, and one which you may prefer not to answer given your own circumstances, as always I like to be clear that I am not intending to make you uncomfortable.

In cases like the above, where does one start with whether this is in fact a trans child, or whether this is a child with mental health issues and quite possibly parenting issues, who has been let down by the health service. I know from the posts from Monkers that your own childhood was extremely difficult, and I also know we know nothing about the child in this very sad news story. For yourself do you genuinely feel that it was something innate with you, or do you think that your circumstances contributed to your later decision to transition?

I think that this is probably one of the hardest things to understand, and many feel that transitioning at all should be banned and the matter treated solely as a mental disorder. I'm somewhere in the middle ground which says that it should be something considered as a last course of action after a great deal of consideration and therapeutic discussion although I do veer towards the thought that we shouldn't be offering chemical and surgical transition at all, in favour of working on a person accepting themself for who they are, whoever that might be.

As I say - totally acceptable to avoid answering this if it is not something you are comfortable talking about.
 

monkers

Shaman
Genuine question here, and one which you may prefer not to answer given your own circumstances, as always I like to be clear that I am not intending to make you uncomfortable.

In cases like the above, where does one start with whether this is in fact a trans child, or whether this is a child with mental health issues and quite possibly parenting issues, who has been let down by the health service. I know from the posts from Monkers that your own childhood was extremely difficult, and I also know we know nothing about the child in this very sad news story. For yourself do you genuinely feel that it was something innate with you, or do you think that your circumstances contributed to your later decision to transition?

I think that this is probably one of the hardest things to understand, and many feel that transitioning at all should be banned and the matter treated solely as a mental disorder. I'm somewhere in the middle ground which says that it should be something considered as a last course of action after a great deal of consideration and therapeutic discussion although I do veer towards the thought that we shouldn't be offering chemical and surgical transition at all, in favour of working on a person accepting themself for who they are, whoever that might be.
See post 18168

Gender dysphoria is a condition of the mind, but is not the same as an illness. Every body has an inner voice, it is more developed apparently in some people than in others. We use it to read quietly, for private thoughts, for thinking especially strategic thinking like playing chess, and we use it for self-regulation of our own behaviour. When the brain does not accept it is own congruence with the expectations of others to live in the social role of the culture it finds itself in, it rejects that culture. From the time I was a toddler, I was protesting, ''I am not a boy''. I didn't know about genitals and the like, I knew that I was never going to fit in as a boy, or as a man. I wasn't going to able able to live a life in the gender role of a woman unless I changed. I knew that my gender role was that of a girl. Everything else needed to be adjusted to align with that. I made those changes, it was affirming.

I'm dismayed when I hear the ''born in the wrong body'' narrative. I guess it was a limited understanding at the time it used to be heard. I suppose on some level it served as a metaphor for not being comfortable in one's own skin. It's intention was to try to make others understand. However I dislike it as it has implications rooted in some supreme being in charge of an assembly line, an assembly of the wrong parts. It's my brain, it's my body. The adjustments are relatively minor. It is not cosmetic, it is reinforcing identity. Some women who lose their breasts to cancer, grieve for them, not because they require their function, but because it is bodily identity.

The narrative that trans women harm women by rape is pure nonsense - the biological truth is that hormones soon put a stop to any possibility of that. The allegation of sexual fetish are nonsense. There are people under the transgender umbrella that like kink, just as there are cisgender people that like kink. If one spends all of one's time lurking in 400 spaces in some belief that this passes as research, that is very dubious, and the question that must follow is, how much time to they spend in hundreds of cisgender kink sites. So people just love spending their life looking for something to object to, when all they need to do is exercise their right not to, and be doing something else.

For me, especially at the age, it wasn't at all about the body, but being told I must fit to the gender boundaries of being 'a boy'. The more I protested, the more my parents tried to enforce male stereotypes. My father would force me onto the floor and try to wrestle me into submission with twisted limbs to make me agree, ''say it, say it, you are a boy, and you'll grow up to me a man like me''. I never submitted to that agreement, and so I was beaten black and blue from the age of three - routinely. I was defiant - ''I am not a boy'' turned later to ''I will never be your son''. And now, I am not a man, I can never be a man, not physically, and not emotionally. It's this or death. Not hyperbole, literally that.

I recovered from the abuse of my parents, but some people in society can be so very cruel - vicious - the abuse of trans people in the UK is constant. It's to be seen on this platform, in not just one thread, but two.

It isn't like that in most of Europe. Though I can easily live in stealth, the incessant transphobic noise of the UK is impossible to avoid and long-term its effect is devastating. I don't believe the British people are inherently transphobic, there's just a lot of noise from a smallish band of transphobic gobshites. Their excuse is that there are women who have suffered abuse, and they believe that trans women are just like those who abused them. Not only is there not supporting evidence, there is evidence to the contrary.

