Someones’ lost the plot here and I don’t think it’s me

Children as young as seven are to be taught in schools to stop using the terms ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ – in case they discriminate against transgender pupils.
A guidebook for teachers, parents and pupils to be sent to schools around Britain advises against using language that suggests there are only two genders. It also condemns saying ‘ladies’ and ‘gents’.

Rather the point of this transgender stuff is to insist that said gender really is an important thing. It’s just that they belong to that one over there, not the one that the vagaries of genetic and hormonal expression have left them looking like.

That is, that man who transitions really does become a woman. They aren’t just a man in drag, one with the knackers cut off, they really, really, are a woman. And equally with movement in the other direction. To insist, as this seems to be doing, that there’re some other categories, trans-man, trans-woman, whatever, would seem to fall under the rubric of trans-phobia, wouldn’t it?

59 thoughts on “Someones’ lost the plot here and I don’t think it’s me”

  1. This needs to be stopped and those behind it smashed.

    State education is bad enough. But the same captured by a cultural Marxist freak-show is a suicide note for society.

    That useless cow May will take no move to stop this because she is full of exactly this kind of BluLab shite.

  2. I can safely say, that in 13 years of compulsory schooling and 4 years of university, that I never knowingly met a transgendered fellow student.

    This is now getting down to the level of seriously deep down the rabbit hole stuff…

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    There are no Gay people to a first order approximation. But even they look like a Disco version of Calcutta compared to the transsexual “community”. There just are none in the UK. They are a fiction pushed on the mentally ill by the more deluded – and dangerous – politically radical.

    As we can see, they do not exist but they are recruiting.

  4. “That is, that man who transitions really does become a woman. They aren’t just a man in drag, one with the knackers cut off, they really, really, are a woman.”

    Anonymous, for obvious reasons, but we had a man->woman in our department a few years back.

    One day they had moved their chair across the desk somewhat, and then tried to get up very quickly.

    During this manoeuvre they managed to catch their “not really there” bollocks on the edge of the desk, and so doubled up in pain.

    A few of us, having seen what happened were left in a bit of a quandary.

    What do you say to a woman has just cracked her bollocks?

    So we just that there silently, pretending not to notice, whilst said ‘woman’ writhed around in agony.

    All most odd.

    And most amusing down the pub at lunchtime.

  5. What do you say to a woman has just cracked her bollocks?

    “Lucky you’re not still a bloke, or that would have really hurt!”

  6. A curse upon you, Tim. A curse upon you and your support for discrimination against nonbinary gender people

    Yes, that’s a real thing. Look it up at nonbinary.org

  7. I read someone saying that Progressives had had a good couple of decades, but now Brexit and Trump has them on the back foot. You can score just as easily off the back foot, you know.

    You can elect Trump as President, but the loonies are still in charge at every level of government below the top.

  8. abacab has it. Most schools and most kids will never encounter a child with gender identity issues. For those few that do some guidance would be useful but this guidebook isn’t it.

  9. “Most schools and most kids will never encounter a child with gender identity issues.”

    Virtually all of them will, but they probably won’t realise it. Most trans kids hide it.

    “For those few that do some guidance would be useful but this guidebook isn’t it.”

    True.

    The best guidance would be not to make an issue of it, but to make it known that anyone bullied over gender issues will get exactly the same support from the school as someone bullied for wearing spectacles, being clever, liking Justin Bieber, or having a funny name. And the bullies will be punished just the same, as well.

  10. “The best guidance would be not to make an issue of it, but to make it known that anyone bullied over gender issues will get exactly the same support from the school as someone bullied for wearing spectacles, being clever, liking Justin Bieber, or having a funny name. And the bullies will be punished just the same, as well.”

    Oh, they do punishment for bullying for those reasons nowadays then, do they?

  11. Timothy,

    You’ve said – on a number of occasions – that this civilisation was well worth saving?

    NiV

    Sometimes I learn a huge amount from your posts, and I really do mean that, but I have my doubts ths time..?! 🙂

  12. “Sometimes I learn a huge amount from your posts, and I really do mean that, but I have my doubts ths time..?!”

    Why?

    I’m almost always happy to expand if someone doesn’t understand what I’m trying to say. I can’t find out when I’ve made a mistake if nobody ever disagrees with me – I encourage it.

  13. I’m happy to say, NiV, that I agree with your original comment.

    And, contra SMFS, I’ve met transsexuals in the UK. Not many, but I have. Mind you, the one I knew best was as barking as a box of frogs. And I’m convinced that’s what drove the surgery.

    I think such people, possibly with rare exceptions (I’m prepared to keep the door open) are more to be pitied than censured. As that GP said, “if a man walked into my surgery and declared himself the Emperor Napoloen, demanding to be called ‘your serene highness’, I’d have him sectioned”.

    It’s very hard to get past that observation.

  14. In the days when the world retained its marbles people knew that transexuals were people who had undergone drastic plastic surgery.

    nowadays we talk about gender rather than sex because it is a work of imagination and so you can have as many genders as you want. But to help you maintain your delusion the law is enlisted to insist that everyone must share it.

    In the words of Katy Shaidle, “Yesterday’s mental illness is today’s social policy.”

  15. “I’m happy to say, NiV, that I agree with your original comment.”

    Thank you! It’s appreciated. 🙂

    “It’s very hard to get past that observation.”

    Not really. The exact same argument has been applied to the religious, for example. Freedom of belief means people are allowed to believe things that are clearly untrue without being imprisoned in mental hospitals and treated for it.

    Although in this case the analogy doesn’t really apply. Transgenderism itself isn’t a mental illness or delusion, whatever some people think. Nevertheless, you should be free to believe otherwise, so long as you don’t bully anyone because of it.

  16. “nowadays we talk about gender rather than sex because it is a work of imagination and so you can have as many genders as you want.”

    They talk about gender rather than sex because they’re talking about two different things that formerly were conflated, and need to invent new terminology to describe/define it.

    Mental characteristics aren’t imaginary. It’s like being an introvert or extrovert – it’s something you just are, and is very difficult to change. It’s frequently down to brain structure.

    There are about 40 identifiable sex-linked differences in brain structure, that occur in one sex more often than the other, with around 90-99% probability. That means that virtually everyone has some mental characteristics more common in the other sex. But most of them are considered morally neutral, like an ability to read maps or being a maths geek. The handful that are related to socio-sexual behaviour are the ones that cause all the trouble.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    I was listening to an interview with Deirdre McCloskey the other day, she doesn’t seem to have any hang ups, on the contrary she tells some amusing stories.

    The most amusing was when she was talking to a bunch of male economists at a conference and made what she thought was a telling point, but it was ignored. A few minutes later one of the males made the same point and the other males congratulated him and said he should write a paper on it.

    Deidre’s response was to think, yes, I’ve finally been accepted as a woman.

    The sad story is that her sister is a qualified Pyschiatrist and as she has standing in court she got Diedre sectioned, twice.

  18. Whats wrong with just letting girly gay boys do ballet, butch tomboy girls play football, and treating middle-aged heterosexual men consumed by the fantasy of themselves as a woman as the freaks they actually are?

    Or we could just go down the Thai route, of deregulating the sale of hormones, and letting gay folk make themselves attractive to, and sleep with the more open minded straight folk, if that’s what they want to do?

    Either way, medicalised transsexualism / child-transsexualism is the last thing we want to import from the USA. But we probably will do.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Edward Lud – “I think such people, possibly with rare exceptions (I’m prepared to keep the door open) are more to be pitied than censured.”

    Indeed. People with mental diseases are sick, not evil. However the activists who are using them as a stick with which to beat the rest of us – and all transsexuals who sign up to this agenda – are evil and deserve the Full Ecks.

    NiV – “Transgenderism itself isn’t a mental illness or delusion”

    All evidence – and the consensus of the scientists before they were beaten and bullied into submission – to the contrary.

    And they are bullying us. That is the point. No one cared when they confined themselves to musical theatre. Now they are an active threat to the heterosexual community. Which should respond in a similar manner. Cancer cells are destroyed. Not indulged.

    NiV – “They talk about gender rather than sex because they’re talking about two different things that formerly were conflated, and need to invent new terminology to describe/define it.”

    No, they are claiming that there are two different things and they need to invent a new terminology to justify it.

    “There are about 40 identifiable sex-linked differences in brain structure, that occur in one sex more often than the other, with around 90-99% probability.”

    And yet not a single one has been successfully linked to homosexuality much less to transsexuality. The brains of women are different from those of men. That is a real sexual difference. If the brains of the Alphabet Coalition are different from heterosexuals, no one has been able to prove it so far.

    Bloke in North Dorset – “The sad story is that her sister is a qualified Pyschiatrist and as she has standing in court she got Diedre sectioned, twice.”

    That is not sad. The sister loves her sibling and wants what is best. The tragedy is that there is no treatment that works.

  20. “Whats wrong with […] treating middle-aged heterosexual men consumed by the fantasy of themselves as a woman as the freaks they actually are?”

