The trans debate

[Max B Gold]

No it doesn’t.

1: My argument is with mainstream trans activism

2: male people are not female people, and the prevalence of mainstream trans activism has led me to conclude that using incorrect sex pronouns supports the belief that some male people are female people


We’ve done this already. It’s tiresome

1. Again you miss the point. The impact is far wider than on just mainstream trans activists. I've made this point many times only because you seem deaf to it.

2. It's not about you. But your lack of respect for a minority community is noted.

[CEB]

just going to say that I feel genuinely incredibly relieved by the publication of this report.
Finding myself to be immediately incredibly out on a limb with many people I know and liked when I did the well intentioned action (not knowing where it would lead) of making sure I understood what trans people were saying before fully adopting their opinions, then finding some very concerning stuff, was a pretty awful experience - people like MB Gold here sneeringly referring to me as “drifting to the right” or accusing me of being “aligned with the far right” was the least of it. Lost some friendships, some entire groups of people I had to not socialise with because I’d been immediately branded an unapologetic transphobe (this was waaaay before I was sure enough of my footing to be as strident as I am - this was at my “but I don’t understand - this doesn’t seem to make sense?” phase, where a follow up question was me exercising my cis privilege and making a community unsafe for trans people)

As Dunners demonstrates with his screengrab, the position I advocated for should not ever have been controversial on the left.
Even if I were wrong about all of this stuff, the questions I ask and the concerns I raised (as on this thread) would all be ones that the activism should have good answers for.

It didn’t.

Huge respect and gratitude, genuinely, to those on here who either engaged with me in good faith in disagreement, to those who eventually thought “maybe there’s something in what he says”, and to those who have privately messaged me on this subject despite staying out of it here.

It’s not about you.

He's lost a lot of friends along the way though in this battle to be right about an obscure minority.

As today’s publication shows, that “obscure minority” is “vulnerable children let down and potentially harmed by the system”

Proud to have been right on this. And even more so to have been right on this while consistently adhering to left wing principles of material reality and class analysis that many on the left totally abandoned on this subject.


But by all means have yourself a little chuckle at my stating that I lost friends on this issue.

[CEB]

No it doesn’t.

1: My argument is with mainstream trans activism

2: male people are not female people, and the prevalence of mainstream trans activism has led me to conclude that using incorrect sex pronouns supports the belief that some male people are female people


We’ve done this already. It’s tiresome

1. Again you miss the point. The impact is far wider than on just mainstream trans activists. I've made this point many times only because you seem deaf to it.

2. It's not about you. But your lack of respect for a minority community is noted.

Feel very, very free to point me in the direction of a trans person who disagrees with mainstream trans activism yet would have an issue with my opinions and decisions regarding use of pronouns.

Can’t wait for this

[CEB]

Guess they had a game to ref

[Hoover Attack]

This is still one of the most interesting, and revealing posts on this thread.

It shows how the instincts and reservations of a well meaning intelligent man can be hacked by ideologues given an assumption of authority.

As I said on the last page, I’d be interested in whether RTW would stand by this or whether he’d take a different approach, or view it from a different angle

I’d stand by this. This would be exactly my take if I found myself in this position.

(I’d then expect to explore the subject fully and no doubt arrive at the same conclusions you have).

Interesting.

I’ll outline my issues with it, curious to know what you think.
The first point where it seems to me that activist vocabulary and framing is present is

“Help them into being themselves”

It’s not a neutral statement, because it suggests that becoming “oneself” is a *process* with an end goal (and does this within a context where organisations who advocate for the idea of the “trans child” believe that “transition”, involving hormonal and surgical intervention, is crucial)

Would you agree that rather than affirming the idea that a child is on a journey towards becoming themself, a more neutral, and a less drastic, intervention is to reassure the child that finding out what sort of person they are is something every child does, and that the wisest thing to do at that stage is to maintain that children’s interests (in toys, games, who they’re friends with, how they have their hair etc) are not bound by stereotypes associated with their sex, and as such it’s a parents duty to weaken the link between their sex and the idea of gendered traits, not reinforce them?