VAWG cover the UK situation well in their documents. They set out who harms who. The facts are that women suffer terrible levels of physical and sexual abuse, but about 85% is in the home, visited upon them by men they know and can identify. The police don't have to go looking even, they are identifiable and findable. The system fails women and girls miserably time and again, just as it initially failed me as a child. I was eventually rescued at the age of nine, just not by the state. My treatment was paid for privately, so it was timely. Not all are so fortunate. I count my blessings.
 
Last edited:

CXRAndy

Legendary Member
is a condition of the mind, but is not the same as an illness.

You're just playing with words

Just like anorexia, it's a psychiatric condition/illness/disorder/disturance

No one in their right mind would want to take life changing irreversible drugs, let alone have healthy body parts cut off.

'Right mind' insert condition/ illness/ disturbance/disorder/condition/whatever
 

monkers

Shaman
You're just playing with words

Just like anorexia, it's a psychiatric condition/illness/disorder/disturance

No one in their right mind would want to take life changing irreversible drugs, let alone have healthy body parts cut off.

'Right mind' insert condition/ illness/ disturbance/disorder/condition/whatever

As if you of all people have the first idea what you are talking about. It's not only on this thread that you have a reputation for ignorance.

Fascism does not stem from a healthy mind.
 
Last edited:

CXRAndy

Legendary Member
Fascism does not stem from a healthy mind.
Screenshot_20250310_183256_DuckDuckGo.jpg

King of cheap jibe 😁
 
Last edited:
Your default answer being rolled out again.
I'll use your answers to answer, google is your friend and your own posts on here prove it.
Why don't you prove it? Otherwise you're just looking like a liar once again.

Now you explain how can a disabled person be given anything due to disability if they're not disabled?
Nobody has ever pretended to be disabled in order to gain accommodations they weren't entitled to? Spain had a whole basketball team in the paraolympics who weren't entitled to be there, for starters. Surely you should approve of this though? You think people can identify as something they aren't. Why can't they identify as disabled?
 
This was the story from only yesterday. The suicide of a trans child. You know - the ones you say never happen! The one's where you call grieving parents ''shroud wavers''.

https://inews.co.uk/news/sussex-pol...een-who-committed-suicide-court-hears-3827406

Nobody on here, including me, has called grieving parents 'shroud wavers'. As you were told before when you claimed it, it is the term Hillary Cass used in a Times interview.

Screenshot_20250728_142322_Chrome.jpg

She actually means people like you, who promote the notion that children who don't get medicalised will kill themselves. This narrative is promoting suicidal ideation in children. The UK's lead on suicide, Prof Louis Appleby, has asked that people stop this narrative, but you persist.

The child in the link died in 2022, had a long history of mental health issues, and received intermittent mental health care. Like many, many other children they were not given timely care. This is not a situation unique to children referred to gender clinics.

Screenshot_20250728_143639_Chrome.jpg


There are thousands of these children (and adults of course) awaiting referrals and consistent contact with CAMHS.


VAWG cover the UK situation well in their documents. They set out who harms who. The facts are that women suffer terrible levels of physical and sexual abuse, but about 85% is in the home, visited upon them by men they know and can identify.
This is whataboutery. There is more opportunity for men to be abusive to women at home. To suggest this means we shouldn't be concerned about men being given more opportunities outside the home - ie by admitting men to women's spaces - is a disingenuous attempt to deflect from the fact that the key factor in both situations is that the offenders are mostly male. That doesn't change with how they identify.

Hundreds of pages and still the same old nonsense arguments, with a bit of 'look what you made me do, you fascist/Nazi/bigot' sprinkled in.
 

classic33

Missen
Why don't you prove it? Otherwise you're just looking like a liar once again.
Why don't you disprove it, if you're so certain I'm a liar.
Could that be because the truth will out?
Nobody has ever pretended to be disabled in order to gain accommodations they weren't entitled to? Spain had a whole basketball team in the paraolympics who weren't entitled to be there, for starters. Surely you should approve of this though? You think people can identify as something they aren't. Why can't they identify as disabled?
That wasn't the question asked, now was it!
Is there a reason you can't answer the question, as it was asked?
 
Classic is under the misapprehension that the onus is on the person he's whining about to disprove his increasingly bonkers statements. He can't even support his own claims. It's very odd. It's been a while since he's had chance to moan about the Suffragettes or flag up a female serial killer so he has to find something to keep him busy, if it's only inventing things nobody has said.
 

classic33

Missen
Classic is under the misapprehension that the onus is on the person he's whining about to disprove his increasingly bonkers statements. He can't even support his own claims. It's very odd. It's been a while since he's had chance to moan about the Suffragettes or flag up a female serial killer so he has to find something to keep him busy, if it's only inventing things nobody has said.
You were asked questions, you chose to sidestep answering them by introducing something not asked about.

I place the onus on the person who raises the false claim to prove it's correct.
Nowt odd about that, unless you're unable to answer the questions asked and don't want to be seen as losing face.
 
Top Bottom