“Self-diagnosed adolescent trans boys — natal females — started to fill up GIDS’s waiting room with similar stories, haircuts, even names – ‘one after another after another’. They’d talk about their favourite trans YouTubers, many having adopted the same name, and how they aspired to be like them in the future.”
One thing that all GIDS patients had in common, regardless of sex, was that they had far more going on than just gender trouble. A 2012 study found that associated difficulties included “non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, autism spectrum conditions (ASCs), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), symptoms of anxiety, psychosis, eating difficulties, bullying and abuse”.
Also, a lot of the girls presenting at GIDS were bisexual or lesbian — over 90%. Or rather, they would have been lesbian, if they’d identified as female. One clinician Barnes speaks to recalls female patients saying things like, “When I hear the word lesbian, I cringe. I want to die”, and “I’m gonna vomit if I hear the word lesbian another time”. Gay and lesbian clinicians who asked whether such internalised homophobia should complicate a dysphoria diagnosis were told that they were “too close” to the subject to be objective. That this dismissal of same-sex attracted people’s experiences and insights was itself a signal instance of homophobia seemed not to occur to GIDS as an institution.
GIDS, it seems, was no longer interested in asking questions. When the service was founded, one of its principles had been an explorative approach: “Di Ceglie could see that, in some cases, by addressing other difficulties experienced by the child — things like depression, abuse or trauma — it might ‘secondarily affect the gender identity development’. In other words, sometimes the gender identity difficulties might resolve if other difficulties being faced were dealt with as well.” But by the time the majority of GIDS’s caseload had become female adolescents, the culture of the service had decisively changed. In 2009, Polly Carmichael took over from Di Ceglie as head of the clinic. Her tenure saw the clinic adopt a high public profile — participating in a string of documentaries that boosted GIDS’s image and promoted its work — while internally adopting an “us against the world” attitude. Clinicians were encouraged to see themselves as a “family”: disagreement became a personal betrayal. One GIDS staff member recalls that anyone raising criticisms of the service was likely to be told “this has made Polly cry”.
Perhaps as important as the clinic’s leadership, though, were the external pressures: as the concept of “gender identity” took hold more widely, the idea that one’s “subconscious sex” ought to supersede the physical body began to direct treatment. Trans support groups like Mermaids and GIRES promoted an “affirmative model”, which insisted that any child who said they were trans should be treated as trans. This influenced both the expectations of patients and their families, and the practice of GIDS doctors. Hormone treatment became the default. Patients came, not because they wanted to explore their gender issues, but because they wanted puberty blockers. If doctors were unwilling to prescribe them, Barnes reports, patients would simply be referred to a different doctor. There was usually little opportunity for reflection: GIDS staff were expected to manage caseloads of up to 100 patients each, as referrals increased from 97 in 2009-10 to 2,748 in 2019-20 (a 2,800% increase overall, and an even more shocking 4,200% increase in girls). Once patients were on puberty blockers, nearly 100% would go on to take cross-sex hormones.
A service that had once prided itself on treating its patients as individuals had become something more like an assembly line. Whatever issues a child had, the only answer the clinic had was blockers. What’s terrible about this isn’t just that many children will have been put on a path to transition that could have been avoided; it’s that they were not receiving specialised support for their other, more pressing problems. Barnes tells the story of one boy who, as well as identifying as a girl, had such severe OCD that he couldn’t leave the house. His family got no support for the OCD, but GIDS sent a psychiatrist who offered to make an endocrinology referral.
With its one-size-fits-all plan, GIDS was failing every one of its patients: one of the reasons why, in 2022, an independent review commissioned by the NHS into gender identity services for children and young people made an interim recommendation that GIDS be shut down and replaced with regional specialist centres. (This spring, that advice will be enacted.) But — without diminishing the harm done to boys, which was plentiful — girls were particularly damaged by GIDS, because girls were being put on a pathway that was the definition of male default. GIDS had developed its approach to serve the traditional paediatric sufferer of dysphoria: a pre-pubertal boy. Because the clinic’s culture militated against self-reflection, the treatment stayed the same even though the patients had drastically changed.
It’s not uncommon for women to be badly served by medicine in this way, given that women are neglected as research subjects. Historically, femaleness has been treated as an abnormality, to be ignored if it cannot be remedied. What’s exceptional about the GIDS case, though, is that the underlying philosophy of trans identity effectively made these girls doubly invisible. They were invisible, firstly, to a model that had never taken them into account. But secondly, and more profoundly, they were invisible because gender identity doctrine held that even to think of them as female was to “misgender” them. You couldn’t say how they were different to boys without conceding that they were not, in strict fact, boys.
But to hate your body as a teenage girl is one of the most categorically female experiences possible. I didn’t hate my body because I wasn’t a girl; I hated it precisely because I was, and because of everything I feared or knew that being a woman might mean.
Trans activists tend to dismiss stories like mine: if I had truly been dysphoric, they say, I would never have grown up to be the basic bitch I am today. I would have found a way to transition. But if I’d had YouTube, Mermaids and a compliant medical service, the way would have been signposted for me in neon lights. I learned to live with my body, in time, because no one gave me an alternative.
One of the many reasons that the “pause button” claim about blockers is a lie is that going through puberty is one of the ways you become reconciled to puberty. Discovering your sexuality might help you discover that your body exists for your pleasure, not just external judgement. Gradually, the alien flesh can become familiar again. The girls who went through GIDS were denied this. Taking puberty blockers means you never reach adult sexual function. Tentative research suggests that girls who went on blockers actually felt worse about their bodies after several years. Blockers didn’t treat their dysphoria: they exacerbated it.
For some few, transition will have been the right outcome. Others are left forever learning to live with bodies that have been made strange and vulnerable — weakened bones, dropped voices, vaginal atrophy, scarred and breastless chests if they went on to have mastectomies. There is a small, but growing, community of female detransitioners. Barnes quotes one, who has undergone a double mastectomy and a hysterectomy: “I regret all of it… I wish someone would have been there to tell me not to get castrated at 21.”
The things these women did in an effort to become not-girls remind me so keenly of the girl I used to be, with her vague longing for a bodiless life. A perverse sisterhood of doomed escapologists, looking for a get-out from what biology had planned for us. The way I once felt about myself was terrible, but it was also normal: the terribly normal fact of feminine self-loathing. The tragedy of a misogynistic world is that it makes girls believe they need a cure for femaleness. The scandal of GIDS is that it pretended it could supply one.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is a very moving article, and as a parent of a young girl, a frightening one. “…to hate your body as a teenage girl is one of the most categorically female experiences possible“, and not one any male can replicate through a change of wardrobe and hairstyle. I might add that being a teenage boy isn’t always a bed of roses either. But now supporting your child, without necessarily affirming their confused or panicked responses to the changes they are experiencing, could be quite literally illegal.
Doing what you instinctively feel to be right is all you can do. Easy to say, i know, but forget about legalities; the law can’t change your love and care for your child during this vital time in their lives.
The world is far more complex for teenagers to negotiate than ever before, and their biggest influence will always be their peer group, exacerbated now by being ever-present via mobiles. When my son & daughter entered their teens in the 2000s mobile technology was still developing so the generation of parents you represent are having to find a way through something entirely unprecedented in human history.
All i can add is, let no-one tell you what is best for your child. So-called ‘experts’ are nothing of the kind – how can they be, at such an unprecedented juncture? Above all, go easy on yourself, if possible. Just staying true to your own principles is the only way forward, and whatever storms hit, as so vividly described in this much-needed article, keep believing your daughter will come through towards fully-fledged womanhood. The overwhelming odds are, she will, despite how overwhelming the changes taking place might seem both within and around her.
And good luck!
Good sense, as always.
The horrific case of Dr. Money and David Reimer should be talked about more. It’s the perfect example of a twisted so called specialist
I completely agree with you. My heart goes out to youngsters whose parents are not wise.
Good sense, as always.
The horrific case of Dr. Money and David Reimer should be talked about more. It’s the perfect example of a twisted so called specialist
I completely agree with you. My heart goes out to youngsters whose parents are not wise.
Try not to worry, be natural and responsive, encourage discussion and love her. You cannot do more, and it will be enough.
The parental rights issue is huge ! Not to mention that if your co-parent isn’t on the same page, there can literally be civil war in a household and make things even more confusing and dangerous for the teenager. It makes me think that the only safe place to raise childrin these days is in the middle of nowhere.
“if your co-parent isnt on the same page there can be civil war in a household”.
It has been alleged that this is what happened in former Mermaids head Susie Green’s household.
Victor Hugo sort of did that when he was living in exile off the coast of France. His daughter apparently went insane from the isolation.
Then again, how much of that was based on Hugo’s parenting itself?
“if your co-parent isnt on the same page there can be civil war in a household”.
It has been alleged that this is what happened in former Mermaids head Susie Green’s household.
Victor Hugo sort of did that when he was living in exile off the coast of France. His daughter apparently went insane from the isolation.
Then again, how much of that was based on Hugo’s parenting itself?
Parenting in a world at war with reality and limits is tough. Adolescence is coming to terms with the realities of life, its unchosen obligations, and its constraints; but also its opportunities, and the many possible ways of making one’s way in the wide world with what one has. A culture which, through the media of screens, digitised fantasies, and biomedical technology, elevates the self to the position of a god, seemingly able to choose for itself what and how it wants to be without limit sells a horrible lie to vulnerable teenagers, that is that they can be whatever they think they want to be without hard work or sacrifice or sustained effort over a long period of time – and even then it might not work out.