The other issue is where RTW describes it as a “hard job” of convincing the child to wait.
That’s where trans activism has popularised the idea that what they call “trans children” know what’s best. If you read the cass report, or the summary, it’d probably become apparent that the parent needs to be the authority at that stage, and be confident saying “no” - that a belief that they are the opposite sex is not something that should be neutrally supported, but is likely a symptom of underlying issues that need exploring

Agree with all of that.

Again, as with the whole issue, I hadn't analysed it at that level of detail simply because it hasn't impacted me/mine (yes, that's lazy/selfish, I know).

[Hoover Attack]

just going to say that I feel genuinely incredibly relieved by the publication of this report.
Finding myself to be immediately incredibly out on a limb with many people I know and liked when I did the well intentioned action (not knowing where it would lead) of making sure I understood what trans people were saying before fully adopting their opinions, then finding some very concerning stuff, was a pretty awful experience - people like MB Gold here sneeringly referring to me as “drifting to the right” or accusing me of being “aligned with the far right” was the least of it. Lost some friendships, some entire groups of people I had to not socialise with because I’d been immediately branded an unapologetic transphobe (this was waaaay before I was sure enough of my footing to be as strident as I am - this was at my “but I don’t understand - this doesn’t seem to make sense?” phase, where a follow up question was me exercising my cis privilege and making a community unsafe for trans people)

As Dunners demonstrates with his screengrab, the position I advocated for should not ever have been controversial on the left.
Even if I were wrong about all of this stuff, the questions I ask and the concerns I raised (as on this thread) would all be ones that the activism should have good answers for.

It didn’t.

Huge respect and gratitude, genuinely, to those on here who either engaged with me in good faith in disagreement, to those who eventually thought “maybe there’s something in what he says”, and to those who have privately messaged me on this subject despite staying out of it here.

It’s not about you.

He's lost a lot of friends along the way though in this battle to be right about an obscure minority.

What friends?

[Long slender neck]

If the treatment isnt good for children, then is it good for anyone?

[CEB]

If the treatment isnt good for children, then is it good for anyone?

Evidence suggests no

[CEB]

I’d stand by this. This would be exactly my take if I found myself in this position.

(I’d then expect to explore the subject fully and no doubt arrive at the same conclusions you have).

Interesting.

I’ll outline my issues with it, curious to know what you think.
The first point where it seems to me that activist vocabulary and framing is present is

“Help them into being themselves”

It’s not a neutral statement, because it suggests that becoming “oneself” is a *process* with an end goal (and does this within a context where organisations who advocate for the idea of the “trans child” believe that “transition”, involving hormonal and surgical intervention, is crucial)

Would you agree that rather than affirming the idea that a child is on a journey towards becoming themself, a more neutral, and a less drastic, intervention is to reassure the child that finding out what sort of person they are is something every child does, and that the wisest thing to do at that stage is to maintain that children’s interests (in toys, games, who they’re friends with, how they have their hair etc) are not bound by stereotypes associated with their sex, and as such it’s a parents duty to weaken the link between their sex and the idea of gendered traits, not reinforce them?


The other issue is where RTW describes it as a “hard job” of convincing the child to wait.
That’s where trans activism has popularised the idea that what they call “trans children” know what’s best. If you read the cass report, or the summary, it’d probably become apparent that the parent needs to be the authority at that stage, and be confident saying “no” - that a belief that they are the opposite sex is not something that should be neutrally supported, but is likely a symptom of underlying issues that need exploring

Agree with all of that.

Again, as with the whole issue, I hadn't analysed it at that level of detail simply because it hasn't impacted me/mine (yes, that's lazy/selfish, I know).

You are aware of the proposed “ban on conversion therapy”?
If it were to come in in the form proposed by mainstream trans organisations - the ones who deliver training for schools - the approach I describe would be a criminal offence.

In Canada children have been removed from their parents for taking the approach I describe

[CEB]

[Max B Gold]

"Approved by the BBC as a piece of impartial reporting"

[CEB]

Convincing

[Rich Tea Wellin]

This is still one of the most interesting, and revealing posts on this thread.

It shows how the instincts and reservations of a well meaning intelligent man can be hacked by ideologues given an assumption of authority.

