I know I’m late to the party but… this article that you claim is ending the phrase was ever used in fact is a collection of narratives by people who are sharing their experience with this phrase and why they no longer feel it is appropriate for them. It also says that if you are someone who still feels that the phrase applies then that’s great but they don’t think think it should he pushed anymore.
In other words, you have a very bizarre take on what your link says…
I don’t relate to AGP and I know of no women that do.
The thing that is most foreign is becoming aroused by the thought of experiencing female bIological functions. Periods are the last thing on earth women find sexy, but it is fetishized by some transwomen.
Oh, yeah. This is what spooked them. Recently the UK government published new advice for schools:
Most of these ‘external agencies or organisations’ have been supplying material that includes some or all of this stuff, including telling teachers to keep transition a secret from the child’s parents, and are now scrambling to update it.
I didn’t mean to imply Mermaids is saying they never said it. But they are definitely back pedaling from it at exactly the same time other trans activists are distancing themselves from the “born in the wrong body“ concept.
If I had to guess, I suspect the Keira Bell lawsuit against NHS/Tavistock (alluded to earlier) has got something to do with this.
I’ve never understood the mindset that you’re guilty of some horrible crime or clearly a hypocrite if you are willing to change.
We are not talking about mere change. A concerted effort to portray “born in the wrong body” as simply one big ole misunderstanding is what is noteworthy.
What are we supposed to be misunderstanding if access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery is what activists push for? If the body isn’t “wrong” then this implies all of this is elective. Cosmetic. Not medically necessary.
This is why this change is bizarre to me. “Born in the wrong body so let’s treat this condition” is more ethically sound and compatible with the movement’s aims than “your body isn’t wrong but let’s radically modify it anyway even if this means a loss of sexual function, fertility, and other unpleasant permanent side effects that detract from quality of life and maybe even cause a shortened life”.
Like I said, if that’s what you took away from the article, that’s quite bizzare.
Nobody sees globally. We like to think we do. But all our data is local and curated for us and by us. Your evidence does not trump mine, nor mine yours. I came into this thinking, “Trans people should just get what they want. Who are they hurting? It’s no skin off my nose.” But now I’m thinking, the answers are not easy or simple. There is harm being done not only where their interests intersect with women’s rights, but with respect to their own health and welfare, both physical and mental. Add to that the lack of scientific data about the best way to address gender identity issues, and whether gender re-assignment solves more problems than it creates, especially for those who are too young to be making these critically important decisions. From a social point of view, I think that my opinion on social policy matters less than those for whom this has the greatest impact. By that I mean women and trans people. I may have an opinion but whichever side I fall on, the decision has virtually zero impact on me and those like me. So I feel like my role is to simply evaluate the arguments and evidence and try to apply the least harm principle when it comes to taking a position. To me, right now, the least harm principle lines up with the compelling arguments made by @monstro, @DemonTree, @RickJay, and yes, @YWTF.
I’m sorry, but if I’m talking to people around the globe, or looking at surveys that show a global change in attitude, how the hell else do you expect me to phrase it?
The answers were never going to be “easy or simple”.
I subscribe to the least harm principle too. And I’m for what I see as the least harm. I haven’t found outright misgendering, accusing me of being an abuser, cherry-picking sources, belittling real trans suicides or borderline misandry-rooted arguments particularly “compelling” at all.
I’m saying you’re talking to a curated audience, regardless of geography. I’ve no doubt that you fairly represent their p.o.v. on this topic. But, as we have been discussing here ad nauseam, they are not the only group that deserves consideration and a voice. Not just that, they don’t all speak with one voice and there is every reason to think that on some issues, they may well be wrong.
This showed up on my Twitter feed
https://twitter.com/marsescapee/status/1314345788617691142
TLDW a person I’m gonna presume as male threatening to deploy “fight on sight” violence against TERFs. The subject of his rage is a 17 year old girl who got caught wearing jeans with rad fem patches on the knees.
If you get a faint sense of deja vu watching this, it might mean you lived through the 90’s and remember how the feminazi boogeyman made right-wing white men foam at the mouth too. History repeats itself. If violence erupts in association with the gender movement, it will be coming from nuts like this person. Not GC feminists.
Actually, no, I think it’s not curated - I’m not cruising reddit looking for weird links. These are people I encounter in every facet of my life, not ones I go looking for.
If you’re trying to say “limited”, well, yeah, duh - but apparently a lot less limited than the people you seem to think are making “compelling” arguments based off “some guy on the internet”
Something I’ve never said.
Like…?
I’m not ignoring your objections. I just don’t see a way of responding without rehashing what’s already been thrice hashed.
That’s fine, wasn’t looking to rehash anything, just telling you one reason (amongst many) as to why I’m not following your trajectory.
Does it matter? It seems that every cite provided thus far that you disagree with is being dismissed as cherry picking. It doesn’t seem like another mention will convince you otherwise
What?? Why do you think that calling people “hun” is a transsexual cultural idiosyncrasy?
No thanks.
And I still think that you accusing transwomen of “trying to cram their girl dicks down your throat” is hate speech. I don’t much care that you managed to mine the internet and found a trans person that refers to their penis as a “girl dick”.
My objection wasn’t so much with that term, but with the sexual assault imagery. It’s plays into your insinuations that trans people are out to sexually assault you.
The sexual assault imagery is coming from those threatening to rape and kill JKR.
Contrary to folks who believe these tweets should be ignored because they could’ve come from Russian bots or what have you, some of us are extremely disturbed by them. And yes they come from verified accounts; I just looked up one demanding “suck my dick and choke on it” and it’s from a fairly prolific tweeter with they/them pronouns in their bio.
And I still think that you accusing transwomen of “trying to cram their girl dicks down your throat” is hate speech.
If we were talking about man-identifying Incels bullying women who reject them, would you be sticking up for them?
I’m not talking about all transwomen. I’m talking about nasty, shitty, awful individuals (who may not even be transwomen in real life, for all I know) who are on the internet bullying lesbians for not wanting their girldicks (a term that they invented). I provided context so you could see who exactly I was talking about. But apparently that was all for naught. You’re still going to insist that I’m slurring all transwomen. Being hateful against hateful people is apparently hate speech now.
If this is what woke is, I want to stay in bed.
I wasn’t asking for a different cite, I was asking for your own comments on a paper I suggested you read and you said you had and disagreed with. If you think the paper was wrong, I want to know what in it you think the author got wrong - did you think he asked the wrong questions, or did you think he misinterpreted the results, or what, exactly, about it is wrong?