Forum Topic

"Why would anyone sane want to mess up their metabolism and their sex organs"I was waiting for a thread like this to start up.Una, with respect, your comment above is a bit troubling. From the context you provided thus far I don't think its what you meant to say. I believe one of the most critical issues these folks struggle with is the concept of sanity and feeling intact and whole. They are not insane but the way you worded that could lead one to assume you are saying otherwise. In my experience, the trans people I've known are some of the fiercest and braveest I've ever encountered. Sane doesn't begin to cover it.As to the council initiative or whatever it is it, too, strikes me as troubling. Having lived this struggle it seemed to me the goal was complete acceptance and inclusion. With that comes a reduced need for staying segregated. By limiting one's exposure to the world around us would only perpetuate a sense of exceptionalism, of being different in a bad way. To see the mix of people and knowing there is a place for you and everyone surely would have to be a healthier way to go. I never liked gay bars that much but knew they were a haven for some. But as the years passed it seemed the need for them subsided and dare I say rightly so. For youth-based support by all means do anything and everything necessary. But to do what it says on the tin and "come out of the closet" pretty much means there really is no need to go back in it which this program seems to endorse. It seems clueless to me.While we're on clueless, please can someone silence Bobby Osborne? His comments on this thread will lend nothing and prove him the homophobe once again.

David Lesniak ● 2067d

I'm sorry but I would dispute the words "fiercest" and "bravest". No, they are severely troubled by a narcissistic disorder in which they assert over and over again their own belief. They are not brave, they are compelled by the disorder to assert their belief. This repetition does not make their belief true. Objectively it is untrue because it is not possible to change sex. There are other compulsive disorders like anorexia nervosa, again involving a wish to change one's body - but we don't let anorexics die of starvation. We intervene to prevent them taking their mental disorder too far. My daughter has a friend who has suffered all her life from anorexia. Gender dysphoria seems to be similar and should be treated with watchful waiting until the person regains insight. GD is a psychotic condition which means that the person has lost the ability to have "insight", to understand their own feelings. There are fortunately few such severe mental disorders. I would point you to Dr Richard Corradi: https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/17/psychiatry-professor-transgenderism-mass-hysteria-similar-1980s-era-junk-science/  I do not have to accept someone else's false belief.S25 of the GRA states that gender dysphoria is a disorder, a mental disorder. The Act had to include this explanation because otherwise Trans people could not turn to the NHS for psychiatric, hormonal and surgical treatments.I am a transwidow. Please look at the website www.transwidows.com for a view informed by personal experience and many years of research.

Una-Jane Winfield ● 2067d

"S25 of the GRA states that gender dysphoria is a disorder, a mental disorder"And that right there is the problem, Una. This appears to be something you cling to. I don't for one minute want to undermine the challenges you faced nor denigrate how you have coped. But let me remind you homosexuality was for years the world over considered to be a mental disorder as well. Let me assure you the only thing that made me think for a split second that I was mentally unfit as a gay kid was what society put upon me. I was lucky in that respect. Pure luck that I learned early on I don't give a shit what people think of me. What I saw and didn't see and how I was portrayed to be publicly without consent or anyone knowing how or what I felt. Once I put aside the notion that I was somehow mentally ill, I figured a way to get out of a hole I was put in. A lot of what you say sounds to me you are keeping a group in a hole of your making. There are myriad sources to refute yours. You know this. Clearly you are an intelligent woman.As for my personal experience with trans people it goes quite along way back. Anyone remember Renee Richards? My father went to medical school with her. So when Renee's story emerged it was discussed openly in our house. And she was my ophthalmologist in NYC. My partner has actually helped someone through their transition in previous a chapter of his life. And even now doing what we do, over the years many trans people have come through our doors and to us deliberately for support. It is one of the greatest honors to know they feel safe enough here to do so. Dare I say gay people have more opportunity to cross paths with trans folks more frequently than straight people. I applaud your in-depth research, Una, but it does seem incomplete based upon your sole experience and then research only. My humble apologies for that presumption. I'm glad you have a support network and I hope it sheds many lights not just one on your effort to find resolution. But it does not seem based upon a collection of life stories as told by those who lived it. That's where the brave comes in. It's a recurring theme. And it jumps out at you after about the second story. Trans people don't simply flick a switch one day to the next. They undergo a rigorous course of counselling at each and every step if their path is transitioning. To stay on point a bit more, it is this integration of all walks of life where I think the most value lies. I'd like to think with all the equality battles that came before the path to a more open life for anyone has been paved. And that the need for a segregated safe space for one group is out-dated. Especially in an open democratic urban center. Again, if someone comes out, why go back in?

David Lesniak ● 2067d

Simon, I'm not sure what you're point is about "choice" as you appear to contradict yourself. Indeed the issues are different much the way they are different one person to the next.But as Richard says, the main point of this thread is about the LBH initiative. My problem with it and, to a degree with this discussion, is there are those from outside these groups telling those within the groups what it is they need and should do. To look at that panel discussion with one (just a mere one) LGBTQ member on it, at that of a certain age, seems to me to be out of sync with the intended goal not to mention out of sync with the general populace of 2021. Ask a 20-something if they feel the need for a gay bar and I somehow doubt they would find a need for it. From what I can tell of this age group, they are open, fluid, direct and embracing of each other. I've also listened to the parents of these kids to get to this point. But that's a minute snapshot of upper-middle class London. A generalization for sure but the pendulum has swung from my youth to today's and it couldn't be more different. But back to the panel - to me it is no different than a group of men discussing women's issues as if they are the experts. Kathleen Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities is a straight, married white woman. If she had meant what she said in this initiative she would have done her homework and reached out far and wide and that panel would have been made up of folks from all walks of this swath of life she aims to support. So we'd see lesbian, gays, trans, blacks, whites, asians, non-binary, purples, polka-dots and everything in between to suss out what, if anything , is needed. But she did not. We did not. And I am resolute in my belief the absolute best, healthiest option to support anyone and everyone is not to isolate them in separate venues, but to bring the entire community together as a whole under one proverbial roof. If we are to understand and empathize with each other the only possible way for that to happen is by learning from each other directly. That cannot happen behind closed doors.

David Lesniak ● 2066d

David you talk a lot of sense - last paragraph is spot on.  My first job was in the largest of London's commercial art and photographic studios back in the late 50ties.  It was a creative wonderful place - we had all sorts there from people specializing in lettering, others re jigging ads by column inches and widths, top notch artists (Kellogs cornflakes/Bisto gravy/Persil - aircraft, cars, you name it they painted it, also high fashion photographic studios and expert food photographers with kitchens used by Woman's Own, Good Housekeeping etc etc.  It was tremendous fun interspersed with hissy fits, afairs, hours spent in drinking dens of Soho - no-one cared a fig what sex, or colour you were - glorious.  Later moved onto the fashion world, again highly creative people and rather more hissy-fits - those were the days.  And to think it was illegal for some chaps - what rubbish.  Got my bum pinched many times too, even been chased round a desk but we knew how to look out for our own safety.  You could always ask a policeman on the beat for help!  Probably remembering through rose tinted specs but we did have fun - very little if any grave navel gazing in those days.Modern life seems to have become a much more dark and serious place but youngsters hopefully have not had the stuffing knocked out them and will prosper and enjoy themselves whatever their shade, hue, sexual orientation (who knew there were so many???).  Can't see the need for segregated bars myself, mix 'em up - that's life.

Jennifer Selig ● 2062d

I'm sorry. I somehow missed your comment below of 1st March. We are plainly not going to agree. I do not think that mental disorders should be treated with (1) cross-sex hormones and (2) surgery. Cross-sex hormones do much more than just alter secondary sex characteristics: sex hormones control and guide every aspect of a person's metabolism, a fact which should be taught in schools. The surgical removal of perfectly healthy organs creates many problems both immediately and later. We need the organs we were born with! This should not need to be stated. And until the passing of the "Gender" "Recognition" Act 2004 it was exceptionally rare to remove healthy organs - why would any doctor do this - "First of all do no harm"?  The cause of the disorder seems to be buried in self-loathing of the natal body because of its sexual characteristics. This leads to (reinforcing) severe mental trauma and finally dissociation into a second identity. In case of young girls the onset of puberty in a world saturated with on-line porn and "perfect body" advertising causes huge anxiety, particularly in adolescent girls who do not want to follow models of "femininity" and would normally become lesbians when mature. The doubts of boys depend on whether they will become homosexual or heterosexual transsexuals. Dr Ray Blanchard is the expert in this field (https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/). The problem is STILL that no one can actually change sex. And any attempt to create a fictional "legal sex" - called "gender" - creates thousands of problems as the physical and social spaces reserved to women are threatened or actually invaded by would-be "women". Please note that some men are not averse to exploiting every available opportunity for advancement, particularly as "gender reassignment" does not require any physical changes, or even taking drugs, merely a "declaration". What an opportunity! I am referring, of course, to single-sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, women's prisons, political "all-women" shortlists, literary prizes, positions on company boards or university tenure, etc. Stonewall has been peddling lies since 2015 about the Equality Act 2010, stating falsely that "gender" not "sex" is a protected characteristic, and that anyone with the Protected Characteristic of "gender reassignment" can just waltz into any (woman's) space they like. The organisations who pay Stonewall for this advice (and the accolade of "Stonewall Diversity Champions" - all 800 of them!) are misunderstanding Equality Law. See https://legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/ There is severe doubt about the legality of the advice supplied until recently by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (amazingly it is a Stonewall Diversity Champion!) on its website - to be challenged in court by the brave ex-Councillor in Cambridge, Ann Sinnott. And I have not mentioned women's sport yet, nor the Girl Guides, nor the astonishing "Hate Crime" legislation just enacted in Scotland which protects (male) cross-dressers but not women!  There are good reasons why feminist groups of all political colours and with different campaigning aims are springing up all over the place.Please see this 2020 report written by Dr Jane Clare Jones called "The Political Erasure of Sex": https://thepoliticalerasureofsex.org/. In the appendix you will find the history of the preposterous ideology of "gender identity". Yes, this unfounded and unfalsifiable belief started in the US, in the 1950s, soon after the discovery of the chemical structures of oestrogen and testosterone. Dr John Money (sic) and Mr Alfred Kinsey decided to prescribe a little female hormone to troubled men... and the rest is history.

Una-Jane Winfield ● 2054d

I'm sorry again. You are, like most people, falling into the trap of thinking that sexual orientation and "gender identity" have anything to do with each other. They are totally different! Sexual orientation is about whether you are attracted to the same or the opposite SEX. "Gender identity" is about a belief in something called "gender" which was invented in the 1950s and became cemented in "gender studies" and "queer theory" later on.Basics: The word "gender" has three meanings: (1) as a term of grammar in languages which have masculine and feminine nouns (2) WRONGLY: as a synonym for sex and (3) a feeling, something which might be a "soul", as evidenced by a person's behaviour, their display of sexual stereotypes. Sex is the reproductive category of human beings, which the Victorians used without embarassment! This definition is still the only scientific word to describe this category. We became embarassed in the 1960s when we started using "sex" for sexual intercourse. That is when people wrongly started using "gender" as a "gentle" replacement for sex. Yes, it is really important to use a word with its correct meaning. This confusion is itself at the root of so many wrong-headed battles! That is why we call ourselves "gender critical" feminists.And I contrast the precise definition of sex with the wishy washy use of "gender". At the beginning of the thread I wrote:"Stonewall's definition of "trans" includes cross-dressers: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms#t  Are cross-dressers really "trans"? Most are heterosexual men, aren't they?In fact the "definition" of "gender dysphoria" is something to do with "gender identity", which seems to be very vague concept, to do with sex stereotypes. In contrast sexual orientation is much easier to understand and define."Throughout all subsequent posts I have emphasized my sadness and compassion for those who are driven by a disorder - amplified by a mass hysteria (Corradi: https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/17/psychiatry-professor-transgenderism-mass-hysteria-similar-1980s-era-junk-science/.You are gay, and that is fine. Have you wondered why a new organisation called "LGB Alliance" was founded last year? This is their website: https://lgballiance.org.uk/  Right on the home page "Hello, let's talk about the difference between sex and gender". If you read about the new LGB Alliance hope that you will see that we are not so far apart.

Una-Jane Winfield ● 2053d

Here are my references on Narcissism: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/narcissism and https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/communication-success/201807/8-signs-narcissistic-rageFirst of all the observer must make a conscious effort not to be moved by any claim made by the narcissist - this is difficult because narcissists spend their lives trying to manipulate others. They do this in order to justify and make real ("validate") their belief which they know others will not believe. It is a passionately interesting game to them - and a very dangerous game to their victims. I witnessed this first hand. My exposure ended in 2006 - 15 years ago, so I have had time to read and analyse.There have been lots of famous narcissists in history, of course. They were mistakenly believed by the crowds and became leaders - obvious ones like Adolph Hitler and Donald Trump. We laughed at Donald Trump but he never betrayed any embarassment nor did he apologize for any of the obvious lies he told. These are very telling omissions. He just didn't register the "discontinuity" in his behaviour which we did. And I can make a good case that Boris Johnson is a narcissist (see his previous employer Max Hastings: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2215342/If-Boris-Johnson-Prime-Minister-Im-plane-Britain-says-Max-Hastings.html).  Of course understanding how a narcissist is manipulating others is hard work. Remaining detached emotionally is the province of psychiatrists and psychologists who are trained to do this. It is not doing a deluded patient any favours to go along with his delusion. Dr Paul McHugh was the last independently minded Chair of the Dept of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University Hospital which pioneered and then stopped sex surgery in 1979. Dr McHugh argued to retain that ban, but they restarted in 2017 as a result of WPATH, an organisation set up and run by GD sufferers - with no independent oversight. See Dr McHugh's argument: https://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120 and Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh

Una-Jane Winfield ● 2052d