As I said on the last page, I’d be interested in whether RTW would stand by this or whether he’d take a different approach, or view it from a different angle

I’d stand by this. This would be exactly my take if I found myself in this position.

(I’d then expect to explore the subject fully and no doubt arrive at the same conclusions you have).

Interesting.

I’ll outline my issues with it, curious to know what you think.
The first point where it seems to me that activist vocabulary and framing is present is

“Help them into being themselves”

It’s not a neutral statement, because it suggests that becoming “oneself” is a *process* with an end goal (and does this within a context where organisations who advocate for the idea of the “trans child” believe that “transition”, involving hormonal and surgical intervention, is crucial)

Would you agree that rather than affirming the idea that a child is on a journey towards becoming themself, a more neutral, and a less drastic, intervention is to reassure the child that finding out what sort of person they are is something every child does, and that the wisest thing to do at that stage is to maintain that children’s interests (in toys, games, who they’re friends with, how they have their hair etc) are not bound by stereotypes associated with their sex, and as such it’s a parents duty to weaken the link between their sex and the idea of gendered traits, not reinforce them?


The other issue is where RTW describes it as a “hard job” of convincing the child to wait.
That’s where trans activism has popularised the idea that what they call “trans children” know what’s best. If you read the cass report, or the summary, it’d probably become apparent that the parent needs to be the authority at that stage, and be confident saying “no” - that a belief that they are the opposite sex is not something that should be neutrally supported, but is likely a symptom of underlying issues that need exploring

Interestingly, I was actually a few weeks away from being a parent for the first time when I wrote that and now I am a parent.

Revealing is an...interesting word. I still would, more or less back what I said in that post. My opinion is that you've read too much into 'being themselves'. but perhaps that's my fault for not expanding on it. I'd agree with everything you say about finding out the sort of person they are is something that every child does - but i didnt say it wasn't? Becoming oneself, finding oneself. Potatoes/PoTARTOES.

I don't really know how to say this without coming across as patronising (I know it doesn't bother you) but there's very much an on paper, yes parents should take authority and say "no", which is ultimately what I would do if this happened, but i wouldn't lead with that. The reality is that trying to convince a kid who, at that age, is sure they know best, that they should wait until they are older is as easy as saying no BUT the impact of that is nuanced and complex. You risk losing their trust, losing a relationship that will benefit both of you down the line, losing them completely. It depends on the kid as well. As a parent, it's your job to step in and stop them from doing something that might have catastrophic impacts but those impacts might come true whatever you do.

It's a bit like saying bloody hell Orient, all we need the manager to do is say 'score some more goals' and we'd be flying, when you don't know how football teams work. In my opinion, there's a way to get to the best outcome without it being so black and white.But if you can't get there, I would have to just say 'nah mate'.

[CEB]

Thanks for the reply - for clarity, I’m reading into “be themselves” not because an assumption of what *you* meant by it (I have no doubt that you meant it in a wholly positive way) but because in the context of the idea of “trans children”, the idea of “support children to be who they really are” actually means “affirm a child’s trans identity if they assert one”

In that context, the type of intervention I’m advocating for is akin to reassuring a child that no, the religious person who told your child that unless they believe in god, they’re going to hell, is not to be taken seriously; as I mention in a recent post, failure to affirm a child’s trans identity (with all that that entails) would make you a criminal if trans activism’s “conversion therapy ban” was to come into effect in the form trans organisations advocate for.


You’re not coming over as patronising - I absolutely agree that leading with a simple “No!” is not the way to help a child resolve distress.

I would dispute though, the idea that saying “no” or failing to affirm a child’s stated identity carries an undue level of risk; children need consistency and stability, and maintaining a consistent approach, based in reason and reality, while assuring a child that their experiences and opinions don’t actually mean that you don’t respect/value them, is perfectly achievable.