This is not coming to terms with the natural world and one’s place in it, it is a fantastical attempt to literally screen it all out of existence. That’s a horribly cruel thing to do to a young individual; doing it to a whole generation of young people is a recipe for civilisational collapse. Paul Kingsnorth has, I believe, hit the nail on the head: we are watching the great fall paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/watch-the-great-fall
Doing what you instinctively feel to be right is all you can do. Easy to say, i know, but forget about legalities; the law can’t change your love and care for your child during this vital time in their lives.
The world is far more complex for teenagers to negotiate than ever before, and their biggest influence will always be their peer group, exacerbated now by being ever-present via mobiles. When my son & daughter entered their teens in the 2000s mobile technology was still developing so the generation of parents you represent are having to find a way through something entirely unprecedented in human history.
All i can add is, let no-one tell you what is best for your child. So-called ‘experts’ are nothing of the kind – how can they be, at such an unprecedented juncture? Above all, go easy on yourself, if possible. Just staying true to your own principles is the only way forward, and whatever storms hit, as so vividly described in this much-needed article, keep believing your daughter will come through towards fully-fledged womanhood. The overwhelming odds are, she will, despite how overwhelming the changes taking place might seem both within and around her.
And good luck!
Try not to worry, be natural and responsive, encourage discussion and love her. You cannot do more, and it will be enough.
The parental rights issue is huge ! Not to mention that if your co-parent isn’t on the same page, there can literally be civil war in a household and make things even more confusing and dangerous for the teenager. It makes me think that the only safe place to raise childrin these days is in the middle of nowhere.
Parenting in a world at war with reality and limits is tough. Adolescence is coming to terms with the realities of life, its unchosen obligations, and its constraints; but also its opportunities, and the many possible ways of making one’s way in the wide world with what one has. A culture which, through the media of screens, digitised fantasies, and biomedical technology, elevates the self to the position of a god, seemingly able to choose for itself what and how it wants to be without limit sells a horrible lie to vulnerable teenagers, that is that they can be whatever they think they want to be without hard work or sacrifice or sustained effort over a long period of time – and even then it might not work out.
This is not coming to terms with the natural world and one’s place in it, it is a fantastical attempt to literally screen it all out of existence. That’s a horribly cruel thing to do to a young individual; doing it to a whole generation of young people is a recipe for civilisational collapse. Paul Kingsnorth has, I believe, hit the nail on the head: we are watching the great fall paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/watch-the-great-fall
This is a very moving article, and as a parent of a young girl, a frightening one. “…to hate your body as a teenage girl is one of the most categorically female experiences possible“, and not one any male can replicate through a change of wardrobe and hairstyle. I might add that being a teenage boy isn’t always a bed of roses either. But now supporting your child, without necessarily affirming their confused or panicked responses to the changes they are experiencing, could be quite literally illegal.
Thank you, Sarah, for an enlightening article. One of my daughters experienced the feelings you describe when she was about 9. She felt ‘like a boy’ and wasn’t really a girl etc etc. Mega tomboy, always active, refuses to wear dresses. I suspected she was simply gay, given the way she showed off around girls and had ‘crushes’ on them. Thank God she wasn’t exposed to trans ideology; I dread to think she might have asked for the mutilation you describe. I made a point of being positive about her sexuality (whatever form it took) and being pro-female in all other respects (she often decried her own sex). A few years on, she seems happier in her own body and seems to have accepted her natal sex.
Upvoted for instinctively putting your daughter’s well-being before an ideology.
I am just a man and don’t even have children (an army of neices though)
It was always held to be a commonplace that girls had crushes on older girls or women teachers, but that didn’t mean that they were gay or required transitioning. They were/are children and not to be treated as adults. Children have parents for a reason – to stop them from mutilating themselves, falling out of trees or being eaten by lions. You know your daughter better than I do, but I was a young boy and I suggest that pre-puescents have, by definition, no libido and therefore no real awareness of sexuality except that which is planted there by adults. My mother took a position of benign neglect where my mental/sexual development was concerned – Thank goodness. “He’ll be okay” was her mantra. I am pleased to hear that your daughter is just fine – They invariably are if we leave them alone, but we seem to live in a society where adults visit their own obsessions upon children, to the detriment of all.
See Philip Larkin on the subject.
“we seem to live in a society where adults visit their own obsessions upon children”
Bingo.
I love your comment “children have parents for a reason”. Well said! I will repeat it often as so many public bodies seem to think they know better – they don’t! (And anyone who thinks differently should look at how the state brings up its looked after children). Thank you.
Well said. Thank you. Yes my son at around 4 years of age wanted a tea set(this was the early 90s) so I got him a Flintstones tea set. We were very close and would press flowers and make cards for the family and do craft projects that perhaps some little boys may not have enjoyed as much. His dad, my ex wasn’t too happy about the tea set but I didn’t care. I said he’s fine. Fyi: not all guys are like that. His stepdad didn’t care.
He used to love to wear my dress shoes when he was 2-3. But he also loved sports. He played T-ball and soccer when he was little eventually moving on to hockey and football and taking his high school girlfriend to prom. He was also pretty good at art too but has slacked off on that.
As a 32 yr old he’s a 6 ft 3 very masculine male but one who is extremely gentle and sensitive. He enjoys the company of women and can talk about anything. He loves the mall and will help me choose clothes. He always wants his mama to buy very proper Ralph Lauren clothes and I have to tell him it’s out of my budget. He has impeccable taste and always has. But he loves football and fishing too. Growing up I always just let him like what he wanted so if he wanted to have a tea party with me that didn’t mean that he wanted to be a girl. I didn’t make a big production out of it. I just wanted him to be him and to have fun. Whatever happened in the future would happen. I didn’t feel like I needed to steer him in any direction. I didn’t need to push being typical male on him or being effeminate or a girl/trans in him either. I just let him be him and he’s just fine.
“we seem to live in a society where adults visit their own obsessions upon children”
Bingo.
I love your comment “children have parents for a reason”. Well said! I will repeat it often as so many public bodies seem to think they know better – they don’t! (And anyone who thinks differently should look at how the state brings up its looked after children). Thank you.
Well said. Thank you. Yes my son at around 4 years of age wanted a tea set(this was the early 90s) so I got him a Flintstones tea set. We were very close and would press flowers and make cards for the family and do craft projects that perhaps some little boys may not have enjoyed as much. His dad, my ex wasn’t too happy about the tea set but I didn’t care. I said he’s fine. Fyi: not all guys are like that. His stepdad didn’t care.
He used to love to wear my dress shoes when he was 2-3. But he also loved sports. He played T-ball and soccer when he was little eventually moving on to hockey and football and taking his high school girlfriend to prom. He was also pretty good at art too but has slacked off on that.
As a 32 yr old he’s a 6 ft 3 very masculine male but one who is extremely gentle and sensitive. He enjoys the company of women and can talk about anything. He loves the mall and will help me choose clothes. He always wants his mama to buy very proper Ralph Lauren clothes and I have to tell him it’s out of my budget. He has impeccable taste and always has. But he loves football and fishing too. Growing up I always just let him like what he wanted so if he wanted to have a tea party with me that didn’t mean that he wanted to be a girl. I didn’t make a big production out of it. I just wanted him to be him and to have fun. Whatever happened in the future would happen. I didn’t feel like I needed to steer him in any direction. I didn’t need to push being typical male on him or being effeminate or a girl/trans in him either. I just let him be him and he’s just fine.
Nicely done. I think that society will, at some point down the road, come to the conclusion that these horrific experiments done on children during the 2000’s was a huge mistake. Future generations will wonder what on earth possessed so many professional and licensed adults to adhere to a barbaric practice for so many years. Sort of like how slavery is thought of today.
Upvoted for instinctively putting your daughter’s well-being before an ideology.
I am just a man and don’t even have children (an army of neices though)
It was always held to be a commonplace that girls had crushes on older girls or women teachers, but that didn’t mean that they were gay or required transitioning. They were/are children and not to be treated as adults. Children have parents for a reason – to stop them from mutilating themselves, falling out of trees or being eaten by lions. You know your daughter better than I do, but I was a young boy and I suggest that pre-puescents have, by definition, no libido and therefore no real awareness of sexuality except that which is planted there by adults. My mother took a position of benign neglect where my mental/sexual development was concerned – Thank goodness. “He’ll be okay” was her mantra. I am pleased to hear that your daughter is just fine – They invariably are if we leave them alone, but we seem to live in a society where adults visit their own obsessions upon children, to the detriment of all.
See Philip Larkin on the subject.
Nicely done. I think that society will, at some point down the road, come to the conclusion that these horrific experiments done on children during the 2000’s was a huge mistake. Future generations will wonder what on earth possessed so many professional and licensed adults to adhere to a barbaric practice for so many years. Sort of like how slavery is thought of today.
Thank you, Sarah, for an enlightening article. One of my daughters experienced the feelings you describe when she was about 9. She felt ‘like a boy’ and wasn’t really a girl etc etc. Mega tomboy, always active, refuses to wear dresses. I suspected she was simply gay, given the way she showed off around girls and had ‘crushes’ on them. Thank God she wasn’t exposed to trans ideology; I dread to think she might have asked for the mutilation you describe. I made a point of being positive about her sexuality (whatever form it took) and being pro-female in all other respects (she often decried her own sex). A few years on, she seems happier in her own body and seems to have accepted her natal sex.
I just went through something like this with my fiance’s daughter.
When she hit 13 (she is now 16) two of her friends announced they were trans and all of a sudden she was too. She did everything she could to dress in a manner that hid her body. Then she asked her parents for a chest binder. Her parents, both medical professionals, agreed that that was just not going to happen.
Now this young girl has a very curvy but attractive figure and is actually very pretty, but you could see that as her curves took off she was less and less comfortable with herself and uncomfortable with the implications of those curves. When she found out that her older sister had had sex she practically went into shock, cried and then wanted her sister to tell her why she would do that.
Well, three years later, all of her friends that had been “trans” are no longer trans. She now dresses in a manner that does not hide but rather accentuates her body. She shops for dresses with excitement and spends her money on makeup. Her mother thinks this happened as a result of her discovering she was very attracted to a boy in her class. Maybe. Who knows for sure?
Now I grew up on a horse farm with 3 sisters and a lot of their friends. I was the oldest and I got to watch all of them enter and go through puberty. Without being a woman I suppose it is hard to say, but after reading this article and thinking back, I think that each of my sisters and their friends went through similar things.
Puberty is awkward and unpleasant and frightening for all kids, but, I think that our modern culture, its sexualization of teen girls in particular, combined with unfettered social media usage, is particularly toxic to the mental well being of young pre-teen girls.
LOL. There were times that I wished I had been born a female with curves and a pretty face. Life for many of those with that profile seemed much easier than mine. They were kept very well for a time at least. Until the youthful appearance started to fade and the wrinkles and spare tire appeared.
LOL. There were times that I wished I had been born a female with curves and a pretty face. Life for many of those with that profile seemed much easier than mine. They were kept very well for a time at least. Until the youthful appearance started to fade and the wrinkles and spare tire appeared.
I just went through something like this with my fiance’s daughter.
When she hit 13 (she is now 16) two of her friends announced they were trans and all of a sudden she was too. She did everything she could to dress in a manner that hid her body. Then she asked her parents for a chest binder. Her parents, both medical professionals, agreed that that was just not going to happen.
Now this young girl has a very curvy but attractive figure and is actually very pretty, but you could see that as her curves took off she was less and less comfortable with herself and uncomfortable with the implications of those curves. When she found out that her older sister had had sex she practically went into shock, cried and then wanted her sister to tell her why she would do that.
Well, three years later, all of her friends that had been “trans” are no longer trans. She now dresses in a manner that does not hide but rather accentuates her body. She shops for dresses with excitement and spends her money on makeup. Her mother thinks this happened as a result of her discovering she was very attracted to a boy in her class. Maybe. Who knows for sure?
Now I grew up on a horse farm with 3 sisters and a lot of their friends. I was the oldest and I got to watch all of them enter and go through puberty. Without being a woman I suppose it is hard to say, but after reading this article and thinking back, I think that each of my sisters and their friends went through similar things.
Puberty is awkward and unpleasant and frightening for all kids, but, I think that our modern culture, its sexualization of teen girls in particular, combined with unfettered social media usage, is particularly toxic to the mental well being of young pre-teen girls.
The one thing that got my daughter to love her body when she started hunching, covering her face with her hair and wearing baggy clothes was Zumba. She hid in the corner and shuffled for the first couple of times but now she loves it. Seeing the joy of women of every age and shape being confident in their bodies in person really helped her understand that what she see’s and aspires to on the internet is not real life. I highly recommend that mother’s stop allowing their daughters to go through the phase of shame and body hate and take some action – it even helped me and my confidence too – I have zero rhythm!
The one thing that got my daughter to love her body when she started hunching, covering her face with her hair and wearing baggy clothes was Zumba. She hid in the corner and shuffled for the first couple of times but now she loves it. Seeing the joy of women of every age and shape being confident in their bodies in person really helped her understand that what she see’s and aspires to on the internet is not real life. I highly recommend that mother’s stop allowing their daughters to go through the phase of shame and body hate and take some action – it even helped me and my confidence too – I have zero rhythm!
It sounds as if this place became just another factory that saw its job not as counseling and helping young girls but as meeting a demand for a commodity with sufficient supply.
It sounds as if this place became just another factory that saw its job not as counseling and helping young girls but as meeting a demand for a commodity with sufficient supply.
just call Tavastock what they are – pedophile groomers. Sick F***s
Correct. Transmengeles in fact. Sadistic paedophile groomers, fronting a child genital mutilation cult.
Correct. Transmengeles in fact. Sadistic paedophile groomers, fronting a child genital mutilation cult.
just call Tavastock what they are – pedophile groomers. Sick F***s
“I can’t describe my relationship with my body at this age, because for there to have been a relationship at all would suggest there were two of us, me and it, and there weren’t: there was just one happily animal thing.”
This is a terrific sentence. The whole paragraph is brilliant. It really captures what it means to be a child and it illustrates as clearly as possible, in very simple way, why the idea of ‘transitioning’ children between genders is so insidious. And, to use the lingo of the ‘progressives’, it also happens to be gender neutral!
“I can’t describe my relationship with my body at this age, because for there to have been a relationship at all would suggest there were two of us, me and it, and there weren’t: there was just one happily animal thing.”
This is a terrific sentence. The whole paragraph is brilliant. It really captures what it means to be a child and it illustrates as clearly as possible, in very simple way, why the idea of ‘transitioning’ children between genders is so insidious. And, to use the lingo of the ‘progressives’, it also happens to be gender neutral!
I’m beginning to wonder about the validity of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. How can a condition increase by 4000% in such a short time frame?
It’s very reminiscent of the Multiple Personality Disorder farce in the US 50 yrs ago. Joan Acocella’s book ‘Creating Hysteria’ tells how an entire industry sprang up overnight, driven by therapists and medics who genuinely believed in what they were doing.
Almost all of those diagnosed were women but families were destroyed and blameless men imprisoned. Fictional books and a particular film dramatised the ‘condition’ (and potentially created the blueprint).
The MPD craze didn’t take off in the UK, perhaps because the NHS’s ‘not for profit’ model militated against it, but this was also before the advent of social media and ‘influencers’.
The trans women I have known had no gender issues as children, were and are heterosexual, and pursue sexual relationships with women. This can be a very lonely road, in my experience.
Absolutely! Social contagion amongst girls is particularly marked and it tends to go in phases of diferent types of malady or suffering at different points in time. Anorexia and other eating disorders; cutting and other forms of self harm. In Victorian times young women would suffer from fainting episodes, and there was a condition that became very ‘popular’ that involved the legs no longer working and the young woman having to take to her bed.
You will find that many young women presenting with ‘gender dysphoria’ have a back catalogue of previous conditions, such as some of those mentioned above.
Anorexia and other eating disorders are caused by starvation. Binging is actually a far more common symptom. Young girls are especially prone to starve themselves to get thin. When they take it too far, it becomes life threatening.
You don’t know an awful lot about eating disorders. Anorexia goes far deeper than starving to get thin, and binge disorder as well as obesity go much deeper than overeating from laziness, or emotional satisfaction. The most likely problem for anorexics – more than obesity sufferers – is not dysphoria, but dysmorphia. Their are incapable of seeing themselves in a mirror without thinking that every crease or fold is fat, hence the need to starve themselves even more.
More often than not, anorexia may be the result of childhood or sexual trauma. An adult body is for them a threat and starving stops menstruation and prevents normal sexual function. That’s a desirable outcome for someone who may have been sexually abused previously.
There are exceptions, such as gymnasts or ballet dancers obsessed with keeping weight down and then being sucked into a pattern of food deprivation for the sake of a successful career. Even so, it’s more about fear of rejection than just a little weight gain.
You don’t know an awful lot about eating disorders. Anorexia goes far deeper than starving to get thin, and binge disorder as well as obesity go much deeper than overeating from laziness, or emotional satisfaction. The most likely problem for anorexics – more than obesity sufferers – is not dysphoria, but dysmorphia. Their are incapable of seeing themselves in a mirror without thinking that every crease or fold is fat, hence the need to starve themselves even more.
More often than not, anorexia may be the result of childhood or sexual trauma. An adult body is for them a threat and starving stops menstruation and prevents normal sexual function. That’s a desirable outcome for someone who may have been sexually abused previously.
There are exceptions, such as gymnasts or ballet dancers obsessed with keeping weight down and then being sucked into a pattern of food deprivation for the sake of a successful career. Even so, it’s more about fear of rejection than just a little weight gain.
Anorexia and other eating disorders are caused by starvation. Binging is actually a far more common symptom. Young girls are especially prone to starve themselves to get thin. When they take it too far, it becomes life threatening.
How can it increase 4000% in a short space of time? Well if you’re being paid handsomely to mutilate children you’re going to make sure lots of them need mutilating I suppose
I know that correlation is not necessarily causation, but one thing has recently increased by more than 4000%: children’s access to pornography. Are there any other alternatives to pornography-access as causation for a change of this magnitude?
I know, that’s depressing, but I’m more inclined to suspect the influence of social media and online ‘communities’. I met two young people, one male, one female, both of whom spent their nighttime hours online with chat groups in the US.
The boy had gone through several identities before settling on being trans (one was ‘bronies’, if I remember correctly). Look it up. There are ‘furries’ and ‘cosplay’ characters – all fantasy role play that might seem silly and harmless, and at least won’t merit a life-changing diagnosis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronies:_The_Extremely_Unexpected_Adult_Fans_of_My_Little_Pony
Yes. Pornography affects different demographics differently. For adult men there’s an addiction risk tied to cross-dressing pornography. For children it serves as a training manual for sexual behavior: pornography teaches boys violent dominant behavior while it teaches girls degrading submissive behavior which they can avoid by identifying as the opposite sex.
According to one writer on the trans issue, the root of trans-activism began in the 30s with the porn industry. Hence the notion that the trans movement is actually dominated not by people with genuine gender dysmorphia, but by sexual fetishism.
According to one writer on the trans issue, the root of trans-activism began in the 30s with the porn industry. Hence the notion that the trans movement is actually dominated not by people with genuine gender dysmorphia, but by sexual fetishism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronies:_The_Extremely_Unexpected_Adult_Fans_of_My_Little_Pony
Yes. Pornography affects different demographics differently. For adult men there’s an addiction risk tied to cross-dressing pornography. For children it serves as a training manual for sexual behavior: pornography teaches boys violent dominant behavior while it teaches girls degrading submissive behavior which they can avoid by identifying as the opposite sex.
There doesn’t have to be just one cause. Serious problems are often multifactorial.For example, trans identity is fashionable right now. Identifying as trans provides teens with a lot of social approval and a major increase in status.
I know, that’s depressing, but I’m more inclined to suspect the influence of social media and online ‘communities’. I met two young people, one male, one female, both of whom spent their nighttime hours online with chat groups in the US.
The boy had gone through several identities before settling on being trans (one was ‘bronies’, if I remember correctly). Look it up. There are ‘furries’ and ‘cosplay’ characters – all fantasy role play that might seem silly and harmless, and at least won’t merit a life-changing diagnosis.
There doesn’t have to be just one cause. Serious problems are often multifactorial.For example, trans identity is fashionable right now. Identifying as trans provides teens with a lot of social approval and a major increase in status.
Absolutely! Social contagion amongst girls is particularly marked and it tends to go in phases of diferent types of malady or suffering at different points in time. Anorexia and other eating disorders; cutting and other forms of self harm. In Victorian times young women would suffer from fainting episodes, and there was a condition that became very ‘popular’ that involved the legs no longer working and the young woman having to take to her bed.
You will find that many young women presenting with ‘gender dysphoria’ have a back catalogue of previous conditions, such as some of those mentioned above.
How can it increase 4000% in a short space of time? Well if you’re being paid handsomely to mutilate children you’re going to make sure lots of them need mutilating I suppose
I know that correlation is not necessarily causation, but one thing has recently increased by more than 4000%: children’s access to pornography. Are there any other alternatives to pornography-access as causation for a change of this magnitude?
I’m beginning to wonder about the validity of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. How can a condition increase by 4000% in such a short time frame?
It’s very reminiscent of the Multiple Personality Disorder farce in the US 50 yrs ago. Joan Acocella’s book ‘Creating Hysteria’ tells how an entire industry sprang up overnight, driven by therapists and medics who genuinely believed in what they were doing.
Almost all of those diagnosed were women but families were destroyed and blameless men imprisoned. Fictional books and a particular film dramatised the ‘condition’ (and potentially created the blueprint).
The MPD craze didn’t take off in the UK, perhaps because the NHS’s ‘not for profit’ model militated against it, but this was also before the advent of social media and ‘influencers’.
The trans women I have known had no gender issues as children, were and are heterosexual, and pursue sexual relationships with women. This can be a very lonely road, in my experience.
Dear Unherd writers, can you please find a better word than “misogyny”? Or give it a proper context as it relates to women and trans issues.
Speaking of America now. It seems to me that the term is generally associated with men having dislike, contempt, prejudices against women; not with women having those against other women. All polls that I have seen in America have women supporting trans issues much more than men. Why not write about that? Or why not give men credit where credit is due 🙂
There is some truth to that however its mostly in the younger age bracket. A sign of a very dangerous full on propaganda initiative among our children and young people. Its been portrayed as their generations fight against ‘the man’ if you’ll pardon the sex based reference, as homophobia was to mine. That was indeed a very noble crusade. This however is not.
We removed God from society (rewording the 1st amendment to justify it) then made the killing of unborn babies perfectly acceptable (calling it
abortionwomen’s healthcare). Then we progressed forward by making some feel proud of the sin of homosexuality (they are merely gay, after all). We even shredded the 5,000 year old definition of marriage to make it legitimate.Now we come to the matter of transexuals. And we give pills to children in order to suppress their sex and let them believe that boys can be girls and vice versa, despite the biological facts. What is next, bestiality, polyamory or perhaps pedophilia? I cringe to think, as throughout history, the human travails into being our own gods usually doesn’t end well.
The good news, at least, is that I still have the right to believe that we are all sinners, every last one of us. And you have the right to do whatever you wish behind closed doors. But I don’t believe you have a right to practice chemical or physical genital mutilation on children, regardless of what dysphoria they have at the time.
’Gender’ ideology is profoundly homophobic and originated in misogynistic, religion-obsessed America as a form of conversion therapy for gay and lesbian teenagers.
Nonsense. It came from radical lesbian feminism – Judith Butler’s ‘Gender Trouble’ being the foremost example, which is now required reading for most Gender Studies courses and adjacent subjects.
The kind of Christianity that you are accusing has been fairly low-status for most of the time gender ideology has been ascendant. None of its variants teach that you can be born in the wrong body. The promoted gay ‘conversion therapies’ in those circles tend to be psychological/psychiatric – and certainly don’t attempt to alter physical sex.
You wrongly assume that all feminists are lesbians. It’s “trans women”, born male, who hate lesbians and call them ‘TERFS’ as a prelude to violence against them. Ironic that you also hate both lesbians and feminists like the “trans women” do.
I made no such assumption. The term ‘radical lesbian feminists’ was not meant to imply that all feminists were lesbian. I don’t have to qualify everything. That was a mistaken understanding on your part.
Caroline was essentially accusing the US ‘religious right’ of being the source of gender ideology. That is not true. It came from one wing of ‘radical lesbian feminism’ which doesn’t believe in human nature and has written to deconstruct genders (Judith Butler and others), claiming they are merely performative. It is the academic root of todays transgender fruit. It is supported by contemporary ‘boss-girl’ feminism, which is very happy with the erasure of the male-female distinction, especially in the workplace, and trans-identifying males, who definitely attempt to perform gender.
Their opponents- the TERFs as you will – are also originally drawn from the same radical lesbian feminism, with some of the earlier feminist ‘waves’ thrown in. I would place myself on this side of the argument, because like them I am an essentialist – although they would certainly ‘hate’ me for where I take my essentialism.
Back to the original point. Gender ideology is not a product of religious conservatism, especially Christian religious conservatism, or any manifestation of the ‘cis-hetero-patriarchy’ that trans, lesbians and feminists all rail against to one degree or another. If such a construct had the kind of cultural or political power it is claimed to have, we would not be having this conversation. This whole argument is a product of the intersection of LGB and feminist theory and activism, and they must own it. But they won’t, for many reasons – the big one being that when trans eventually falls out of favour – and it will – there’s a chance they will be blamed together with it, and will go down with it.
As for my personal disposition, I don’t ‘hate’, I merely disapprove.
I made no such assumption. The term ‘radical lesbian feminists’ was not meant to imply that all feminists were lesbian. I don’t have to qualify everything. That was a mistaken understanding on your part.
Caroline was essentially accusing the US ‘religious right’ of being the source of gender ideology. That is not true. It came from one wing of ‘radical lesbian feminism’ which doesn’t believe in human nature and has written to deconstruct genders (Judith Butler and others), claiming they are merely performative. It is the academic root of todays transgender fruit. It is supported by contemporary ‘boss-girl’ feminism, which is very happy with the erasure of the male-female distinction, especially in the workplace, and trans-identifying males, who definitely attempt to perform gender.
Their opponents- the TERFs as you will – are also originally drawn from the same radical lesbian feminism, with some of the earlier feminist ‘waves’ thrown in. I would place myself on this side of the argument, because like them I am an essentialist – although they would certainly ‘hate’ me for where I take my essentialism.
Back to the original point. Gender ideology is not a product of religious conservatism, especially Christian religious conservatism, or any manifestation of the ‘cis-hetero-patriarchy’ that trans, lesbians and feminists all rail against to one degree or another. If such a construct had the kind of cultural or political power it is claimed to have, we would not be having this conversation. This whole argument is a product of the intersection of LGB and feminist theory and activism, and they must own it. But they won’t, for many reasons – the big one being that when trans eventually falls out of favour – and it will – there’s a chance they will be blamed together with it, and will go down with it.
As for my personal disposition, I don’t ‘hate’, I merely disapprove.
You wrongly assume that all feminists are lesbians. It’s “trans women”, born male, who hate lesbians and call them ‘TERFS’ as a prelude to violence against them. Ironic that you also hate both lesbians and feminists like the “trans women” do.
There is freedom of religion in America. Which religion in particular do you hate? What about religions that worship goddesses? Is there any form of religion you don’t hate?
Nonsense. It came from radical lesbian feminism – Judith Butler’s ‘Gender Trouble’ being the foremost example, which is now required reading for most Gender Studies courses and adjacent subjects.
The kind of Christianity that you are accusing has been fairly low-status for most of the time gender ideology has been ascendant. None of its variants teach that you can be born in the wrong body. The promoted gay ‘conversion therapies’ in those circles tend to be psychological/psychiatric – and certainly don’t attempt to alter physical sex.
There is freedom of religion in America. Which religion in particular do you hate? What about religions that worship goddesses? Is there any form of religion you don’t hate?
You are trying to change the subject from mistreatment of teenage girls to religion to push your own agenda. God has not been removed from society. There are churches, synogogues, and mosques everywhere.
The only change is that now you can’t force other people to follow your religious beliefs, and that’s what you’re upset about. You obviously have the right to believe what you want. Have the decency to accept that others have the same right.
’Gender’ ideology is profoundly homophobic and originated in misogynistic, religion-obsessed America as a form of conversion therapy for gay and lesbian teenagers.
You are trying to change the subject from mistreatment of teenage girls to religion to push your own agenda. God has not been removed from society. There are churches, synogogues, and mosques everywhere.
The only change is that now you can’t force other people to follow your religious beliefs, and that’s what you’re upset about. You obviously have the right to believe what you want. Have the decency to accept that others have the same right.
We removed God from society (rewording the 1st amendment to justify it) then made the killing of unborn babies perfectly acceptable (calling it
abortionwomen’s healthcare). Then we progressed forward by making some feel proud of the sin of homosexuality (they are merely gay, after all). We even shredded the 5,000 year old definition of marriage to make it legitimate.Now we come to the matter of transexuals. And we give pills to children in order to suppress their sex and let them believe that boys can be girls and vice versa, despite the biological facts. What is next, bestiality, polyamory or perhaps pedophilia? I cringe to think, as throughout history, the human travails into being our own gods usually doesn’t end well.
The good news, at least, is that I still have the right to believe that we are all sinners, every last one of us. And you have the right to do whatever you wish behind closed doors. But I don’t believe you have a right to practice chemical or physical genital mutilation on children, regardless of what dysphoria they have at the time.
You will have to cite your sources about women in America supporting trans issues “more than men.” I don’t think women here do, but then, I’m around a lot of GC folks, so maybe I don’t get the entire picture.
As far as nomenclature goes, how about “bigotry against women,” “women haters,” “male chauvinism”? Or simply “sexism”? Seems to me like your comment says something more about you than Unherd. Your comment about giving men “credit where credit is due” seems a shade too defensive, or assertive of Male Superiority to me. Do you really want to start comparing how superior men are to women in the Enlightened about Transgender Department?
I thought Sarah Ditum’s article moving and thoughtful and I thought she was careful to explain that she was writing about girls but, still, in passing, expressed a thought that it’s not a bed of roses for boys. However, it was an article about girls and a valuable one.
I wondered, initially, if your criticism of A A was unfair and, perhaps, sometimes it seems that men tend to be tarred with the same misogynistic brush, so I was minded to come to his defence but, sorry A A, this time I think the comments are justified. This article didn’t dismiss boys and men, it didn’t complain about boys and men, Sarah simply wrote about her experience growing up and of the likely much more difficult experiences girls with similar feelings might endure today.
Thank you for the note Jonathan. This is AA. I do see your point. I don’t like the word as it could be misinterpreted, but I should have withheld my comment on this article.
Thank you for the note Jonathan. This is AA. I do see your point. I don’t like the word as it could be misinterpreted, but I should have withheld my comment on this article.
Hi Romi, well you certainly have the right to see me as you wish. I disagree 🙂
Fair question about sources. I have seen Pew Research and Gallup polls. Here is the one that I looked up most recently.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350174/mixed-views-among-americans-transgender-issues.aspx
If I am reading the data wrong I would be glad to be corrected.
I thought Sarah Ditum’s article moving and thoughtful and I thought she was careful to explain that she was writing about girls but, still, in passing, expressed a thought that it’s not a bed of roses for boys. However, it was an article about girls and a valuable one.
I wondered, initially, if your criticism of A A was unfair and, perhaps, sometimes it seems that men tend to be tarred with the same misogynistic brush, so I was minded to come to his defence but, sorry A A, this time I think the comments are justified. This article didn’t dismiss boys and men, it didn’t complain about boys and men, Sarah simply wrote about her experience growing up and of the likely much more difficult experiences girls with similar feelings might endure today.
Hi Romi, well you certainly have the right to see me as you wish. I disagree 🙂
Fair question about sources. I have seen Pew Research and Gallup polls. Here is the one that I looked up most recently.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350174/mixed-views-among-americans-transgender-issues.aspx
If I am reading the data wrong I would be glad to be corrected.
You’re referring to internalized misogyny.
The term misogyny doesn’t refer to all men, just as racism doesn’t apply to all white people (or the people in any dominant class).
Autogynephilia and vast violent online pornography are directly related to the rise trans-ideology, which is inherently a very misogynistic ideology–frankly, a reactionary one to the real progress women were making.
Until trans-ideology, researchers understood that transsexuality among men was about their ORIENTATION, not some inner identity. Most transsexuals were highly feminine boys from a young age who are attracted to heterosexual males–and those are the ones who’ve mostly wanted to be left alone by this awful movement. The second dangerous type–ones associated with all sorts of sexual violence–are the heterosexual autogynephiliacs, meaning men who get off on pretending to be women and, like exhibitionism, FORCING WOMEN TO PRETEND, because they know what a degrading experience it is. they literally get off on it. There are porn genres and social media groups obsessed with it.
The man “Lia” Thomas is a heterosexual intact male who forced women to watch him undress while they were forced upon pain of career humiliation and school tuition loss to undress in front of his. This was a sexual crime, not a civil rights benchmark.
AND, a NEW scary dimension among the millenia old eunuch-ification of boys is a third category of trans-ing boys, who may be joining out of porn use since age 12 and cosplay internet obsession and mental illness, who then become victims of grooming and direct sexual exploitation by the older bisexual autogynephiliacs. On social media sites boys are encouraged to show naked photos of themselves “transitioning” and a fave is to go into women’s spaces and secretly film themselves trying on lingerie. Or, in OnlyFans, some trans have accounts where they film themselves masturbating in women’s spaces and get paid for it.
This movement by Pritzker (a trans-id’d male) with his pharma money is about putting on woman-face and turning it into a civil right while enjoying the transgression against females. These guys CONSTANTLY TALK ABOUT BECOMING THE HOT GIRL YOU CAN NEVER HAVE. It’s a predatory paraphilia popular among incels who introject an image of a pubescent girl as their “identity” and then demand we all stand back and watch them exhibit themselves for their own orgasm.
The social contagion among girls is that they don’t want to turn into the things in porn culture. And they’re afraid if they don’t go along with the trans nonsense they’ll be excluded.
Having said all of that, women can be terribly misogynist to other women, and all humans can be nasty to others. Of course there are some very good, brave men, who’ve been nastily emotionally abused by toxic women. it’s just that women as a class don’t have the structural and physical ability to abuse men in the way that they can with us. That’s why 3000 women are still murdered each year by male partners in the US–a rate of 500:1, w/ women’s murders usually in self-defense. A yearly 9/11 for women. We don’t murder like that.
Misogyny isn’t about you, unless you perpetrate it. Morally courageous men who speak truth to power about this are more needed than ever–please be one.
Thank you for noting the various types of paraphiliac behaviour displayed by many men who claim to be transgender women (and thus deserving of compassion because they are so oppressed and marginalized, etc etc). If they were offered the (‘gender affirmation’) surgical option, they would, of course, decline it because retention of their fully functioning male bodies is essential for the indulgence of their fetishes.
Thank you for noting the various types of paraphiliac behaviour displayed by many men who claim to be transgender women (and thus deserving of compassion because they are so oppressed and marginalized, etc etc). If they were offered the (‘gender affirmation’) surgical option, they would, of course, decline it because retention of their fully functioning male bodies is essential for the indulgence of their fetishes.
Misogyny means hatred of women. It’s exactly the right word. Individual men don’t just develop that hatred in isolation. They learn it from the larger society. How can you not believe that this affects how teenage girls feel about their bodies? Why do you think the mistreatment and suffering of young girls should be invisible and no one should write about it? Answer: misogyny.
Dear Robin, I don’t know where you are getting all these things that you are ascribing to me from. Certainly not from my comment.
Dear Robin, I don’t know where you are getting all these things that you are ascribing to me from. Certainly not from my comment.
There is some truth to that however its mostly in the younger age bracket. A sign of a very dangerous full on propaganda initiative among our children and young people. Its been portrayed as their generations fight against ‘the man’ if you’ll pardon the sex based reference, as homophobia was to mine. That was indeed a very noble crusade. This however is not.
You will have to cite your sources about women in America supporting trans issues “more than men.” I don’t think women here do, but then, I’m around a lot of GC folks, so maybe I don’t get the entire picture.
As far as nomenclature goes, how about “bigotry against women,” “women haters,” “male chauvinism”? Or simply “sexism”? Seems to me like your comment says something more about you than Unherd. Your comment about giving men “credit where credit is due” seems a shade too defensive, or assertive of Male Superiority to me. Do you really want to start comparing how superior men are to women in the Enlightened about Transgender Department?
You’re referring to internalized misogyny.
The term misogyny doesn’t refer to all men, just as racism doesn’t apply to all white people (or the people in any dominant class).
Autogynephilia and vast violent online pornography are directly related to the rise trans-ideology, which is inherently a very misogynistic ideology–frankly, a reactionary one to the real progress women were making.
Until trans-ideology, researchers understood that transsexuality among men was about their ORIENTATION, not some inner identity. Most transsexuals were highly feminine boys from a young age who are attracted to heterosexual males–and those are the ones who’ve mostly wanted to be left alone by this awful movement. The second dangerous type–ones associated with all sorts of sexual violence–are the heterosexual autogynephiliacs, meaning men who get off on pretending to be women and, like exhibitionism, FORCING WOMEN TO PRETEND, because they know what a degrading experience it is. they literally get off on it. There are porn genres and social media groups obsessed with it.
The man “Lia” Thomas is a heterosexual intact male who forced women to watch him undress while they were forced upon pain of career humiliation and school tuition loss to undress in front of his. This was a sexual crime, not a civil rights benchmark.
AND, a NEW scary dimension among the millenia old eunuch-ification of boys is a third category of trans-ing boys, who may be joining out of porn use since age 12 and cosplay internet obsession and mental illness, who then become victims of grooming and direct sexual exploitation by the older bisexual autogynephiliacs. On social media sites boys are encouraged to show naked photos of themselves “transitioning” and a fave is to go into women’s spaces and secretly film themselves trying on lingerie. Or, in OnlyFans, some trans have accounts where they film themselves masturbating in women’s spaces and get paid for it.
This movement by Pritzker (a trans-id’d male) with his pharma money is about putting on woman-face and turning it into a civil right while enjoying the transgression against females. These guys CONSTANTLY TALK ABOUT BECOMING THE HOT GIRL YOU CAN NEVER HAVE. It’s a predatory paraphilia popular among incels who introject an image of a pubescent girl as their “identity” and then demand we all stand back and watch them exhibit themselves for their own orgasm.
The social contagion among girls is that they don’t want to turn into the things in porn culture. And they’re afraid if they don’t go along with the trans nonsense they’ll be excluded.
Having said all of that, women can be terribly misogynist to other women, and all humans can be nasty to others. Of course there are some very good, brave men, who’ve been nastily emotionally abused by toxic women. it’s just that women as a class don’t have the structural and physical ability to abuse men in the way that they can with us. That’s why 3000 women are still murdered each year by male partners in the US–a rate of 500:1, w/ women’s murders usually in self-defense. A yearly 9/11 for women. We don’t murder like that.
Misogyny isn’t about you, unless you perpetrate it. Morally courageous men who speak truth to power about this are more needed than ever–please be one.
Misogyny means hatred of women. It’s exactly the right word. Individual men don’t just develop that hatred in isolation. They learn it from the larger society. How can you not believe that this affects how teenage girls feel about their bodies? Why do you think the mistreatment and suffering of young girls should be invisible and no one should write about it? Answer: misogyny.
Dear Unherd writers, can you please find a better word than “misogyny”? Or give it a proper context as it relates to women and trans issues.
Speaking of America now. It seems to me that the term is generally associated with men having dislike, contempt, prejudices against women; not with women having those against other women. All polls that I have seen in America have women supporting trans issues much more than men. Why not write about that? Or why not give men credit where credit is due 🙂
And what does the medical profession do with all of these perfectly healthy organs and tissues they remove from healthy young people..? Children are being groomed into an ideology about sex gender trans and queer theory- hard for them to resist. In Dept Stores Mermaids and Unicorns with rainbows cover > than 50% of some clothes lines. In one major chain- all pyjamas,raincoats, babygros, etc.. why babies? It is insidious. Unicorn rucksacks rainbows again,accessories. How can they not fall in line? At School for most of their young lives it is re enforced,Pride Month( not day,week..) Super sensitive,autistic, dysphoric or confused kids have no other avenue. The Sexual Health programs of the past 30 have been a failure .
One children’s hospital in the U.S recently proposed that the uteruses of transgender identified girls be transplanted into the bodies of trans identified men. ( A Pittsburg hospital, I believe). Dystopian stuff!
It wouldn’t work. They would have to be constantly on dangerous meds to prevent rejection, and the uterus has no function without ovaries. They couldn’t get pregnant.
It wouldn’t work. They would have to be constantly on dangerous meds to prevent rejection, and the uterus has no function without ovaries. They couldn’t get pregnant.
One children’s hospital in the U.S recently proposed that the uteruses of transgender identified girls be transplanted into the bodies of trans identified men. ( A Pittsburg hospital, I believe). Dystopian stuff!
And what does the medical profession do with all of these perfectly healthy organs and tissues they remove from healthy young people..? Children are being groomed into an ideology about sex gender trans and queer theory- hard for them to resist. In Dept Stores Mermaids and Unicorns with rainbows cover > than 50% of some clothes lines. In one major chain- all pyjamas,raincoats, babygros, etc.. why babies? It is insidious. Unicorn rucksacks rainbows again,accessories. How can they not fall in line? At School for most of their young lives it is re enforced,Pride Month( not day,week..) Super sensitive,autistic, dysphoric or confused kids have no other avenue. The Sexual Health programs of the past 30 have been a failure .
When I was first at sea, in the 1970s to describe a vessel as “like a girls’ school” was to say that it was an unhealthy atmosphere, prone to poor decision-making and what is now described as “groupthink” which undermined good judgement.
It was common knowledge that adolescent girls developed “crushes” (sometimes known as “pashes”) on older girls or members of staff. Books and stories for that age group openly referred to such things, with the general assumption that such things passed with time.
I knew a girl who developed into a young woman with a passion for mountaineering. After years of dieting and training (climbers are often very focused on weight, for obvious reasons) she developed a very slender, boyish physique and favoured male compsny because few women develop such interests to that extent …. but I never knew her show any signs of this being a problem. It was regarded as a great joke amongst her circle that people who didn’t know her well, didn’t always realise that she was female.
This is a manufactured crisis.
It is certainly a manufactured condition. The crisis it has created, though, is very real.
For the record, many people think of boys’ schools (notably the private British ones) as unhealthy, because adolescent boys tend to form “crushes” on each other. For a while, parents assumed that their sons would grow out of these romantic or erotic attachments, and most of them did. I don’t see anything wrong with these experiences at all, whether they disappear with age or not.
It is certainly a manufactured condition. The crisis it has created, though, is very real.
For the record, many people think of boys’ schools (notably the private British ones) as unhealthy, because adolescent boys tend to form “crushes” on each other. For a while, parents assumed that their sons would grow out of these romantic or erotic attachments, and most of them did. I don’t see anything wrong with these experiences at all, whether they disappear with age or not.
When I was first at sea, in the 1970s to describe a vessel as “like a girls’ school” was to say that it was an unhealthy atmosphere, prone to poor decision-making and what is now described as “groupthink” which undermined good judgement.
It was common knowledge that adolescent girls developed “crushes” (sometimes known as “pashes”) on older girls or members of staff. Books and stories for that age group openly referred to such things, with the general assumption that such things passed with time.
I knew a girl who developed into a young woman with a passion for mountaineering. After years of dieting and training (climbers are often very focused on weight, for obvious reasons) she developed a very slender, boyish physique and favoured male compsny because few women develop such interests to that extent …. but I never knew her show any signs of this being a problem. It was regarded as a great joke amongst her circle that people who didn’t know her well, didn’t always realise that she was female.
This is a manufactured crisis.
It’s too bad that some ideas, like the idea that one can change one’s sex, like the genie, once escaped, cannot be put back in the bottle. When I was a girl I was a tomboy. But I’m lucky I was born in 1955, before the world went crazy.
Ah, the good old days of the Jim Crow South and women leaving town in shame (or worse) because of an illegitimate child the father skipped out on.
I’d agree that 1955 had it right when it came to surgical alteration, partly because that was barely available (first sex change in 1952). But let’s please find a middle ground between exploding all our traditions with one blast and romanticized hindsight.
{follow-up: As a general matter, I stand by comment, if not the snarky tone. But Ms. Rosenthal’s comment did not warrant my reply, and I accept the communal downvote as a just one}
Ah, the good old days of the Jim Crow South and women leaving town in shame (or worse) because of an illegitimate child the father skipped out on.
I’d agree that 1955 had it right when it came to surgical alteration, partly because that was barely available (first sex change in 1952). But let’s please find a middle ground between exploding all our traditions with one blast and romanticized hindsight.
{follow-up: As a general matter, I stand by comment, if not the snarky tone. But Ms. Rosenthal’s comment did not warrant my reply, and I accept the communal downvote as a just one}
It’s too bad that some ideas, like the idea that one can change one’s sex, like the genie, once escaped, cannot be put back in the bottle. When I was a girl I was a tomboy. But I’m lucky I was born in 1955, before the world went crazy.
Sarah thank you, pleasure to read.
I enjoyed this article very much. It gave me hope that if reframed our default position that a human body should be a stable phenomenon and our minds have the upper hand to a position that is more align with the truth ie our bodies change all the time , puberty gets a turbo charge , there is a huge number of calibrations that our bodies do at every nanosecond of our existence that we have no conscious awareness off, our minds are very limited and should not delude themselves that our consciousness is in control of our lives . Example: cancer will grow inside you whether you like it or not and may or may not kill you despite all you do on the conscious ( and medical) level. So a little more humble default position ( I think ) would go a long way. Let’s talk to our children about their changing bodies, that is a normal part of life not to be challenged but accepted . If we don’t ride that wave we will drown.
I enjoyed this article very much. It gave me hope that if reframed our default position that a human body should be a stable phenomenon and our minds have the upper hand to a position that is more align with the truth ie our bodies change all the time , puberty gets a turbo charge , there is a huge number of calibrations that our bodies do at every nanosecond of our existence that we have no conscious awareness off, our minds are very limited and should not delude themselves that our consciousness is in control of our lives . Example: cancer will grow inside you whether you like it or not and may or may not kill you despite all you do on the conscious ( and medical) level. So a little more humble default position ( I think ) would go a long way. Let’s talk to our children about their changing bodies, that is a normal part of life not to be challenged but accepted . If we don’t ride that wave we will drown.
Sarah thank you, pleasure to read.
“girls my age whose bodies were erupting into curves” as something of great concern vs glory. Our culture has not created good acceptance of the fundamentals related to sex. Boy leer because of our expectations. Children trying to deal with the surge in hormones. We are failing in care for our children.
“girls my age whose bodies were erupting into curves” as something of great concern vs glory. Our culture has not created good acceptance of the fundamentals related to sex. Boy leer because of our expectations. Children trying to deal with the surge in hormones. We are failing in care for our children.
Bravo!
You cannot reduce a complex, beautiful human being, male or female. made in God’s image, down to a lump of biological meat, to be manipulated. Young person: you are so much more than your body!
Your comment doesn’t reflect reality. What people want to do to their bodies is their own business and no one else’s. People, especially women and even teenage girls, spend countless sums modifying their meat bag.
Here’s a partial list of body modifications undertaken by women. And these are only the ones that are considered permanent. The list of temporary modifications is considerably longer.
Tattoos, ear, nose, eyebrow, belly button, prepuce and l***a piercings, dental implants, permanent hair removal, lip fillers, lip plumping, butt lift, liposuction, nose jobs, cheek and chin sculpting, blepharoplasty, buccal fat removal, face lift, tummy tuck, breast implants, vaginoplasty.
—The human body is alive and not just a “meat bag”.
—The procedures on your list are totally medically unnecessary bodily mutilations that have risks attached. Piercings, tattoos, and permanent hair removal are among the least dangerous, but they can all still cause infections and other complications. You can die just from general anesthesia gone wrong. At least adults are mature enough to understand the risks. Teenage girls are still children in many ways.
—The human body is alive and not just a “meat bag”.
—The procedures on your list are totally medically unnecessary bodily mutilations that have risks attached. Piercings, tattoos, and permanent hair removal are among the least dangerous, but they can all still cause infections and other complications. You can die just from general anesthesia gone wrong. At least adults are mature enough to understand the risks. Teenage girls are still children in many ways.
Your comment doesn’t reflect reality. What people want to do to their bodies is their own business and no one else’s. People, especially women and even teenage girls, spend countless sums modifying their meat bag.
Here’s a partial list of body modifications undertaken by women. And these are only the ones that are considered permanent. The list of temporary modifications is considerably longer.
Tattoos, ear, nose, eyebrow, belly button, prepuce and l***a piercings, dental implants, permanent hair removal, lip fillers, lip plumping, butt lift, liposuction, nose jobs, cheek and chin sculpting, blepharoplasty, buccal fat removal, face lift, tummy tuck, breast implants, vaginoplasty.
Bravo!
You cannot reduce a complex, beautiful human being, male or female. made in God’s image, down to a lump of biological meat, to be manipulated. Young person: you are so much more than your body!
The idea that women’s bodies are “wrong” in a variety of ways is pervasive. The authors description of wanting “to be pure self, no flesh at all” is very familiar to me. I most recently experienced it in my late 40s. “I’m going to be incorporeal.” That’s not a real option, though.
Exactly, and it’s not unknown among boys, though I acknowledge the imbalance. The quest for a disembodied spiritual existence, which might be part of some “body dysmorphia disorder”, is bound to be thwarted by changing the constituent parts. Has anyone studied the degree to which “wrong body” aversion might be “any body” aversion?
“Has anyone studied the degree to which “wrong body” aversion might be “any body” aversion?”
It seems very unlikely! However, I think the feeling of just being tired of dealing with the body appears in a lot of different ways, from the Manichean belief that Spirit is good while Matter is evil to the “transhumanist” fantasy.
“Has anyone studied the degree to which “wrong body” aversion might be “any body” aversion?”
It seems very unlikely! However, I think the feeling of just being tired of dealing with the body appears in a lot of different ways, from the Manichean belief that Spirit is good while Matter is evil to the “transhumanist” fantasy.
Exactly, and it’s not unknown among boys, though I acknowledge the imbalance. The quest for a disembodied spiritual existence, which might be part of some “body dysmorphia disorder”, is bound to be thwarted by changing the constituent parts. Has anyone studied the degree to which “wrong body” aversion might be “any body” aversion?
The idea that women’s bodies are “wrong” in a variety of ways is pervasive. The authors description of wanting “to be pure self, no flesh at all” is very familiar to me. I most recently experienced it in my late 40s. “I’m going to be incorporeal.” That’s not a real option, though.
Judging by this article, a hard-hitting first-person account I have no reason to dispute, the inclination to harm oneself comes in large part from within, or “gets internalized” in common contemporary parlance.
If a young girl can develop a radical bodily self-hatred over YouTube, claims of the suicidal threat caused by merely questioning the underage self-questioner are thrown into greater doubt. That is, there is already a major risk of self-harm and even suicide connected with wanting to escape your given body. Helping a child to accept their inherited mortal frame, at least until legal adulthood, might in fact reduce the incidence of related self-harm. (Or maybe that’s wrong; it’s probably clear I have no expertise here).
From my point of view as a gender-change skeptic (at least at this level of incidence) who’d rather not make assumptions or condemn anyone, it seems that efforts to liberate children from the burden of traditional gender roles have helped lead to a net increase in related anxiety and adolescent self-disgust. Is there a middle path that makes being a boy or girl carry less specific “weight” and expectation, but discourages seeing one’s developing body as something to escape–at least until that body is fully grown?
“Efforts to liberate children from the burden of traditional gender roles have helped lead to a net increase in related anxiety and adolescent self-disgust.”
I see it the other way around. The idea that there are fixed, unchangeable male and female features is what leads to a lot of unnecessary pain. Within this mindset, you can’t be a boy and like pink and dolls. If you like those, then you have to be a girl. That’s clearly expressed by parents who supported their children through transitioning. Just accepting that people can like or dislike different things, irrespective of gender, would go a long way toward helping children accept themselves as they are.
No authority to say it, but I think you are wrong. We are not born fully formed, but grow into who we are to a large extent by learning how to fit into our surroundings. At some point you find out you are a boy and not a girl, or vice versa, and you look for cues about how such a person is and should behave. That gives you a trellis to grow around, and a way of interacting that other people can mesh with. It may be hard for those who are not too good a fit, but at a minimum it gives you something to rebel against. The alternative is that each person gets the task of inventing who they are all by themselves without any help or cues, and then forcing the world to confirm the identity they have come up with. That would give a lot more uncertainty and anxiety to everybody, not just to those furthest from fitting the template.
Sure, flexibility is a good thing. But 1) many of those gender role features are there because they have some kind of fit with underlying averages, 2) The shift from sexless child to adult with desires and admirers is going to be a wrench no matter how roleless and featureless our expectations for people are.
Besides, how would a child be able to decide that he was a girl or she was a boy – if not by learning from people around him/her what a boy or girl was (supposed to be) like and then choosing one of them?
In the same way that all species that exist through sexual reproduction do, including the 99.9999999% that do so without the aid of pink fluffy toys.
Not quite, Steve. In at least one way, humans are not like other species. To be human is to be part of both nature and culture. The latter is not a shallow veneer that hides some underlying reality. We’re “programmed” by nature, as it were, to create culture. Bodies mature naturally, to be sure, but people mature both naturally and culturally. The two processes are inseparable.
Ah, but if you look at deer or sea lions their behaviour is under genetic control too. Instinct, as they say. Our behaviour is not. There is a lot of human behaviour that is different between the sexes, and that is not a direct consequence of biology. And while we cannot choose our biology, cultural conditioning is strong enough to impose some very un-biological behaviours, from monks to suicide bombers. And transsexuals.
We are neither under full genetic control nor total free agents. We can busy ourselves disputing the ratio, and perhaps come to an improved understanding of which is which, beyond the obvious.
But a desire to radically alter the one body you have could be correlated with transhuman escapism or a more complete existential despair. I know I’m duplicating some of my remarks, but I’m trying to provoke responses and “socially construct” my own view.
I agree. I would put my money on existential despair myself. If you are suffering from an unbearable distress without known cause or solution, then any radical change that explains your distress, promises a solution (and gives you a ready-made group of supporters) is bound to look appealing.
Good point. And the “ready made group of supporters” is a recent development.
Good point. And the “ready made group of supporters” is a recent development.
I agree. I would put my money on existential despair myself. If you are suffering from an unbearable distress without known cause or solution, then any radical change that explains your distress, promises a solution (and gives you a ready-made group of supporters) is bound to look appealing.
We are neither under full genetic control nor total free agents. We can busy ourselves disputing the ratio, and perhaps come to an improved understanding of which is which, beyond the obvious.
But a desire to radically alter the one body you have could be correlated with transhuman escapism or a more complete existential despair. I know I’m duplicating some of my remarks, but I’m trying to provoke responses and “socially construct” my own view.
Right. At least one time that I picked up my toddler granddaughter from daycare, the little ones were in potty time, boys and girls together. So even at that age, they were introduced to physical distinctions and obviously not suffering any gender doubt. I imagine that there was little if any gender difference in the toys that they played with.
Not quite, Steve. In at least one way, humans are not like other species. To be human is to be part of both nature and culture. The latter is not a shallow veneer that hides some underlying reality. We’re “programmed” by nature, as it were, to create culture. Bodies mature naturally, to be sure, but people mature both naturally and culturally. The two processes are inseparable.
Ah, but if you look at deer or sea lions their behaviour is under genetic control too. Instinct, as they say. Our behaviour is not. There is a lot of human behaviour that is different between the sexes, and that is not a direct consequence of biology. And while we cannot choose our biology, cultural conditioning is strong enough to impose some very un-biological behaviours, from monks to suicide bombers. And transsexuals.
Right. At least one time that I picked up my toddler granddaughter from daycare, the little ones were in potty time, boys and girls together. So even at that age, they were introduced to physical distinctions and obviously not suffering any gender doubt. I imagine that there was little if any gender difference in the toys that they played with.
There is no decison as to whether one is a boy or a girl. it has already been decided from the moment of conception. Sex is recorded in every single cell. The variations that occur in expression depend on several things: innate disposition and character, environment and parental influence and wider social norms and expectations.
I do believe, though, that girl and boy behavioural ‘programs’ are to an extent innate, even if modified by all of the above
“There is no decision as to whether one is a boy or a girl. it has already been decided from the moment of conception. Sex is recorded in every single cell.”
Yes, Jane, but I’d make the wording more specific. There is no decision as to whether one is male or female (sex, a given of nature). Everything else is about some version of masculinity or femininity (gender, a cultural elaboration on sex). Boys and girls, men and women are therefore both sexual and cultural beings. That might be self-evident to most of us, but we can hardly take anything for granted in this age of postmodernist relativism and ideological fantasy.
If other mammals do something, it is innate. If only humans do it, it is a social construct.
Cows mount other cows when they are in heat and kill to protect their calves. They don’t wear stiletto heels, have ridiculous pink extensions attached to their hooves, have their lips blown up into ridiculous shapes, expect bulls to keep them while they carry out pointless byre-tidying tasks or give themselves silly names and ‘pronouns’. Even their ‘maternal instinct’ only kicks in after the birth, not before.
All humans do not behave the same way. Behavior varies considerably by social group. If it was only innate, all human social groups would have the same behavior. They don’t.
All humans do not behave the same way. Behavior varies considerably by social group. If it was only innate, all human social groups would have the same behavior. They don’t.
The point is that a woman is an adult human female, and a man is an adult human male. That up until recently has been well understood and accepted.
What gender ideology has done is to conflate gender with sex and in doing so turn ‘man’ and ‘woman’ into identities. Gender roles and expectations are what I think you are referring to – and are largely social in construction, as you suggest.
If other mammals do something, it is innate. If only humans do it, it is a social construct.
Cows mount other cows when they are in heat and kill to protect their calves. They don’t wear stiletto heels, have ridiculous pink extensions attached to their hooves, have their lips blown up into ridiculous shapes, expect bulls to keep them while they carry out pointless byre-tidying tasks or give themselves silly names and ‘pronouns’. Even their ‘maternal instinct’ only kicks in after the birth, not before.
The point is that a woman is an adult human female, and a man is an adult human male. That up until recently has been well understood and accepted.
What gender ideology has done is to conflate gender with sex and in doing so turn ‘man’ and ‘woman’ into identities. Gender roles and expectations are what I think you are referring to – and are largely social in construction, as you suggest.
As Paul says, the whole point of this discussion is that we need to distinguish between the biology, which is clear and inborn, and the social behaviour, which is not. You can certainly say that behaviour ought to be determined purely by biology, if that is what you think, but you cannot claim that it is the only possibility.
I’d agree that the behavioural programs are at least based on biology, in the sense that the roles we have fit the underlying framework, but a lot of the details could well be cultural. It is certainly hard to prove the contrary.
I’m not claiming that. I suggested that some behaviour is to do with individual disposition and character, some to do with familial and social conditioning, and at some level there are innate programmes which are modified to greater or lesser extent by the above.
So, for example, the post birth rush of hormones is fierce and from that kicks in the protective instinctive towards the baby; this also extends to the ‘nesting’ instincts which are very strong. From that, for many women, comes an interest in home building and ‘feathering the nest’ and so on – the style or manner of which is, in certain ways, shaped by prevailing social norms and conditions and fashions in home decoration…..and so on.
That’s not to say that all women are nest builders or enjoy home decoration and beautification, but the interest and drive for being so, for many, stems from deeper biological imperatives.
Sounds like we agree on this one.
Sounds like we agree on this one.
I’m not claiming that. I suggested that some behaviour is to do with individual disposition and character, some to do with familial and social conditioning, and at some level there are innate programmes which are modified to greater or lesser extent by the above.
So, for example, the post birth rush of hormones is fierce and from that kicks in the protective instinctive towards the baby; this also extends to the ‘nesting’ instincts which are very strong. From that, for many women, comes an interest in home building and ‘feathering the nest’ and so on – the style or manner of which is, in certain ways, shaped by prevailing social norms and conditions and fashions in home decoration…..and so on.
That’s not to say that all women are nest builders or enjoy home decoration and beautification, but the interest and drive for being so, for many, stems from deeper biological imperatives.
I love it when folks (like above) completely ignore science when it suits their argument. Imagine if in the animal kingdom, the lion decides he was a lioness? Or if the lead buck decided he wanted to be mounted instead of mounting the cow in heat? We humans are so funny.
The Left is creating scientism, a new religion. They claim to “believe” in the science while ignoring it.
There are actually nonhuman males who are mounted by other males in nature. Females also sometimes mount other individuals. This behavior can even sometimes be observed in pet dogs and cats. There are numerous articles about it in the scientific literature. It happens all the time, but it doesn’t produce offspring.
The Left is creating scientism, a new religion. They claim to “believe” in the science while ignoring it.
There are actually nonhuman males who are mounted by other males in nature. Females also sometimes mount other individuals. This behavior can even sometimes be observed in pet dogs and cats. There are numerous articles about it in the scientific literature. It happens all the time, but it doesn’t produce offspring.
Different cultures have different expectations for male and female behavior. Humans have a much wider range of possible behaviors than other animals. Gender stereotypes are NOT innate. They are social constructs.
“There is no decision as to whether one is a boy or a girl. it has already been decided from the moment of conception. Sex is recorded in every single cell.”
Yes, Jane, but I’d make the wording more specific. There is no decision as to whether one is male or female (sex, a given of nature). Everything else is about some version of masculinity or femininity (gender, a cultural elaboration on sex). Boys and girls, men and women are therefore both sexual and cultural beings. That might be self-evident to most of us, but we can hardly take anything for granted in this age of postmodernist relativism and ideological fantasy.
As Paul says, the whole point of this discussion is that we need to distinguish between the biology, which is clear and inborn, and the social behaviour, which is not. You can certainly say that behaviour ought to be determined purely by biology, if that is what you think, but you cannot claim that it is the only possibility.
I’d agree that the behavioural programs are at least based on biology, in the sense that the roles we have fit the underlying framework, but a lot of the details could well be cultural. It is certainly hard to prove the contrary.
I love it when folks (like above) completely ignore science when it suits their argument. Imagine if in the animal kingdom, the lion decides he was a lioness? Or if the lead buck decided he wanted to be mounted instead of mounting the cow in heat? We humans are so funny.
Different cultures have different expectations for male and female behavior. Humans have a much wider range of possible behaviors than other animals. Gender stereotypes are NOT innate. They are social constructs.
You can NOT choose your biological sex. This myth is leading to a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. No one has to force themselves to fit societal stereotypes of what a girl or boy should be.
In the same way that all species that exist through sexual reproduction do, including the 99.9999999% that do so without the aid of pink fluffy toys.
There is no decison as to whether one is a boy or a girl. it has already been decided from the moment of conception. Sex is recorded in every single cell. The variations that occur in expression depend on several things: innate disposition and character, environment and parental influence and wider social norms and expectations.
I do believe, though, that girl and boy behavioural ‘programs’ are to an extent innate, even if modified by all of the above
You can NOT choose your biological sex. This myth is leading to a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. No one has to force themselves to fit societal stereotypes of what a girl or boy should be.
Different societies have different ideas of what a girl or boy “should” be. People who aren’t average should have the right to live as they choose without drugs and/or surgery to fit societal stereotypes.
Besides, how would a child be able to decide that he was a girl or she was a boy – if not by learning from people around him/her what a boy or girl was (supposed to be) like and then choosing one of them?
Different societies have different ideas of what a girl or boy “should” be. People who aren’t average should have the right to live as they choose without drugs and/or surgery to fit societal stereotypes.
Chromosomes are fixed, unchangeable features. That’s not an “idea”. It’s biological fact. And personal tastes in color or playthings is not imposed by parents: my daughter preferred Breyer horses to dolls (she hid her expensive American Girl in a linen closet), and pink disgusted her. My son’s favorite toy was a mechanical bird. They both loved rollerblading. Enabling dangerous fads isn’t acceptance, it’s neglect.
Not true. Look up epigenetics and single nucleotide polymorphisms. (SNPs)
Not true. Look up epigenetics and single nucleotide polymorphisms. (SNPs)
Absolutely. ‘Gender’ is evil. The conservative right believes that girls should simper, be passive and wear pink; the ‘identity’ Left believes that anyone who simpers, wears pink and is passive is a girl. There isn’t a hair’s breadth between them and both are born of misogyny and homophobia.
You have a very strange obsession with wearing pink, and it’s quite clear you don’t know any conservatives.
The point is that there are unreasonable extremists on both the Right AND the Left. In many ways they are more alike than different. For example, either misogyny or misandry, bigotry, and antisemitism are unfortunately popular with most extremists. Black supremacist beliefs are just as evil as white supremacist beliefs.
The point is that there are unreasonable extremists on both the Right AND the Left. In many ways they are more alike than different. For example, either misogyny or misandry, bigotry, and antisemitism are unfortunately popular with most extremists. Black supremacist beliefs are just as evil as white supremacist beliefs.
You have a very strange obsession with wearing pink, and it’s quite clear you don’t know any conservatives.
I agree that the “pink and blue stratification” you highlight seems unhelpful, even pointless. We needn’t divide things and preferences into a thousand pairs of gender-identified opposites.
It also seems we agree that being open to a child’s interests and preferences, without any reflexive reliance on tradition or expectation–which I support more than my skeptic’s case might show–is not the same as major, often permanent bodily alteration.
I think most people would agree that self-identities are not fixed and haven’t always calcified into place at 4, 14, or 44. Many children (and adults) also reject outward or “forced” identities as (for example) