Transgender

1363739414246

Comments

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I think I am finding Kwesi's language a bit broad and vague and would appreciate clarification, because I personally find it easier to understand specifics. I can perhaps see why lilbuddha is interpreting as she does. Kwesi, when you say you are a defender of scepticism, what sort of context do you mean? Because, in theory, that could include someone introducing themselves in a social setting as a woman (not that people say 'Hi, I'm a woman,' but as in a person introducing themselves with a name that is traditionally a female name and correcting people who refer to them as 'he'), and people saying 'What? You're not a woman, surely. I'm sceptical about that, because you have broad shoulders and a deep voice.' Would you be defending that sort of scepticism, or do you have in mind a different sort of context?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    As for homosexuality, I didn’t respond to it because I didn’t fully understand what you were saying. The way the line breaks fell on my device rather masked your use of irony connecting the ‘Oh wait…’ with the next sentence rather than the previous one.

    I agree that we don’t have full acceptance of homosexuality, but in my lifetime it has changed from being mental disorder or illness manifesting in criminal acts to a state of being which has legal acceptance and even, in the form of (UK) civil partnerships and equal marriage, legal sanction. Much of this has been driven not by gay people having to prove they are gay, but by a wide acceptance that being gay is a genuine normal state (not a lifestyle choice). The acceptance has been founded on better scientific understanding, and this has led to less “unkindness of others” though, I agree, not full acceptance.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    2. The existence of transgenderism/transsexualism is something that can be objectively demonstrated.
    Go on, then; objectively demonstrate that you are cis.
    BroJames wrote: »
    4. The fact that the existence of transgenderism/transsexualism can be objectively demonstrated ought to reduce the “unkindness of others”.
    Doesn't work that way with homosexuality, why would it with gender?

  • edited July 2019
    .
    It's notorious in therapy, if you ask "what do you feel about X", people often tell you what they think.
    An artefact of the current popular cognitive behavioural therapy model. Information processing metaphor. Convenient to use but not "true" in any objective sense. Thoughts and feelings are the same thing is equally true.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    fineline: Kwesi, when you say you are a defender of scepticism, what sort of context do you mean?

    Any context in which propositions are claimed to be true.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    2. The existence of transgenderism/transsexualism is something that can be objectively demonstrated.
    Go on, then; objectively demonstrate that you are cis.
    BroJames wrote: »
    4. The fact that the existence of transgenderism/transsexualism can be objectively demonstrated ought to reduce the “unkindness of others”.
    Doesn't work that way with homosexuality, why would it with gender?
    You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I’m not arguing that individual persons can objectively demonstrate that they are cisgendered or transgendered.

    I am saying that it can be objectively demonstrated that the states of being transgendered and being cisgendered are real things.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Kwesi wrote: »
    fineline: Kwesi, when you say you are a defender of scepticism, what sort of context do you mean?

    Any context in which propositions are claimed to be true.
    So you'd be okay with the example I gave?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    fineline: So you'd be okay with the example I gave?

    I think so. Can I take this opportunity to say I find your contributions to this discussion thoughtful and sensible? Thanks
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Kwesi, may I ask, have you ever experienced people scoffing and challenging your gender claim, Kwesi, when you introduce yourself to a new group? And if not, can you imagine how would you respond if they did? And if this was a regular thing?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I could best answer your questions, fineline, if you could indicate the purpose of them.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Barnabas62, I think you will find that the coiner of "cogito ergo sum" was Descartes. The question then arises as to whether one ceases to be when one ceases to think. Does an individual with severe dementia cease to be?

    You have misunderstood the "ergo" part of the cogito. He's not saying that thinking causes his existence, but that thinking proves his existence. Consider the following:

    Bob's coat is on the peg, therefore he's home.

    Bob's coat being on the peg doesn't MAKE him be home in some sort of weird magical way. Rather the existence of the coat on the peg is taken to be evidence of Bob's being home. The "therefore" is that of evidence, not causation. So with the "ergo" in the cogito.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Host Hat On

    We're having a think backstage about appropriate follow up re BroJames' Host Post. In the meantime, I'd be very grateful if you would stop talking about the meaning of Kwesi's posts, (including further probing), since that point was mentioned specifically in BroJames' Host Post.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
    Host Hat Off
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Kwesi wrote: »
    I could best answer your questions, fineline, if you could indicate the purpose of them.

    Well, I noticed before that lilbuddha had told you that you'd never had your gender challenged. But that was an assumption. You may have. So I am asking.

    You don't have to answer me, of course. It is a personal question. But by applying a situation to oneself, it can help a person think about the extent to which they would apply their views. It is very easy to say that other people, whom one sees as different from oneself, should be treated in a certain way, and undergo various challenges and restrictions. But when thinking about how one would feel oneself if treated the same way, it can help a person see more personally what this would be like, how helpful or harmful it would be. So my questions were more to get you to think about it, if you want to, personally. No need to tell me though, unless you want to - it's not my business.

    I had actually thought your defence of scepticism in a social situation might be limited to internal scepticism. That you might be simply defending the idea that a person is free to think to themselves 'Is that person really a woman?' Which I would agree with - a person's thoughts can't be controlled by others, and people are free to wonder about all sorts of things, and it can be damaging to censor one's own thoughts. Questioning them is good, but censoring and having inner taboos generally isn't helpful. But to defend a person's saying out loud to someone, in social situations, when they tell you they are a woman, 'No, I don't think you're a woman - you look like a man to me' is very different. That sort of thing can be damaging and is very intrusive and inappropriate in my view. I am surprised you think that, and so I was questioning whether you'd feel comfortable with the same being done to you. Especially if it were done frequently.

    Hope that clarifies my intentions. Again, not expecting an answer, unless you want to.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Sorry, cross-posted with Barnabas.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    OK, fineline, I've never been in the situation you describe, and find it difficult to conceive of a social context in which I would wish to engage in such an unnecessarily embarrassing and hurtful conversation. What I'm asserting, however, is that none of us has a duty to accept what another says about something or claims to be without the right to challenge that claim as being false or questionable, often involving reference to generally accepted definitions and criteria.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Thanks for replying, Kwesi. I appreciate your honesty. I’m not sure I see it as a duty to accept what people say, but more a kind of moral/human responsibility to treat people with humanity and dignity. And it could certainly be seen as harassment in a workplace if people were challenging someone’s gender, and refusing to use the pronoun the person uses.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    OK, fineline, I've never been in the situation you describe, and find it difficult to conceive of a social context in which I would wish to engage in such an unnecessarily embarrassing and hurtful conversation. What I'm asserting, however, is that none of us has a duty to accept what another says about something or claims to be without the right to challenge that claim as being false or questionable, often involving reference to generally accepted definitions and criteria.
    "That would be hurtful, but I still get to do it?"
    This is what white people do to POC/BAME.
    This is what straight people do to LGBT+
    This is what men do to women.
    Those with power de-legitimise others under the name of questioning validity.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    OK, fineline, I've never been in the situation you describe, and find it difficult to conceive of a social context in which I would wish to engage in such an unnecessarily embarrassing and hurtful conversation. What I'm asserting, however, is that none of us has a duty to accept what another says about something or claims to be without the right to challenge that claim as being false or questionable, often involving reference to generally accepted definitions and criteria.

    You appear to be saying it is our responsibility to call people liars.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    OK

    I thought my polite request would be observed but since it has not been, here is a direct order.

    Host Hat On

    Stop questioning Kwesi. And Kwesi, stop responding to questions.

    And to make it crystal clear, this ruling is temporary and it is not intended to give Kwesi special protection. The issue is follow up by Shipmates re BroJames Host post about misunderstanding Kwesi. Should that take place in the Styx, which would be normal? And in the meantime, what does this mean for dialogue with Kwesi on this thread?

    Please respect the Ship's crew and give us some time while we sort out this unusual situation.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host

    Host Hat Off


  • That doesn't stop you talking about other stuff ...

    Tubbs
    Admin
  • Or continuing your regularly scheduled discussion

    Tubbs Admin
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    In my experience one of the stressful things about having a not completely standard gender is the gaslighty aspect of it. 'They say that people who are X all Y. I don't always Y. Maybe I'm not queer enough. Am I queer enough? Should I stop saying I am who I am?" and so forth. I remember a trans woman of my acquaintance mentioning that when in certain states of mind she would worry if she wanted to wear a t-shirt and jeans that maybe she wasn't being feminine enough and would doubt herself.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    edited August 2019
    {H/As: I'm trying to figure out where things go. If this isn't appropriate here, please feel free to delete it--and maybe guide me towards a more proper board. Thx.}

    Came across an interesting article:

    "My daughter thinks she's transgender. Her public school undermined my efforts to help her." (Yahoo)

    It's an opinion piece by a father who's trying to sort this all out. ISTM he wants whatever is best for his girl (though doesn't think she's trans), and feels that a whole bunch of bureaucrats made the situation more confusing. BTW, the girl has ASD.

    I don't have any agenda in posting this; and I don't know what the truth is. But it fits with our discussion of whether *all* kids who come out as trans *actually* are.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited August 2019
    Autistic people are statistically more likely to be trans. They can go together.

    I am struck by all the drama and trauma in his article. Drama and trauma for poor dear dad that is. I didn't notice a bit of caring about how his son felt. I mean literally I don't think he once said a damn thing about anyone's emotions besides his own. What a lovely parent.

    He would be much more reliable as a witness if he could keep the heart-string throbbing to a minimum. He is sure his son is not male because his son liked things he defines as girly. His son heard about being trans from someone who was and realized that he was also. Then Dad, who is still misgendering his kid throughout the article, and somehow thinks that is going to make his kid trust him and listen to him, wonders why his son told school and not him. Well, I wonder! If his son is wrong, calling the kid by the name he chose won't hurt a damn thing. Honestly, fighting his son this way is much more likely to make him set in his ways. That said, I doubt the school told the kid about halfway houses just to be an ass. I suspect they told the kid about them because they were worried for his safety and wanted to make sure he had an out if he needed it. Would love to hear the son's point of view and I hope he has moved out!
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I personally, (speaking as a poster and not a host), wouldn't touch that op-ed with a bargepole, Golden Key. It's not an ordinary parent but a long-time activist leading a group advocating something that doctors consider to be deeply dodgy - note the ROGD connection. I also note the 18 year old in question doesn't get a right of reply - and then there's also the Obama bashing and Trump lauding thrown in... which makes me smell a rat. Donald Trump isn't well known for his enlightened views on LGBT people.

    I think the question I would ask is 'Would I consider posting this if it was an anti-gay, pro-Trump parent who was a major activist in some 'Being gay is just a lifestyle choice' group, claiming someone at school converted their kid to be gay, and the gay 18 year old didn't get a right of reply?' Would I think that would be a good discussion?

    I personally would advocate for us remembering what the boards used to be like when there were anti-gay posters who linked to activist groups like NARTH and to ex-gay testimonies and who expected us to take those stories at face value.

    I would not readily take this man at his word.

    Hope that helps.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Host Hat On

    The Epiphany guidelines allow us to rule sources off limits (para 3). I think Louise's criticism of the link you provided is well founded, Golden Key.

    For the time being I'm going to leave the link there, but my ruling is that it is pretty useless for serious discussion, given its clear and obvious bias.

    To make it clear, this ruling does not rule out serious discussions re the overlapping responsibilities of parents, schools and medical support services towards children identifying as trans.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host

    Host Hat Off
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Agree with both Gwai and Louise - the only feelings that seem to count are the writer's, and the connection to RODG parents group makes this article deeply problematic. If you have the stomach to look up "Parents of RODG kids" and read entries under "stories," you'll find others that similarly don't discuss the kids' feelings, which I find deeply suspect. By the time I got to this sentence -- "The National Education Association has partnered with the Human Rights Campaign and other groups to produce materials advocating automatic affirmation of identities, name changes and pronouns, regardless of parents’ concerns." -- I was long since done with this guy, but it was the icing on the cake for me.

    I looked up the NEA and HRC together and found that the HRC sponsors, in partnership with the NEA and the American Counseling Association, an annual conference called ""Time to Thrive," which it bills as "The premier, national convening to build the awareness and cultural competency, learn current and emerging best practices, and gather resources from leading experts and national organizations in the field." If the biggest LGBTQ advocacy group in the US gets the teachers and the counselors together for an annual conference, and gets AT&T to put up the money for it, I'm on board.

    Read the HRC's 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report; it addresses what parents can/should do, but it's focuses on what's best for these kids and is chock-full of quotations from kids themselves.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Thx for your input, everyone. Apologies for any hurt caused.

    FYI and FWIW: I happened to come across the article when I was skimming Yahoo's front page. It seemed to me that the father (if he was accurately reporting) was caught up in a storm, and he felt that every time he tried to connect with his child and figure things out, someone got in the way. And he was angry. *If* he reported accurately, he had good reason. I did say I didn't know what was true, and that I didn't know if this was the right place for the post.

    I absolutely believe that trans people exist, and are just as valuable as anyone else. Kids included. And AIUI the long-time standard protocol for treating a trans person--particularly with gender confirmation surgery--is for them to live as the gender for at least a year. That gives them time to sort through things, and decide if they're really sure.

    There's been some discussion here (and on the Vintage Ship) of a few cases where, after some time, a person decided they weren't trans after all; or one case where someone was pushed into the trans category, had the surgery w/o the waiting time, finally figured out they were gay, not trans, and were left with a wrecked life.

    I posted the link as a part of that ongoing discussion. I did notice the mention of the father's memberships, in passing, but didn't follow them up. I think I figured that, if what he said was true (and even if not and he just believed it was), it made sense for him to join up with others who felt the same way.

    I've heard many accounts, including here on the Ship, of schools mishandling all sorts of things, so that made his story more plausible.

    I had already heard about ASD and LGBT links, and thought that was an interesting facet of the article.

    I could go on. But tl;dr:

    I was presenting this purely as possibly interesting for an ongoing facet of the conversation. I did mention that I don't know what's true about the article. I did read the Epiphanies guidelines, and I did mention that I wasn't sure if the post belonged here, and that it could be deleted.

    I'm sorry for any difficulty I inadvertently caused.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    {H/As: I'm trying to figure out where things go. If this isn't appropriate here, please feel free to delete it--and maybe guide me towards a more proper board. Thx.}

    Came across an interesting article:

    "My daughter thinks she's transgender. Her public school undermined my efforts to help her." (Yahoo)

    It's an opinion piece by a father who's trying to sort this all out. ISTM he wants whatever is best for his girl
    I don't think he does. I think he thinks he does, but in reality, he wants his son to conform to what the father thinks is "natural".
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Golden Key

    We're not intending to inhibit the use of sources but we do have a new duty to keep an eye on their quality and appropriateness for this special range of discussions. It's early days for the new Forum and for the closer Hosting standards and we'll see how we settle down.

    Barnabas62
    Epiphanies Host
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I don't think he does. I think he thinks he does, but in reality, he wants his son to conform to what the father thinks is "natural".

    Agreed. The father's entire premise for helping 'her/him' is that he knows best what's right for the child.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Not defending whatever errors he may have made; but isn't that ("I know what's best for my child") what most parents think/feel? American parents, at least.

    There's a cultural divide there that surfaced when we discussed Charlie, that very sick little boy in the UK whose parents wanted to bring him to the US for treatment, several years ago. Doctors in the UK basically said nothing more could be done, and the parents should prepare to let him go. IIRC, the hospital worked on some sort of restraining order to keep the parents from taking him away for treatment, on the grounds that he would just suffer more.

    {Broad brush.} UK Shipmates generally thought that was sad, but ok; and the hospital was acting in the best interests of the child and his rights, which absolutely trumped the rights of the parents to do what they saw fit.

    American Shipmates tried to explain that was just the opposite of the main American view--that parents have the right to make decisions about/for their child (unless they're abusive or otherwise unfit); and anyone who tries to interfere with that are wayyyy over the line, and darn well better not go any farther. Especially the gov't (at any level), school districts, teachers, etc. There are periodically news stories about gov't overriding parents' decisions to forego standard medical treatment. (Mostly due to the parents' religious beliefs.) But I don't think I've ever heard of parents in trouble for trying to get medical care for their kids.

    IIRC, I and some American Shipmates were gob-smacked by the cultural differences, as were many UK and other non-American Shipmates.

    Trusting the gov't is unAmerican, which is why all the checks and balances. So I've got a whiff of that breezing through my mind. (Further: In a Ship discussion about getting rid of guns, someone suggested the gov't should go door-to-door to collect them. As I said then, that would be a huge, tragic mistake, wouldn't work, and would turn even non-gun folks against the gov't.)

    I have no idea whether the father is wholly inaccurate, wholly accurate, a mix, deluded, mistaken, clueless, or what. I don't think that disagreeing with authorities **necessarily** means he's a horrible person.

    I wish the child and the family well; and hope that whatever the truth is, everyone involved will both see it and accept it. And treat the kid fairly and with love, no matter what.

    FWIW.
  • Not horrible people do horrible things.
  • Is this a not horrible or horrible person writing something horrible or not horrible?
    https://4thwavenow.com/ article dated 06 Aug 2019, "Waiting", starts with "say you're a mom". No sure what reputation the website / group has. The article seemed to express some meaningful things.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    Golden Key, what does "dl;tr:" mean please?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    tl;dr stands for "too long; didn't read. Usually it precedes a summary for those who find the other content too long.

    I would say that as parents we all want to believe we know what is best for our child. But if we don't listen to the child as we try to decide what is best, we will inevitably fail. If Bob, with no knowledge of my child tells me that he knows best and I am wrong, I will feel very confident opposing him. But if my child tells I am wrong, I'd damn well better listen. In my experience, even very young children understand things we don't about themselves, although they often cannot express it well. "I don't like anything you cook!" might mean "Please let me have more say in my life." But for a teenager? I think one had better seriously consider that they do mean what they say. I haven't had a teen yet, but I am sure they still say things that should be understood indirectly. That said, the older they get, the more patronizing it is to be sure that Father/Mother knows best. Besides, tactically, if one wants to be allowed to advise a young adult, showing that one can listen to said young adult is essential.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited August 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Not defending whatever errors he may have made; but isn't that ("I know what's best for my child") what most parents think/feel? American parents, at least.

    There's a cultural divide there that surfaced when we discussed Charlie, that very sick little boy in the UK whose parents wanted to bring him to the US for treatment, several years ago. Doctors in the UK basically said nothing more could be done, and the parents should prepare to let him go. IIRC, the hospital worked on some sort of restraining order to keep the parents from taking him away for treatment, on the grounds that he would just suffer more.

    {Broad brush.} UK Shipmates generally thought that was sad, but ok; and the hospital was acting in the best interests of the child and his rights, which absolutely trumped the rights of the parents to do what they saw fit.

    American Shipmates tried to explain that was just the opposite of the main American view--that parents have the right to make decisions about/for their child (unless they're abusive or otherwise unfit); and anyone who tries to interfere with that are wayyyy over the line, and darn well better not go any farther. Especially the gov't (at any level), school districts, teachers, etc. There are periodically news stories about gov't overriding parents' decisions to forego standard medical treatment. (Mostly due to the parents' religious beliefs.) But I don't think I've ever heard of parents in trouble for trying to get medical care for their kids.

    IIRC, I and some American Shipmates were gob-smacked by the cultural differences, as were many UK and other non-American Shipmates.

    Trusting the gov't is unAmerican, which is why all the checks and balances. So I've got a whiff of that breezing through my mind. (Further: In a Ship discussion about getting rid of guns, someone suggested the gov't should go door-to-door to collect them. As I said then, that would be a huge, tragic mistake, wouldn't work, and would turn even non-gun folks against the gov't.)

    I have no idea whether the father is wholly inaccurate, wholly accurate, a mix, deluded, mistaken, clueless, or what. I don't think that disagreeing with authorities **necessarily** means he's a horrible person.

    I wish the child and the family well; and hope that whatever the truth is, everyone involved will both see it and accept it. And treat the kid fairly and with love, no matter what.

    FWIW.

    There was a heck of a load of mis-reporting with the Charlie case. The sad thing was that the condition Charlie had was untreatable and none of the people who were offering to treat him abroad had anything that would make a difference. The doctor offering to treat him in the US didn’t, according to media reports here, have any experience of treating patients with the same condition. But he had a great idea ...!

    In the U.K. if doctors and parents can’t agree on what medical treatment is in the best interests of the child, it goes to court. (This is super unusual and a sign that the relationship between the two has broken down).

    The judiciary, who are independent of the government, will take a view after looking at the medical advice from both sides. The view they took was the treatment being proposed would cause Charlie more, not less, suffering but make no difference to the outcome. They were totally scathing about some of the legal advice the parents had received as well as the medical advice. So they ruled against the parents in the best interests of Charlie.

    The sad thing about the whole case is more that vulnerable parents with a very ill child were prayed on by vultures with a point to prove.

    The links between the two, are, if you must ... that parents aren’t always the best people to make decisions about their children.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Indeed, it's not the unfit or abusive parent that is the problem in such cases, as the parents who love their child so desperately that they will pursue any course however delusory.

    What I personally find most troubling is the investment in the child as the realisation of what the parent wants. Maybe it's what they aspired to but didn't achieve: or it may be what they consider the highest good (wealth, security, social standing). (Fortunate those of us who heard, however eventually, ' As long as it makes you happy')

    Worst is the parent who detects in the child some characteristic they dislike or fear. I feel for Dickens' sons, all, bar one, Disappointments. How much more affronting if the child manifests a different sexuality, or even identity - that has to strike deeper into the parent's sense of self than them not wanting to go into chartered accountancy.

    Detaching from parents is a hard gig at the best of times, particularly if the predominant culture is My Child, My Rules.
  • Is this a not horrible or horrible person writing something horrible or not horrible?
    https://4thwavenow.com/ article dated 06 Aug 2019, "Waiting", starts with "say you're a mom". No sure what reputation the website / group has. The article seemed to express some meaningful things.
    Clicked the link. tb;dr.* Can we try better, please?

    *too biased; didn't read.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Is this a not horrible or horrible person writing something horrible or not horrible?
    https://4thwavenow.com/ article dated 06 Aug 2019, "Waiting", starts with "say you're a mom". No sure what reputation the website / group has. The article seemed to express some meaningful things.
    Clicked the link. tb;dr.* Can we try better, please?

    *too biased; didn't read.
    Do I understand that you're saying you're too biased to read it?
    I linked it because it appeared well written and described the struggles within.
    It's okay.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host, Acting Admin
    edited August 2019
    Well the subtitle is “A community of parents & others concerned about the medicalization of gender-atypical youth and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)”

    You may wish to read this wiki article.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Is this a not horrible or horrible person writing something horrible or not horrible?
    https://4thwavenow.com/ article dated 06 Aug 2019, "Waiting", starts with "say you're a mom". No sure what reputation the website / group has. The article seemed to express some meaningful things.
    Clicked the link. tb;dr.* Can we try better, please?

    *too biased; didn't read.
    Do I understand that you're saying you're too biased to read it?
    I linked it because it appeared well written and described the struggles within.
    It's okay.
    Saying anything from that group publishes about transgender is OK is fairly near saying anything published by the KKK about race is OK.
  • The article appeared thoughtfully written, by a therapist. I didn't detect anything KKK or Nazi within the article.
  • It seems to me there is a world of difference between:

    1. We don't trust the well-established treatment regime. We're going to feed her moonbeams and wishbiscuits.

    and

    2. Normal medicine has absolutely nothing to offer, as they have admitted. We're going to try this longshot in desperate hope it will save our child.

    --

    Conflating them, it seems to me, is disingenuous.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host, Acting Admin
    So as the wiki article I linked to explains - ROGD is not a thing. As in it is not a clinically valid diagnosis, and there were substantial problems with the original study from which the acronym is taken.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host, Acting Admin
    I’ve read the post you referenced @NOprophet_NØprofit . When you say ‘she’s a therapist’, she is a Jungnian analyst - this does not necessarily give her any particular knowledge of trans issues, it’s not part of the training. I looked at her twitter feed, which appears to be a collection of any-anti-trans-stuff-i-can-find-that-I-can-pass-off-as-vaguely-respectable

    As regards the post, it contains no data, no evidence, no case example - it is a series of rainbow statements about an imaginary mother that the reader is intended to identify with. It might as well be a prose poem.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    The article appeared thoughtfully written, by a therapist. I didn't detect anything KKK or Nazi within the article.
    Read and process the link Doublethink provided on ROGD. There is an acronym that is applicable here:GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If one is starting from a false premise, the likelyhood of good information resulting is lessened.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host, Acting Admin
    edited August 2019
    (Also the comment policy on that site is quite something:

    Comments are moderated. We don’t guarantee that a submitted comment will be posted. We don’t publish comments which spread suicide contagion and/or misleading information about suicidality.

    The purpose of this site is to give voice to an alternative to the dominant trans-activist and medical paradigm currently being touted by the media. Preference is given to commenters who are also gender-skeptical, though respectful questions/comments countering this view will be considered. Please keep your remarks on topic and free of religious dogma of any kind.


    What, I wonder, is ‘gender-skeptical’ ?)
  • What, I wonder, is ‘gender-skeptical’ ?)

    Sounds like they mean "skeptical that gender exists distinct from biological sex".
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host, Acting Admin
    So rapidness of onset is not really their issue is it ?
Sign In or Register to comment.