I suspect that at this point in time we both agree that we’d keep our kids well away from Mermaids, right?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Thanks for the reply - for clarity, I’m reading into “be themselves” not because an assumption of what *you* meant by it (I have no doubt that you meant it in a wholly positive way) but because in the context of the idea of “trans children”, the idea of “support children to be who they really are” actually means “affirm a child’s trans identity if they assert one”

In that context, the type of intervention I’m advocating for is akin to reassuring a child that no, the religious person who told your child that unless they believe in god, they’re going to hell, is not to be taken seriously; as I mention in a recent post, failure to affirm a child’s trans identity (with all that that entails) would make you a criminal if trans activism’s “conversion therapy ban” was to come into effect in the form trans organisations advocate for.


You’re not coming over as patronising - I absolutely agree that leading with a simple “No!” is not the way to help a child resolve distress.

I would dispute though, the idea that saying “no” or failing to affirm a child’s stated identity carries an undue level of risk; children need consistency and stability, and maintaining a consistent approach, based in reason and reality, while assuring a child that their experiences and opinions don’t actually mean that you don’t respect/value them, is perfectly achievable.


I suspect that at this point in time we both agree that we’d keep our kids well away from Mermaids, right?

Think we are aligned on everything here. Aside from...

"children need consistency and stability, and maintaining a consistent approach, based in reason and reality, while assuring a child that their experiences and opinions don’t actually mean that you don’t respect/value them, is perfectly achievable."

This is true. But on paper it's easy. When dealing with an actual, annoying Dimwit noitall teenager they dont know what they need and how they perceive what you are giving them is the risk, not what you are actually giving them.

[CEB]

A different approach is 100% needed depending on age of the child - absolutely agree.

(that’s also why this report is so important: at the stage where parents are starting to have conflict with children at the best of times, parents need their unhappy teens to be getting proper, evidence based support. Under the affirmation only model, a teen with gender issues would be at risk of being put on a pathway to medicalisation of perfectly normal exploration of identity)

[CEB]

Stonewall backpedal furiously and the trans rights activists lose their sh*t

[Proposition Joe]

Stonewall's response seemed...pretty measured and reasonable. But I can also understand why people feel a bit betrayed when they still have tweets like this displayed on their timeline:

[CEB]

The response itself is measured, but trans activists are weirdly correct to be angry, because they’re realising that Stonewall is concerned primarily with its own ongoing existence, not with any particular principles. Its decision to go all in on trans rights in 2015 is minuted, and was a direct result of it not really having a great deal left to campaign for in terms of gay rights - its adoption of trans activism was all about identifying a potential source of funding, and a justification for its own worth as a going concern.

(It’s also the case that Stonewall, led the way in shutting down debate and in utterly rejecting the suggestion from TERFs that the stuff mentioned in the Cass report was A: happening and B: relevant)

The trans organisations will probably now split into groups that either
A: recognise they’re well placed to be considered useful in whatever the new shape of trans services looks like (stonewall very likely will do this)

B: are run by true believers who double down on the extreme (mermaids, gendered intelligence, genderGP)

In a way, I have more respect for the true believers. They are, I believe, generally well intentioned but entirely wrong (and have serious safeguarding issues as a direct result of how wrong they are, due to failing to recognise that male people are not female people, and male people are a statistically far higher risk than female people ). Stonewall had the reputation and the history where they should have been leading the way in evidence based, reality based advocacy of people experiencing gender dysphoria, instead they’re cynical and reactionary

[Long slender neck]

BBC have this on their website today https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0hpz9cd

More from same person

[Proposition Joe]

Saying there's no need for psychological assessments because there's a waiting list is highlighting a genuine problem which needs rectifying, but not the one they think.

[CEB]

For a long time, trans activists have been citing the length of waiting lists as evidence that people aren’t rushed into puberty blockers/hormonal treatment

[Max B Gold]

Saying there's no need for psychological assessments because there's a waiting list is highlighting a genuine problem which needs rectifying, but not the one they think.

Having now caught up with the findings of the Cass report I'm wondering if it doesn't all just boil down to a total failure by the NHS, fuelled by intolerant screeching ideologues on both sides.

[CEB]

You’ve spent six months calling me a bigot before even understanding the debate you absolute cretin

[Long slender neck]

Why are the BBC having people on spouting nonsense about 'knew they were a woman because they liked pink'?