    Because it ultimately leads to society treating middle-aged heterosexual men consumed by the fantasy that everyone else has to be the same as them as the freaks they actually are.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because one day they *will* do it unto you.

    Throughout history, there have always been people who believed that their *own* beliefs and rituals were the only conceivable definition of “normal”, and that everyone who believed or acted differently was a deviant freak whose beliefs/actions needed to be banned or persecuted for the moral good of society. Their own race, religion, politics, sexual preferences, language, beliefs about global warming, environmentalism, economics, or whatever had the right and duty to suppress all others by force. Catholics persecuted Protestants. Protestants persecuted Catholics. Muslims persecuted Christians. Everyone persecuted atheists. Until everyone got sick of it all.

    The us-vs-them authoritarian tribal psychology seems to be as hardwired into the human psyche as its sexuality. Every generation has to learn the same lesson – that while the authoritarianism seems eternal, the particular groups that persecute or are being persecuted constantly change, so all the legal and social precedents you just set to deal with the “freaks” will shortly get used against *you* when the next bunch get into power. And you can whine all you like about liberalism then, it’ll make no difference. You’ll get no more mercy than you gave.

    Your only chance is to change the game while you’re still in power, to one that you won’t mind playing when you eventually lose it.

  21. “And they are bullying us. That is the point. No one cared when they confined themselves to musical theatre. Now they are an active threat to the heterosexual community.”

    Yep.

    Like I said.

    ” Which should respond in a similar manner. Cancer cells are destroyed. Not indulged.”

    Yep. Like they’re now doing to you.

    Cosmic justice, eh?

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Your only chance is to change the game while you’re still in power, to one that you won’t mind playing when you eventually lose it.”

    We did change the game to one we won’t mind playing when we weren’t in power. Britain used to be a highly tolerant and liberal society. But you, them and the Left have changed the rules. When you all gained power, you used it to persecute people.

    Now the rules have changed. Either you are persecuting us or we are persecuting you. There can be no middle ground once that liberal society is dead.

    And we are upwards of 95% of the population. I don’t think I will lose this game. You should think about how useful tolerance could be for you and yours.

  23. “We did change the game to one we won’t mind playing when we weren’t in power. Britain used to be a highly tolerant and liberal society.”

    Agreed. And it still is, relatively speaking. (Although I think you should ask gays what it was like in the 1950s before you talk about how “tolerant” we used to be.)

    I’m just explaining why asking “Whats wrong with […] treating middle-aged heterosexual men consumed by the fantasy of themselves as a woman as the freaks they actually are?” *isn’t* evidence of support for “a highly tolerant and liberal society”, and is a bad idea if you want that liberalism and tolerance to continue.

    “Now the rules have changed. Either you are persecuting us or we are persecuting you. There can be no middle ground once that liberal society is dead.”

    Agreed. So stop trying to kill it.

    “And we are upwards of 95% of the population. I don’t think I will lose this game.”

    You’re currently 20% of the population, and falling.

    About 50% of people are trans-friendly, 30% don’t know or don’t care, and 20% are against it (15% of women and 25% of men). And most of that 20% are in the oldest segment of society – the upcoming generation are far more tolerant of gays, and more disapproving of sexist/misogynist/homophobic 1970s throwbacks. They’ve not fully bought in to the SJW lust for persecuting them out of existence yet (thanks to our liberal traditions), but they’re leaning that way.

    *Everyone* loses this game, eventually.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Agreed. So stop trying to kill it.”

    It is not my side that killed it. It is yours. You and yours won’t leave me and mine alone. So all your demand amounts to is a one-sided surrender. No thanks. It is dead. You can’t play nice with people out to destroy you. I didn’t kill it. You can’t blame me. I am just telling you the truth. It is gone.

    “You’re currently 20% of the population, and falling.”

    No I am not. Everyone knows that transsexuals have problems. We play nice. That is all. So far no one has tried to force the issue. No one has placed most people in a situation where they have to choose between heterosexuality and the Alphabet Soup. But we will get there. Americans decided that they did not like the idea of the Feds forcing grown men with functioning penises into their daughters’ shower rooms. Britain is unlikely to disagree with them.

    “*Everyone* loses this game, eventually.”

    I disagree. I think a thorough Ecksian purge is the definition of winning.

  25. NiV–You may be happy at the centre of your personal SJW freakshow. I don’t care. Get on with it. Leave me and mine be and I’ll leave you be.

    But your freakshow is now a tool of CM Marxist attack on everything that makes life even possible let alone worthwhile. Unless you and your fellow weirds renounce cultural Marxism and the route of legal oppression CM is using then you are going to get counted as troops of the left .

    If you are happy with that status then you need to be all smashed up along with the rest of the left. If you want to live and let live as you claim then denounce the left and dissociate yourself from them Milo-style.

    Simple as that.

  26. About 50% of people are trans-friendly, 30% don’t know or don’t care, and 20% are against it (15% of women and 25% of men). And most of that 20% are in the oldest segment of society

    But how do those figures stack up when someone’s own child is consumed by unhappiness and wants to take hormones that will render them infertile? Or when their young adult child wants to allow a surgeon to butcher their perfectly functional private parts?

    At what age do you suggest the law should allow these ‘treatments’?

  27. That is, that man who transitions really does become a woman.

    Not quite; the “man” who transitions already was a woman, but in the body of a man.

  28. “Ian Bennett

    ‘That is, that man who transitions really does become a woman.’

    Not quite; the “man” who transitions already was a woman, but in the body of a man.”

    This being on the basis that he (or she) always ‘felt like a woman’?

    How do they know? How do they know what it feels like to be a woman? I don’t know what it feels like to be anyone except myself. Same goes for everyone.

    They might (by some miracle) find themselves temporarily able to feel what a particular woman feels like and think “f*ck me, this isn’t what I imagined at all”.

    Besides, if I said that I felt like a penguin so could someone chop my arms off and replace them with flippers, they’d lock me up.

    So, stop being silly.

  29. Not quite; the “man” who transitions already was a woman, but in the body of a man.

    Then why do transgender women exhibit the same romantic preferences (more partners, younger partners, better looking partners of irrelevant social status rather than one partner of higher social status) as straight and gay men, and not straight women?

    The PC understanding of ‘transgender’ is just completely made up to justify a fashionable thinking. Whereas the older (1980’s and 1990’s) non-PC, less palatable research more or less hits the mark on this subject.

  30. “But how do those figures stack up when someone’s own child is consumed by unhappiness and wants to take hormones that will render them infertile? Or when their young adult child wants to allow a surgeon to butcher their perfectly functional private parts?”

    The same way it stacks up if a child wants surgery to repair facial disfigurement, or a club foot, or wonky teeth.

    There are no good options here when it comes to gender dysphoria – medical technology has not got to that point yet. The aim is to find the least bad option, and that’s something that has to be judged case to case, based on the individual in question, their family circumstances, future consequences/prospects, and so on. Infertility is generally judged preferable to suicide, or a lifetime of misery. That’s an individual judgement – nobody else can know from the inside which experience is better for someone. As JS Mill put it: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

    The same principle applies to children too – but young children are sometimes not capable of understanding the long-term implications of decisions, and so parents have a role in giving informed consent. Even so, very often the child has a far better understanding of the personal hell they’re going through than their parents, and has thought long and hard about what it means for the rest of their life. Nobody comes to such a decision lightly. Most trans people opt not to have the surgery – it’s only the last desperate choice for those in the most extreme distress, when all else fails.

    “How do they know? How do they know what it feels like to be a woman? I don’t know what it feels like to be anyone except myself. Same goes for everyone.”

    There have been a significant number of medical cases in this area that have revealed something of how it works. Some kids are born intersex or hermaphrodite – with genitals that are a mixture of male and female. They’re usually assigned one sex at birth, based on whichever they’re ‘closer’ to, and corrective surgery applied, but sometimes the choice made by the doctors turns out to be mistaken. As the child gets older, they identify as the other sex.

    There have also been a few tragic social experiments, with the same result. Radical feminists came up with the theory that gender was socially constructed – it was imposed by society, based on how your parents raised you, and how other people treated you. The idea was to prove that girls were just as good as boys – it was only The Patriarchy that held them down. So a few who had sons raised them as daughters, with the idea that they wouldn’t develop the disgusting sexist patriarchal attitudes of other men. The experiment was a complete failure – the boys knew they were boys, continued to act as stereotypical boys, and experienced misery and major psychological damage from being raised as the wrong sex. (Just like trans kids do.)

    There are hardwired differences between the brains of males and females that enable them to identify their own sex internally, but like most processes in nature it’s imperfect. It works properly about 99% of the time, which is good enough for evolution’s purposes – additional error checking would cost more than it’s worth. (Bear in mind that as a result of the random crossing over of chromosomes, about 30-50% of all fertilised eggs spontaneously abort before you even know you’re pregnant because they’re too fucked up internally to survive even in the womb. It’s like building an operating system by cutting and pasting chunks of code randomly from two different computers and then stitching them all together.)

    It’s like asking how you can tell if you’re an introvert or an extrovert. Again, it’s a brain structure difference (it apparently depends on whether your reward centres in the nucleus acumbens area respond more strongly to the dopamine (extrovert) or the acetylcholine/gamma-aminobutyric acid (introvert) pathway, although it’s still a subject of research). But people knew about it, and were able to reliably divide people into introverts and extroverts long before they knew anything about the brain chemistry. You can tell from the behavioural symptoms.

    When I was young, we divided kids into the sporty, arty, and geeky groups. A sporty kid made to sit in maths class on a nice sunny day would be miserable. A geeky kid made to go out into the mud of a cold and rainy rugby pitch when they could be inside curled up with a good book would be equally miserable. Both would be bored by a visit to the theatre to watch an interpretive dance version of a Harold Pinter play. People know what they are, and feel the distress when they’re made to do something that doesn’t fit with that. Being the wrong gender is like that 100% of the time, like making a sporty kid sit through 12 hours a day of maths class, and then setting double homework – extra hard. With the prospect of continual beatings from the school bullies if he ever makes a mistake, and gives away the secret that he’s – ultimate shame!!! – sporty. The psychological strain of having to live a lie 24 hours a day, every day, is devastating – especially on a vulnerable child, lost and alone, with no support or explanation of what’s ‘wrong’ with them. No wonder they end up suicidal!

    However, the brain circuit you’ve got is a perfectly normal one, that works fine (in the other sex) with the rest of the brain. It’s no more a “mental illness” than being a sporty kid in maths class is, or an introvert at a wild party. It’s just society’s expectations that are causing the problem.

  31. “Then why do transgender women exhibit the same romantic preferences (more partners, younger partners, better looking partners of irrelevant social status rather than one partner of higher social status) as straight and gay men, and not straight women?”

    I don’t know what the overall statistics are, but all the ones I know have the stereotypical ‘straight woman’ attitude to promiscuity.

    However, assuming your claim is accurate, it’s easy enough to explain. The brain has thousands of different modules, each of which develop along one pattern or another. The one that says which sex you’re sexually attracted to is different to the one that sets your attitude to promiscuity, and both are different from the part that defines what sex you ‘feel’ you are.

    If you met a woman who liked being promiscuous (there are some), would you identify her as “actually a man”, because “only men are promiscuous”? Like I said earlier, almost everybody has a few features more common in the opposite sex. It’s normal.

  32. NiV, if I’ve correctly understood you, then being a child who dislikes contact sports but who is nevertheless obliged to participate in them, is akin to bring a child who is nominally a boy, but who dislikes being a boy and dislikes being deemed to be a boy.

    If I’ve correctly understood, isn’t the problem with this simile that the child who dislikes contact sports gets to stop contact sports when he leaves school?

    People may know who and what they are (although, at 45, I’m still getting to grips with it), but a preference for one passtime over another is qualitatively distinct from the knowledge that you are other than what you are.

    Put another way, a boy is still a boy even if he doesn’t like contact sports. I’m unclear why he becomes a girl because he doesn’t like being a boy.

  33. “If I’ve correctly understood, isn’t the problem with this simile that the child who dislikes contact sports gets to stop contact sports when he leaves school?”

    It’s not an exact match in all respects – no simile is. The point was to try to make contact with the experience of non-trans people self-identifying a mental characteristic of themselves, to help them understand.

    Not liking contact sport is not “imaginary” or “made up”, it’s not something you can be argued out of, or treated for by a psychiatrist. It’s not a decision you consciously make, or a delusion, or a defect, or a mental illness. It continues to apply whether you are forced to participate in contact sports, or not. Shouting angrily at the kid who hates it, or treating them as a “freak” until they buck their ideas up, is not going to magically change their mind, and make them suddenly like it.

    I’m hoping that most people here would be able to recognise that they are able to tell themselves that they belong to groups with identifiable character types, and perhaps recognise in their own experiences a sliver of the mental pain caused when you’re made to be something you’re not.

    Are you sporty, geeky, or arty? Are you introvert or extrovert? How can you know? Or do you think these categories are “made up” too?

    “Put another way, a boy is still a boy even if he doesn’t like contact sports.”

    The question should be: is a boy who is forced to play lots of sports still “sporty” even if he hates sports? Is a boy forced to sit through lots of maths classes still “geeky” even if he hates maths? I mean, look at how much maths he does!

    Or to take a perhaps more relevant physical stereotype, suppose society has an immovable belief that all short-sighted people who wear glasses are all geeky, love maths. John’s short-sighted, wears glasses, but hates math. He’d much rather be out running. If we make him go to lots of maths classes because he wears glasses, does that make him a geek? Fred loves maths, but he’s not short-sighted so he’s out of luck. Go do another 20 laps, Fred.

    The term “sporty” refers to the mental characteristic – the personality type. Not how much sport a person does. Likewise “boy” or “girl” can also be mental characteristics, as well as being about the shape of your genitals.

  34. I’m inclined to think your equanimity (and kindness) override your rationality. I understand, I think, your point about people being of a type, perhaps even knowing what that type is, and suffering for being made to play against that type.

    But being made to participate in games, regardless of whether or not you like it are good at games, is not the same thing as being made to be a different kind of human.

    It’s like comparing my disgust for eggs with a man who thinks he’s a bird. Granted, we might both be irrational. But there are orders of magnitude between the two types of irrationality. Not the least of which is that I can function with neither personal unhappiness not inconvenience to others by virtue of my disgust for eggs, where the transsexual is tormented and a problem for most others because, as broad-minded as I as an adult wish to be, how am I to stop my seven year-old remarking, in a loud, baffled voice, that that man walking down the street in a flowery dress is ‘silly’.

    She sees the problem. Just as she would a man in fancy dress, garbed as Napoleon.

    She might, equally say that my disgust for eggs is silly. But her doing so is no challenge to my identity, and will cause me no unhappiness.

  35. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian Bennett – “Not quite; the “man” who transitions already was a woman, but in the body of a man.”

    That is a theological statement, not a factual one. Wanting to believe he was a tiger did not make Denis Avner an actual tiger. Nor does cutting off your testicles make anyone a woman.

    NiV – “The same way it stacks up if a child wants surgery to repair facial disfigurement, or a club foot, or wonky teeth.”

    Well no. This is a little more radical than that. It has greater and permanent consequences.

    “There are no good options here when it comes to gender dysphoria – medical technology has not got to that point yet.”

    Actually for children there is. Talk to them. Wait them out. Most cases resolve in time. As has been the normal medical practice until recent times – although it will get your fired now if you try it. We have a good method of dealing with this – no surgery, no drugs, no permanent life altering mutilation. We are just not allowed to use it any more.

    “Infertility is generally judged preferable to suicide, or a lifetime of misery.”

    There is no evidence that Gay children are committing suicide at a higher rate and even less that “trans” children are. Infertility does not matter to the average five year old. So instead of making life-changing decisions for them, we ought to leave them alone until they are old enough to make that decision themselves. Especially as rough half of all mothers of “trans” children have borderline personality disorder. This is just medically approved Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

    “That’s an individual judgement – nobody else can know from the inside which experience is better for someone.”

    Great. Let’s leave it to the individual. Not the parents or the “medical professionals”.

    “Nobody comes to such a decision lightly.”

    That is also a theological claim without evidence. And one that is clearly contradicted by the evidence we do have. Too many people are making these decisions too lightly.

    “Most trans people opt not to have the surgery – it’s only the last desperate choice for those in the most extreme distress, when all else fails.”

    Or if they fall into the hands of some activists.

    “but sometimes the choice made by the doctors turns out to be mistaken. As the child gets older, they identify as the other sex.”

    Oddly enough it is almost always the DNA that determines these things. These cases prove the whole theory of the Blank Slate and the ability to make up for genetics with some social conditioning and some hormones is nonsense. We are condemning perfectly healthy children to a life time of misery because people like you want to make a political point.

    “There have also been a few tragic social experiments, with the same result.”

    So let’s try more!!

    “It works properly about 99% of the time”

    There is no reason to think it does not work properly 100% of the time. But if it doesn’t, the solution should be repair and correction. Not amplifying the mistake.

    “The psychological strain of having to live a lie 24 hours a day, every day, is devastating”

    There is no evidence of this at all.

    “However, the brain circuit you’ve got is a perfectly normal one, that works fine (in the other sex) with the rest of the brain. It’s no more a “mental illness” than being a sporty kid in maths class is, or an introvert at a wild party. It’s just society’s expectations that are causing the problem.”

    Yet more theological statements. By definition that is not normal and it is their problem, not society’s. That is what normal means. It is also borne out by the evidence that no amount of intervention can make transsexuals normal or happy people. Cut their testicles off and they continue to kill themselves at high rates. They are not, generally speaking, a very functional group of people.

    NiV – “I don’t know what the overall statistics are, but all the ones I know have the stereotypical ‘straight woman’ attitude to promiscuity.”

    Lesbians don’t agree. They became Trans-exclusionary because so many transsexuals were cruising lesbian events to pick up some chicks.

    “The one that says which sex you’re sexually attracted to is different to the one that sets your attitude to promiscuity, and both are different from the part that defines what sex you ‘feel’ you are.”

    And you know this because …? Oh, we are back with the theology.

  36. I have nothing to offer except a bit of support for NiV. Some of the disagreement is interesting and measured… some people are just arguing with the ignorant twitter-fuelled SJW characature that NiV absolutely isn’t being here.

    I say let people be who they want to be. Don’t encourage kids down difficult paths (I worry about the cache now attached to being trans amongst some circles) but be open-minded. Don’t persecute the non-believers for their wrongthink. Mainly.. the trans advocates need to chill the fuck out and concentrate on supporting individuals who need it… not bending a society that, to pick an example from above, hasn’t even really worked out how to understand and accommodate the introvert/extrovert spectrum.

    NiV writes with understanding and sensitivity and I read nothing that would contradict the basic liberal principles that I tried to outline just there.

  37. “I’m inclined to think your equanimity (and kindness) override your rationality.”

    I think most people operate under the common assumption that their own preferences and beliefs constitute “rationality”, and that therefore anyone who doesn’t agree with them is being irrational.

    We clearly have a difference of opinion. How confident are you that I don’t have any reasons for my beliefs?

    “But being made to participate in games, regardless of whether or not you like it are good at games, is not the same thing as being made to be a different kind of human.”

    What does “different kind of human” actually mean, here? Why is the introvert/extrovert, or sporty/arty/geeky division not an instance of “different kinds of human”?

    “It’s like comparing my disgust for eggs with a man who thinks he’s a bird.”

    There is a major confusion over definitions, here – it’s the one that the gender/sex terminology was invented to solve.

    If you define sex solely in terms of genitals (it’s only one of many ways to do it), then a trans woman is clearly a ‘man’. But the ‘man’ in question is under absolutely no delusion about what shape their genitals are – it’s one of their major complaints!

    In my example of the world where everyone believes that spectacle-wearers are all maths-loving geeks, John is under absolutely no delusion about whether he needs to wear spectacles, and Fred is under none that he does not. So society’s outraged cry “He thinks he’s short-sighted! What an idiot!” because Fred claims to be a geek completely misses the point. It’s not that they disagree about the facts, it’s that they disagree with your definitions. Short-sightedness does not define geekiness. Genitals do not define (mental) maleness/femaleness.

    “because, as broad-minded as I as an adult wish to be, how am I to stop my seven year-old remarking, in a loud, baffled voice, that that man walking down the street in a flowery dress is ‘silly’.”

    You deal with it the same way you deal with a seven year old making personal comments about other people of any sort – like people wearing bad wigs or with facial disfigurement. You teach them how to behave in society. You tell them first that it’s something some people don’t like being discussed, and that they should be careful not to be rude, and then explain what’s going on, in simple terms.

    The easiest way is probably to start by pointing out all the women wearing trousers and jeans, which everyone knows are “men’s clothes”. Are they “silly”? It’s the same thing. People nowadays are allowed to wear what they want. Some women are “girly girls” and want to wear dresses. Some women are “tomboys” and only want to wear trousers. It didn’t used to be that way – we used to make all the women wear dresses, and they weren’t allowed to vote, or have jobs, or sign contracts, which was pretty unfair. But then we changed all that and got rid of those rules and let women wear what they like. We’re only just starting to give men the same right, and so you don’t often see men in dresses yet which is why it looks funny. But it’s the same thing.

    Some men do it because they just like dresses, and others do it because they were born with the wrong body and are actually girls inside. The polite thing to do is to ask them what they want to be called, and be nice to them.

    Transgender people are used to a lot worse, and while seven year olds can be “uncomfortable” (for anyone!), they’ll make allowances – especially if they see you teaching them to be open-minded and tolerant.

  38. TTG: “NiV writes with understanding and sensitivity and I read nothing that would contradict the basic liberal principles that I tried to outline just there.”

    That says more about your lack of distinctions than about NiV.

    Who is a common-or-garden SJW who lards his crap with “libertarian” claims . Cod compassion is what SJWs are all about.

    NiV–“I think most people operate under the common assumption that their own preferences and beliefs constitute “rationality”, and that therefore anyone who doesn’t agree with them is being irrational.”

    And you don’t Mr “Theology”?

    “We clearly have a difference of opinion. How confident are you that I don’t have any reasons for my beliefs?”

    I don’t give a rats arse about your opinion. Doubtless you have “reasons” –the main one being your bleeding heart cockrot would have to stand alone without some sort of support no matter how bogus.

    “Genitals do not define (mental) maleness/femaleness.”

    Who cares. If some chump believes he is a woman what do I care save this:I won’t acknowledge the primacy of his beliefs over mine nor is he getting any of my money for anything related to his mental problems–esp expensive operations. Also he ISN’T going in the ladies toilet unless he has the courage of his convictions sufficient to have his dick whacked off. At his own expense.

    Other than said provisos he can do what the Hell he likes. Knock himself out.

    “You deal with it the same way you deal with a seven year old making personal comments about other people of any sort – like people wearing bad wigs or with facial disfigurement. You teach them how to behave in society. You tell them first that it’s something some people don’t like being discussed, and that they should be careful not to be rude, and then explain what’s going on, in simple terms.”

    No–you can fuck right off. As far as I am concerned he is a weird and I would tell any kid of mine that the bloke was mentally ill. If you don’t like that NiV –tough shit. Neither your SJW shite or your ego is going to lord it over me or mine.

    The rest of the details of your schemes to warp young minds with your SJW-shite-by-easy-stages cockrot is of zero interest. On a voluntary basis very few are going to accept your crap despite your fantasy “approval” figures. If you think to use the power of the state to promulgate your “values” then the future is full of trouble for everybody.

  39. NiV, I don’t think that anyone who disagrees with me is irrational. Many such people, perhaps. But not all. Given our previous exchanges, I’m rather disappointed by that suggestion, and will now retire to a candlelit room with only a revolver and a tumbler of whisky …

    OTOH, I’m not in the slightest bit confident that you don’t have reasons for your beliefs. You’ve articulated them. I just don’t think they’re particularly rational – in the sense that your pursuit of kindness to the deserving troubled, with which in itself I agree, extends to the abolition of definitions by anyone troubled by them. I cannot see that neutering language is rational. A man is a human with a penis, except when he’s not because he says he’s not. That man is a communist-sympathiser who excuses the deaths of tens of millions, except he’s not, because he says he’s not. How many thousands of years of the development of language have we had, to arrive at this point?

    That is not to say that a definition might not be changed, or amended. I’m a firm believer in Baconian scientific method. Nor do I dismiss the sincerity of, at least some, transsexuals in their self-diagnosis – any more than I would automatically dismiss the sincerity of a man in a tricorn hat proclaiming himself to be the French Emperor. But I need a lot more to go on than self-diagnosis.

    And on the rationality front, you seem to me also to lack proportion. You say, or at least suggest, that a person who does not like games is or may be a different kind of human from one who does, in the same way that a man is a different kind of human from a woman. This may be no more than a just criticism of my inadequate terminology: “a different kind of human”. I grant, it lacks precision. But my point is that just about everyone knows what I mean when I say that men and women are different kinds of human, whereas a fondness for games a merely a different personality type.

    As for my seven year-old, I failed adequately to express myself. Were she thus to exclaim, I’d say something like, “well different people like different things, but you shouldn’t embarrass them for it”. So there I’m on all fours with you. But, rather, my point was that she would see the emperor’s new clothes for what they are. She’s a young girl. Like the majority of such, she likes pretty dresses, and dollies, and suchlike (except when she’s farting like a trooper). Her male cousins like hitting me and understanding how things work. They are classic boys and girls. They expect, at the most instinctive level – which I suggest is instructive – that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. So yes, the broadness of their minds can and should be developed. Yet they have an unerring eye for the absurd. I don’t mean eccentric, I mean preposterous.

    And here we encounter a problem: which is that parents who have tried to raise their children in a non-gender specific way end up doing the very thing you complain of – and making their children unhappy. Because as almost any sane parent knows, their sex, or gender, will out.

    People know what they are – as you’ve said, perhaps not down to the nth degree, from the earliest time – but most children spontaneously self-identify as boys or girls. It’s perhaps the single most important dividing line in children. I accept that some will be ‘confused’, and feel ‘other’. But the real question is whether that is because they have a mental health problem or because nature has played a cruel trick on them.

    And, in my opinion, which I hold to be rational, no one in their right mind and in possession of a sense of proportion, would suppose that a distaste for eggs, or for games (even in Sparta), is the same ‘thing’ as believing that the body you were born with is not yours.

    A distaste for eggs, or for games, is not the same as an abhorrence for your own body such that you believe it is not your body.

    I am prepared to accept the possibility that the latter such groupuscule is objectively correct, and that the rest of us need to reconsider our definitions. But, as laissez faire, laissez passez, chac’ un a son gout as typically I am, I’d need a lot more persuasion than an argument that because this is all part of life’s rich pattern (which it is), everyone else is talking rubbish. It reminds me of when I was in the TA. I couldn’t march for toffee. And a friend of mine suggested that the problem was that everyone else was out-of-step.

    P.S. If Longrider is haunting, I’d welcome his (sic?) views …

  40. “I just don’t think they’re particularly rational – in the sense that your pursuit of kindness to the deserving troubled, with which in itself I agree, extends to the abolition of definitions by anyone troubled by them. I cannot see that neutering language is rational.”

    I don’t propose changing language because people are troubled by it. I propose changing it because it enables a better understanding of a more complex truth.

    “A man is a human with a penis, except when he’s not because he says he’s not.”

    Excellent! That implies that if you remove the penis, she is no longer a man. A human *without* a penis is a woman (unless you’re going to accept a non-binary categorisation), and all male-to-female transexuals are therefore actually women. Problem solved!

    Or is that no longer your definition? I notice it tends to shift and change and mutate with some arguers, to try to exclude whatever counterexamples people throw up. How about the Guevedoce boys of the Dominican Republic? Boys or girls? Eunuchs, intersex, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, … There are lots of odd cases that don’t fit into the neat categories of traditional definitions.

    A man is a human with the male variant of the sex-self-identification brain structure. Just as an introvert is a human with the introversion brain structure. Other people might only be able to tell based on what the person says or does, but the modern medical definition is not about what people say, it’s about what people *are*. A non-transgender man who simply acts the part of a woman (“Oh yes she is!” “Oh no he isn’t!”) is not thereby a woman, according to this definition.

    Or more precisely, a person having the male gender is a human with the male variant of the sex-self-identification brain structure. The definition of male sex is, of course, different. But also complicated.

    “But I need a lot more to go on than self-diagnosis.”

    Sure. And what method would you use to diagnose an introvert or extrovert?

    Science confidently believes that mental characteristics and mental states can be objectively real, and that self-diagnosis is a valid way to find out about them. You have to judge their honesty the same way you judge any other statement about mental states – and that’s something humans have always done.
    Like: “Do you really love me? I need a lot more to go on than a self-diagnosis…”

    “You say, or at least suggest, that a person who does not like games is or may be a different kind of human from one who does, in the same way that a man is a different kind of human from a woman.”

    Yes. That’s right.

    “I grant, it lacks precision. But my point is that just about everyone knows what I mean when I say that men and women are different kinds of human, whereas a fondness for games a merely a different personality type.”

    On what scale are you measuring that “merely”?

    I’m saying that the male personality type and female personality type are merely different personality types. Remember, we’re talking about gender here, not sex.

    “But, rather, my point was that she would see the emperor’s new clothes for what they are.”

    Sometime about a century ago, the very first woman walked out onto the street openly wearing trousers. When some nearby child commented on the empress’s new clothes, what do you think it was that she was really seeing? And why don’t we see it now, when women in trousers are commonplace?

    Is it still “absurd” or “preposterous” for women to wear trousers, but we are all somehow blind to the absurdity?

    “She’s a young girl. Like the majority of such, she likes pretty dresses, and dollies, and suchlike (except when she’s farting like a trooper). Her male cousins like hitting me and understanding how things work. They are classic boys and girls. They expect, at the most instinctive level – which I suggest is instructive – that boys will be boys and girls will be girls.”

    Excellent. Now what do you do about the boy who likes playing with dollies and wearing pretty dresses? Or the girl who likes hitting people and taking things apart?

    At the instinctive level – meaning hardwired into the brain – they know whether they like dollies or toy guns. The ones who like dollies are girls, the ones who like fighting are boys. And they know that a boy who likes dollies is a girl. What they don’t understand is why they are that way.

    “And here we encounter a problem: which is that parents who have tried to raise their children in a non-gender specific way end up doing the very thing you complain of – and making their children unhappy. Because as almost any sane parent knows, their sex, or gender, will out.”

    Exactly.

    “People know what they are – as you’ve said, perhaps not down to the nth degree, from the earliest time – but most children spontaneously self-identify as boys or girls.”

    Exactly.

    “I accept that some will be ‘confused’, and feel ‘other’. But the real question is whether that is because they have a mental health problem or because nature has played a cruel trick on them.”

    Quite so. The psychiatric profession is of the opinion that it’s not a mental illness, which I guess leaves “cruel trick”. Other people can, of course, disagree with them. But remember that other people could equally easily classify transphobia as a mental illness, too. Be careful what tools of social control you hand over to society – they can get used on you too.

    “no one in their right mind and in possession of a sense of proportion, would suppose that a distaste for eggs, or for games (even in Sparta), is the same ‘thing’ as believing that the body you were born with is not yours.”

    OK. Suppose a child is born without legs. “Where are my legs?” he asks. “Don’t be silly! You don’t have any. That’s the body you’re born with, and it doesn’t have legs.”

    But the child can compare themselves with other children like themselves in other ways, and they all have legs. Where are mine? Is this the body I should have? Why am I different? It’s a reasonable question.

    So if you put yourself in the same category as all the other kids who like dollies, the question is why don’t you have the same sort of body they do. Given a conflict between mind and body, people psychologically tend to think of the mind as “I”, and the body as a sort of vehicle that the mind inhabits. It’s all a bit ‘Cartesian Theatre’, but if mind and body disagree, it’s the body that people think is wrong. And given that it’s the mind that makes all the decisions – the body having no say in the matter – the mind tends to win the argument.

    If a mad scientist transplanted your brain into a female body, would “you” (whatever “you” is) become a woman? Perhaps a little more realistically, if your avatar in a virtual reality is female, do you become female? If your avatar is a squirrel, and you’ve used it long enough for the brain to adapt and for it to start to feel like it’s your own body, do you ‘become’ a squirrel? Or are you still a man’s mind in a squirrel body?

    What are you? Mind or body?

    If your mind thinks it should have legs, but your body disagrees, who is right?

  41. 1) As to what modern medical science, confidently says I do not know, but I do know that about half a decade ago I had a conversation with one of London’s more expensive psycho-sexual counsellors, who told me that he believed about 50 per cent of post-op transsexuals regretted their decision, that he had grave doubts about the value of their self-diagnosis, but that were he publicly to say any of this is would end his career. I seem to recall that he also felt that he was far from alone in his self-imposed omerta.

    2) I would not need to diagnose an introvert or an extrovert because neither characteristic is of itself problematic to its subject. To the extent that medical professionals reference introversion or extroversion as part of a wider analysis (although in truth I’ve read many such reports, and I don’t recall reference to these traits, in any circumstances), I suspect they would not only feel free to disagree with any patient’s self-diagnoses but would probably not trouble themselves to seek a self-diagnosis in the first place.

    3) “Do you really love me? I need a lot more to go on than self-diagnoses…” . Yes. Someone who told me they loved me, but who behaved in some other way, I would not believe. Perpetrators of domestic violence often proclaim, apparently sincerely, that they love their victims.

    4) With regard to women wearing trousers, I’m afraid I’m rather like my seven year-old, especially given the tendency of so many women to wear string- or black-coloured clothing overall. I find it very unappealing. And the more it I see, the more convinced I am that it reveals a tendency among such woman, who are many, towards mannishness and a rejection of feminity. I’m reminded of a typically astute observation I read in Viz some years ago, to the effect that if ‘trannies’ wanted to be perceived as more feminine then they should stop wearing suspenders and high heels and instead prefer baggy tracksuit bottoms and trainers.

    5) As to the boy who wants to play with dollies, etc., I’d let him. He’d probably grow out of it, anyway, just as girls do. Granted, it might be replaced as he aged with other traditionally girlish pursuits, but so be it. We’ve always recognised that some people are like that. For example, many homosexual men. Now, as it happens, I am far from convinced that this in itself is not a sign of mental illness. But regardless of that, most homosexual men, many of whom will have started life playing with dollies, do not self-diagnose as women. They develop, as in most cases from an early age they seem bound to develop, and end up sleeping with men. What they do not do, even those who refer to themselves as “sluts” or “bitches”, is stop referring to themselves as men. They may know that they have feminine traits, but they also know that they are men. So I don’t agree that a boy who likes dollies is a girl.

    6) I’m not proposing to hand over any tools of control. As far as I am concerned, if Sid says he’s a woman and can find a sawbones who’ll give him breasts and a vagina, then that’s up to him. I might be concerned for him, but I don’t propose that I should have any power to stop him, any more than I propose that I should have any power to oblige a cancer victim to undergo chemotherapy. Rather, it seems to me it’s Sid, or more likely, agitators for Sid, who seek that Orwellian control of language, who are taking the tools of control. I think that’s one of Ecks’ themes.

    7) I don’t understand your analogy of a child born without legs. In all likelihood, yes, he would wish for legs. Not least because they are obviously useful things to have. I think a rational person in possession of a sense of proportion would think it reasonable that he would want legs. His body is not right for having failed to provide him with legs. It is deformed, His brain is right for perceiving the deformation as such. On that comparison, how does a self-diagnosed transsexual reasonably perceive that his body has failed him? The more we go into this, the sillier it seems to me. I want a brain more powerful, or a penis twice as large, as anyone else. Therefore, I’ve got the wrong body? I want blue eyes, but I’ve got brown, therefore I’m going to risk blindness by having my iris tattooed? Well, yes, I should be a liberty to make whatever alterations to my body I wish providing I can find someone to assist. But I think I’d baulk at demanding everyone else perceived me to be something other than what I was born as.

  42. “I had a conversation with one of London’s more expensive psycho-sexual counsellors, who told me that he believed about 50 per cent of post-op transsexuals regretted their decision, that he had grave doubts about the value of their self-diagnosis, but that were he publicly to say any of this is would end his career.”

    I’ve heard that story too. At the same time, I’ve also had conversations with actual transgender people who say it’s nonsense. It arose in the early days when the medical options weren’t as good as they are today, and that more recently the majority are a lot happier after the surgery, and don’t regret it at all. The main issues are that it does still require a lot of medical intervention to maintain – they’ll be in and out of doctor’s surgeries and hospitals for the rest of their life – and it’s not a fast or complete solution. Some people dream that the day after surgery they’ll be able to walk out and be accepted by society, and they won’t. They’ll still get all the hassles and complications from dealing with people who don’t understand. If that was the cause of their misery, it won’t have gone away, and they’ll have a bunch of new medical issues to deal with too. But they say that the counseling explains all that now, and that it does get better over time. It takes about 5-10 years for the hormones to make changes to the point where you don’t stand out.

    That said, I know only two or three, who know perhaps a dozen or so more. It’s not a big sample. But when you listen in to their discussions, very little of it is moaning about having made the wrong decision, most of it is moaning that it’s still not enough.

    “I would not need to diagnose an introvert or an extrovert because neither characteristic is of itself problematic to its subject.”

    On the contrary. Trying to socialise when you’re an extreme introvert is a big problem. Ever seen an introvert at a party? Psychologists will sometimes offer treatment for the resulting shyness.

    However, I was asking about how you could possibly do it, not whether you would want to.

    “With regard to women wearing trousers, I’m afraid I’m rather like my seven year-old, especially given the tendency of so many women to wear string- or black-coloured clothing overall. I find it very unappealing.”

    Sure. But do you find it “absurd” or “silly”? If not, why not?

    “As to the boy who wants to play with dollies, etc., I’d let him. He’d probably grow out of it, anyway, just as girls do. Granted, it might be replaced as he aged with other traditionally girlish pursuits, but so be it. We’ve always recognised that some people are like that.”

    That’s the modern attitude. It’s not the attitude society had when I was a child.

    “Rather, it seems to me it’s Sid, or more likely, agitators for Sid, who seek that Orwellian control of language, who are taking the tools of control. I think that’s one of Ecks’ themes.”

    Indeed. It’s the agitators who are the problem. But they’re not agitating for Sid specifically, they’re agitating for control over society. They look around for sympathy-arousing downtrodden groups to support – the poor, the disabled, the working classes, women, black people, and so on – that they know the conservatives and traditionalists will resist, and then they throw their weight behind overturning society on their behalf.

    So I think most ordinary people – without being extreme about it – have a lot of sympathy for women having equal rights. It’s not fair that they don’t get the vote, not being allowed to drive, or go out of the house alone, or are excluded from earning a living of their own so they are forced to find some man to support them. The authoritarians turned that into a campaign to punish anyone using “sexist language” like using masculine pronouns when talking about people generically.

    The push-back against that sort of political correctness was partly successful – British society is fairly liberal and didn’t like the attempt to control people’s speech, and could accept and agree with the arguments of liberals who spoke against it – but not entirely. The people who resisted it could be, and often were, painted as the sort of misogynists who wanted to chain their barefoot and pregnant wife to the sink, and in arguing for free speech you had to be careful not to lose all sympathy for your cause by saying anything that made it look like you were. And that was made all the more difficult by the fact that there were a lot of old-style genuine misogynists who were among the loudest objectors.

    Society didn’t like the political correctness brigade, but it also didn’t like the misogynists, so it compromised between their positions or kept out of it, and as a result, there continues to be pressure on pronoun use.

    However, it wasn’t the *women* that were the problem. It was the radical feminists, (quite a few of those being men). The mistake people like Ecks makes is to confuse the two – to spend their time denouncing the “monstrous regiment of women” in fire-and-brimstone terms, and make no distinction. The problem is, society might not have much sympathy for radical feminists, but it had a *lot* of sympathy for women, and so this sort of ranting was completely counterproductive. Far from stopping political correctness, it actually enabled political correctness a partial victory.

    It’s the same with any other sympathy group the leftist authoritarians: you don’t attack the disabled, or poor Africans, or the working classes in excoriating terms if you want their support and restraint, if you want them to see you as a friend and not an enemy. And it’s the same with LGBT people. The vast majority just want the same rights everyone else has, and to be allowed to get on with their lives without constant fear of being attacked (verbally or worse) by authoritarian nutters who are offended at their behaviour. The vast majority of society sympathise with that wish. And while the vast majority of society could easily be persuaded that speech codes on insane pronoun usages, enforced by law or social media-driven sanction is going too far, they’ll not want to say so if that puts them in the same corner with people who think LGBT people are mentally ill or should be “treated like the freaks they are”.

    And that’s my concern. I oppose the leftist authoritarians. I don’t oppose the LGBT people – as a libertarian I regard it as a matter covered by the Harm Principle. I’m worried that by attacking the LGBTers that you’ll encourage society to support the leftists, and hand the politically correct yet another victory.

    I obviously can’t stop you saying what you want to say. But I can at least put in opposing voices, so any normal people looking in, wondering which side to support, doesn’t think the rightists opposing political correctness are *entirely* a bunch of racist, misogynist, homophobic shitheads; as authoritarian in their own way as the leftists.

    It’s not much, but it makes me feel better about myself.

  43. The main issues are that it does still require a lot of medical intervention to maintain – they’ll be in and out of doctor’s surgeries and hospitals for the rest of their life – and it’s not a fast or complete solution.

    Trebles all round! And this is one of the biggest issues to me. There is a whole industry developing around encouraging people to wallow in their insecurities / unhappiness and see irreversible, risky medical treatments as a ‘cure’. All this wallowing doesn’t do anyone any good.

    You’re a guy who likes guys and likes girly thing? Best thing to do is take up some girly hobbies, make girly friends, make yourself look masculine and get a boyfriend who likes men too.

    Making yourself depressed by talking endlessly to other depressed people, and PC professional ‘gender counsellors’, then trying to make yourself look like a woman so you can get a boyfriend who likes girls (but probably won’t want to introduce you to his friends or parents because he identifies as ‘straight’, just isn’t as sensible an option.

    Dosing up gay teenage boys with female hormones, giving them boob jobs soon after their 18th birthday, teaching them to talk high pitch and walk sexy is great for ‘straight’ men who like that sort of thing and great for professionals in the ‘transgender industry’. But it’s not exactly a nice way to treat gay men is it?

    As for the straight men who become so consumed with their cross-dressing fetish that they decide to transition – they are mentally ill and need to abstain from what is making them mentally ill.

  44. Have I said anything to oppose transsexuals, or to attack them? I don’t think I have. To the extent that they are sincere rather than suggestible or, in the case of Third World of their Ilk, perceiving it as their best economic option, I have a lot of sympathy with their condition – whatever that condition may in fact be.

    But if I saw someone with a cancer growing on his face and learned this his view was that it did not need to be treated but encouraged, then I would be concerned for him (assuming I had no reason to think he was undeserving of sympathy). And the reason why I still tend towards the view that this condition of transsexualism is one of mental health rather than a cruel trick played by nature, is that I am unpersuaded that the patient’s perception that he is in fact about as radically different from what he appears to be, whilst still being human, is a safe or reasonable barometer of what is in fact the case. I am also unpersuaded that transsexual unhappiness will be remedied by the rest of us adopting a new nomenclature sufficiently sensitive to the individual’s self-proclaimed needs. There is an “It’s all about ME!” quality to some high-profile transsexuals which is reminiscent of nothing more than the more queeny of homosexual men and drag queens.

    I think we can probably agree that an adult who wishes to alter or even mutilate his body should be allowed to do so, although for my part I do not see why I should pay for it or for any consequential medical treatment. I think we can probably also agree that a man who walks down the street in a flowery dress is entitled to do so without being attacked or abused, just as a man wearing a tricorn hat and declaring himself Napoleon. He may, after all, be mad without being bad. For that matter he may only be wearing fancy dress, and inviting us to laugh at him (and this is a bit of a problem for the rest of us, for how are we to know?)

    But would we, both of us self-diagnosed libertarians, agree that I am entitled, on meeting such a man, whilst observing all the usual courtesies, to reserve my judgment on him as I see fit, even extending to a presumption on my part, should I see fit, to deny him employment on the grounds that he may turn out to be flaky or bad with my customers (of course I may be wrong about both of these things, but my property, my rules)?

    Would we agree that the testing of such individuals for working with children should in principle be more stringent, for example because of a concern over incipient pederasty?

    I also have a concern, unallayed by your protestation of opposition to progressive/PC authoritarians, that you are sufficiently persuaded that transsexual unhappiness is significantly driven by the rest of us, that the rest of us are the ones who need to change. Presumably you’d eschew coercion to such an end, but I’m a little unclear where lies the boundary between your concern for the troubled and your opposition to progressive/PC authoritarians.

    I am, incidentally, and I say this without irony, racist and sexist. Self-diagnosed, obviously. In both cases, my prejudice is rebuttable. Overall, I find that bumbling courtesy is an admirable varnish. Needless to say, there are very few people in whose company, to whom, knowing my true identity, I would willingly disclose these facts, for fear of being abused as a shithead (that *was* ironic).

  45. “As for the straight men who become so consumed with their cross-dressing fetish that they decide to transition”

    That’s transvestism, not transgenderism. Don’t confuse the two.

    “Have I said anything to oppose transsexuals, or to attack them? I don’t think I have.”

    No, you haven’t. And I don’t have much of a problem with your views. If that sort of view was more commonly expressed here, I’d not feel the need to comment so much. It’s the others here, who *do* oppose/attack them I’m really arguing with.

    “But if I saw someone with a cancer growing on his face and learned this his view was that it did not need to be treated but encouraged, then I would be concerned for him”

    The sympathy is appreciated, I’m sure, misplaced as it might be.

    The problem is that the “mental illness” tag is also being used as an argument to restrict treatment, or justify discrimination. It’s also a weapon that can be turned around on us.

    “And the reason why I still tend towards the view that this condition of transsexualism is one of mental health rather than a cruel trick played by nature, is that I am unpersuaded that the patient’s perception that he is in fact about as radically different from what he appears to be, whilst still being human, is a safe or reasonable barometer of what is in fact the case.”

    The patient’s perception of their own state is entirely accurate, and conforms precisely to their appearance. Why do you keep saying it’s not?

    They’re saying their mind is a different sex to their body. You can’t see their mind, and you agree 100% about the sex of their body. So where’s the delusion?

    I am also unpersuaded that transsexual unhappiness will be remedied by the rest of us adopting a new nomenclature sufficiently sensitive to the individual’s self-proclaimed needs.

    All the trans I know couldn’t give a stuff about the nomenclature! What they mainly care about is when transgender people get killed, beaten, tortured, robbed, thrown out of places, sectioned in mental hospitals, losing their jobs, being kicked out of their homes, disowned by their families, sexually assaulted in the toilets by the school bullies, or having random strangers screaming abuse at them in the street.

    They think people deliberately using the wrong word for them is rude, but what they hell. Lots of people are rude.

    Do you think that if they read something like: “Whats wrong with […] treating middle-aged heterosexual men consumed by the fantasy of themselves as a woman as the freaks they actually are?” That they will assume this means you might – horror! – use the wrong gender pronoun to refer to them?

    Most Trans people don’t care about pronouns. Only SJWs do. And that’s the essential confusion that is leading to this argument.

    “although for my part I do not see why I should pay for it or for any consequential medical treatment”

    Is that a general complaint, or specific to this issue?

    I don’t expect to get pregnant, so why should I pay for maternity hospitals? I don’t play sports, so why should I pay for sports injury clinics? I’m not fat, so I don’t expect to pay to treat fat people. I don’t vote labour, so I don’t see why I should pay for the treatment of labour supporters… Where do you stop?

    It’s an argument for privatising the NHS, but not for it discriminating.

    “I think we can probably also agree that a man who walks down the street in a flowery dress is entitled to do so without being attacked or abused”

    Good! Now does everyone else agree?

    “But would we, both of us self-diagnosed libertarians, agree that I am entitled, on meeting such a man, whilst observing all the usual courtesies, to reserve my judgment on him as I see fit, even extending to a presumption on my part, should I see fit, to deny him employment on the grounds that he may turn out to be flaky or bad with my customers (of course I may be wrong about both of these things, but my property, my rules)?”

    Of course. So long as you extend the same right to employers who wish to refuse you employment on the grounds that you’re transphobic, (or apt to draw down the twitter mob on his business because of the things you say). The same principle applies.

    You should have the right. But is it good tactics?

    “Would we agree that the testing of such individuals for working with children should in principle be more stringent, for example because of a concern over incipient pederasty?”

    No. People should only be subject to sanctions for things they have actually done; that there is evidence of them doing.

    This is what I called the Group A/Group B trick in earlier postings. You want to discriminate against group A, so you find another group B that overlaps with group A and that does something horrible that everyone agrees needs to be stopped. You then argue that it is necessary to impose measures on group A to prevent the crimes of group B.

    “I also have a concern, unallayed by your protestation of opposition to progressive/PC authoritarians, that you are sufficiently persuaded that transsexual unhappiness is significantly driven by the rest of us, that the rest of us are the ones who need to change.”

    Yes – for a certain value of “the rest of us”.

    I use the term “authoritarian” generally to apply to anyone who thinks right-thinking society (which they represent) has the right/duty to dictate what others are allowed to think/say/do, in matters that are not covered by the Harm Principle. That includes the politically correct brigade, who police speech, but it also includes the “Mary Whitehouse Tendency”, who want to enforce their own traditional values on other people’s sexuality. I put them in the same category as the Islamists, who have very similar views.

    It’s the traditionalist authoritarians that I think need to change, but not by being forced to do so by the progressive authoritarians, who simply want to replace them as moral authorities over society.

    “Presumably you’d eschew coercion to such an end, but I’m a little unclear where lies the boundary between your concern for the troubled and your opposition to progressive/PC authoritarians.”

    I oppose all authoritarians – whether of the progressive or traditionalist variety – and try not to discriminate between them, although my sympathies tend to be more towards the right because of my economic views.

    My view on coercion is the same as for any other political issue. So long as we live in a democracy where decisions can be made or changed by reasoned debate, and essential rights and freedoms are preserved, I’ll abide by the legally constituted political process and the laws that result. If my side loses the vote, it’s up to us to put forward a better and more persuasive argument, not to use violence. Coercion only comes into it when that democratic political process stops working, or to defend myself and others against people who are not abiding by it themselves.

    It seems to me to be quite a common libertarian position. Wanting to “purge” your political enemies, if you’ll excuse me saying so, isn’t.

  46. NiV, my remarks are of general application as regards, for example, the NHS and privity of contract.

    Given your reference to racist etc. shitheads, I’m unsure I see much difference between you and those who might say a transsexual should be laughed and poked fun at.

    “You’re a racist shithead!”

    “Haha! You’re a pathetic sissy in a frock”.

    Although I grant that neither is coercive.

  47. That’s transvestism, not transgenderism. Don’t confuse the two.

    The old fashioned, non-PC research demonstrated a good number of those people who identified as the latter started out as, and probably were, the former. “Autogynephilia” I think was the terminology back in the non-PC days.

    Likewise, it is not unusual for young effeminate gay men to be jealous of girls and to wish they has been a girl, as being a girl would solve most of their social problems. This isn’t the same as gender dysphoria, it’s just a natural reaction to the rejection gay men receive from the objects of their desires (men in general 95-99% of whom are straight).

    People don’t have a perfect insight into themselves. And there are inevitably those people who seek to present with gender dysphoria in order to be approved for the treatments they want.

    Actual, problematic gender dysphoria is a rare condition. Whereas being gay is quite common and cross-dressing even moreso. Are we really supposed to believe that all the people who are suddenly deciding they are ‘transgender’ actually are transgender and not just gay or into cross-dressing in a big way?

    In Thailand, where you can buy hormones as easily as cough sweets, and young gay men transitioning is both an accepted subculture and commonplace, how come so many de-transition once they get old and lose their sexual attractiveness as women? How come so few older straight Thai men decide to become women?

    “Transgender” (as per the new western PC understanding of it) is actually, very, very rare. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but it is too rare to justify teaching schoolkids about it. I maintain that most people who now identify as such are either effeminate gay men, masculine gay women or straight men consumed by a cross-dressing / autogynaphilia fetish, and the ‘treatments’ being offered to them are not something we should be promoting.

  48. “Given your reference to racist etc. shitheads, I’m unsure I see much difference between you and those who might say a transsexual should be laughed and poked fun at.”

    Quite so. And isn’t that the point? You should have the *right* to offend, but does it make people you’re offending like you, or inclined to agree with you?

    Personally, I don’t care about people being racists, although I don’t see why people who hold other groups in contempt have any call to complain when others do the same to them.

    What I was talking about was how I make the case for free speech to people in the middle. They’re not fully bought in to the SJW narrative, but they’ve heard from the SJW activists that they’re making all these rules to deal with right-wingers who are into all the -isms. Most of those went out of fashion decades ago, and it puts the people in the middle off. It doesn’t take much evidence of that for them to draw the conclusion that the SJWs are absolutely correct about what the right-wing is. You can still make a theoretical case for free speech, even in the case of skinhead neo-nazis, but it’s not one that evokes a lot of sympathy or enthusiasm from normal people.

    The difference is that the SJWs pick groups that have widespread public support, and use them to provoke a right-wing reaction that turns everyone off them. The right seem to be intent on picking causes that nobody has any sympathy at all for any more, and provoking disgust from the people in the middle.

    I think free speech for racists is important, but it’s also important that people know not everyone opposing political correctness on the right are racists. And that the proper response to people with stupid, intolerant opinions is to argue with them about it, not shut them up.

    But anyway – the rules you all decide should apply to a “pathetic sissy in a frock” are the ones you’re going to have to live with when society comes to treat racists the same way. If you found “racist shithead” upsetting, just wait…

    “People don’t have a perfect insight into themselves.”

    But you do?

  49. The point was that pushing the modern, PC line (that lots of people are ‘transgender’ and should seek medical assistance to ‘transition’) is likely to confuse people (especially young gay people) who probably have much more common issues with their sexuality/identity.

  50. “The point was that pushing the modern, PC line (that lots of people are ‘transgender’ and should seek medical assistance to ‘transition’) is likely to confuse people (especially young gay people) who probably have much more common issues with their sexuality/identity.”

    Yes. That’s why you get 2+ years of counseling and living the life before they even consider letting you have surgery.

  51. StevenL, good point about the frustrations of young, homosexual men.

    NiV, where do I start? Chronologically, I must suppose.
    1) “Given your reference to racist etc. shitheads, I’m unsure I see much difference between you and those who might say a transsexual should be laughed and poked fun at.”

    To which you reply: Quite so. And isn’t that the point? You should have the ‘right’ to offend, but does it make people you’re offending like you, or inclined to agree with you?

    Hm. There’s some jiggery-pokery going on here. I drew attention to your willingness to indulge in insults regarding those with whom you disagree, by comparison with your piety concerning insults thrown out to those with whom you agree. In short, you were hostile to one, but not the other – for no good reason, since they are both the same – while you affected an indifference as between the two entitling you to castigate one but not the other. Yet, your reply deals not with this, but with the politics or tactics of speaking one’s mind. In Ecks, this would be forgivable because he’s all upfront about his prejudices and doesn’t care who knows it. You know where you stand with him. Mostly, I gloss over his comments. But you, you adopt the mantle of even-handedness, more in sorrow than in anger, the voice of reason. So, your reply at this point is sufficiently evasive as to be, when set against your adopted mantle, dishonest. I am not patronising you when I say that I am disappointed.

    2) You say, “Personally, I don’t care about people being racists, although I don’t see why people who hold other groups in contempt have any call to complain when others do the same to them.”

    I reply: let us for one moment put aside the lack of equanimity, despite all your contrary poses, in your approach to two different but equally opposing types of gratuitous insult. Having thus glossed over, I don’t think you’ve thought this through. I’m a racist because I like girls from East and South East Asia. I don’t hold other girls in contempt. But they struggle to compete. My preference in girls is racist. That’s the first point. It implies no contempt. I’m a genial racist. Just as one might be a genial communist. The second point is that I did not complain. What I did was to draw attention to your willingness to criticise insults against one group, but not another. You failed to perceive the disparity, despite your adopted mantle. What you’ve done, then, is raise a straw man. This, too, was dishonest.
    3) Which brings me to your third and fourth paragraphs: “What I was talking about was how I make the case for free speech to people in the middle. Etc.” As far as I can tell, your only concern is appeasing SJW progressives in the hope of winning over undecideds. I raised previously the question of where lies the boundary between your concern for the troubled, and your opposition to the SJW progressives, and I am now driven to the conclusion that your true concern is to make SJW progressives think well of you. I find this problematic, because for some months I have followed your argument that there is nothing to be gained by opposing SJWs, on the grounds that they seek out victim groups, and use this against us. I assure you I approached this argument, repeatedly, with an open mind. I never quite ‘got’ it, but I read and I paid attention. And the manner of your expression, so restrained, so reasonable, bade me continue to pay attention, which I did. I suspected you might have a point, an important point. I am finally driven to the conclusion that you shill for SJWs on the basis of your superficial attraction to, or proselytization of, the non-aggression principle; in hackneyed terms, you’re more concerned about what the Guardian might say about you, than you are about the libertarianism you profess. A libertine, or at least libertine-friendly, you may be, but you are no libertarian. You are actually rather pious. And I regret that where others have called you out on this, I was prepared to continue listening on the basis that your prose is diffident. Above all, I’m disappointed because I had hoped you just might have a subtle insight. But you really don’t. Your recipe is: agree with everything the bullies demand, otherwise nice people will think poorly of me. It’s the non-aggression principle applied only to people who are more aggressive than you. Nice people may or may not agree, but you are wedded to no principle.

    Regrettably, from my point of view, neither Google nor Tim’s site’s own search facility allow me to refer you to my own thoughts, before (I think) your time here, on the subject of the treatment meted out to one Veronica Bolino. To the extent that my own bona fides are in issue.

  52. “In short, you were hostile to one, but not the other – for no good reason, since they are both the same”

    I don’t consider them to be the same. Dislike of racism is an attack on authoritarians trying to gain social superiority over others by the arbitrary accident of their skin colour, and that is frequently used to justify violence or persecution. Dislike of men wearing dresses is an attack on people minding their own business, doing nothing that does any harm to anyone else.

    I don’t like authoritarians. Ones who merely express their authoritarian opinions I accept have a right to express them, but I’ve got a right to say what I think of that, too. I’m not aware of any instance where men in dresses ever caused the sort of major widespread problems for other people that racists have historically done. (Unless you count the Romans…)

    Mostly, I regard racist in the same way I regard people who believe in astrology or creationism. It’s old-fashioned, and not really relevant or significant today, when most people are unlikely to be influenced into doing anything stupid by them. It’s a bit quaint, really – an unimportant sideshow. So I don’t have any problem with racists saying whatever they want to say.

    I just find it amusing, (and hopefully instructive,) to turn the tables, and use the same methods on them that they use on other people, in the hopes of enlightening them as to how they look to other people. If you want to suppress some group on grounds of their race or sexuality; that justifies their suppression of you on grounds of your racism or transphobia. It’s the same authoritarianism, with a different target.

    Not many are good enough at abstract thinking to be able to understand the analogy. It’s still worth a try, though.

    “I’m a racist because I like girls from East and South East Asia. I don’t hold other girls in contempt.”

    That’s not racism. The definition I’d use is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” or “The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:”

    You might express a personal preference, but I don’t expect you’d claim it to be objective or universal. It’s not what I’m talking about.

    “and I am now driven to the conclusion that your true concern is to make SJW progressives think well of you.”

    No. My stated aim is to make undecideds think well of advocates for free speech. I don’t expect progressives to like me at all, and I don’t care that they don’t.

    “I find this problematic, because for some months I have followed your argument that there is nothing to be gained by opposing SJWs, on the grounds that they seek out victim groups, and use this against us.”

    No! No! No!

    The argument is that there is nothing to be gained by opposing the sympathy groups the SJWs hide behind! There is everything to be gained from opposing SJWs!

    It is the failure to distinguish the sympathy groups from the SJWs that is my principle complaint. You don’t attack women, or the idea of giving them equal rights, you attack the nutty extremist nonsense about enforcing non-gendered pronouns and the loss of the presumption of innocence in rape cases put forward by radical feminists. You don’t attack the poor and working class – you attack the economically illiterate welfare state, minimum wage ‘solutions’ proposed by socialists. You don’t attack the transgendered victims of bullying and prejudice, you attack the fruit-cake thought-police antics of idiots trying to legislate alphabet-soup pronoun use.

    There are *lots* of people who would have plenty of sympathy for rejecting the deranged policies of SJWs. The problem is you *lose* all that sympathy by instead attacking whatever group the SJWs are currently using for cover. It’s a deliberate tactic on their part, and the right falls for it every time.

    I’m not at all saying you shouldn’t attack SJWs. In fact, I’m saying you should attack them a lot more often than you do! I’m saying to stop wasting time and sympathy attacking the transgendered.

  53. Not looking to throw my penny’s worth in – as to where I found arguments more or less convincing etc – but I can’t be the only one who thought that was an excellent exchange…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *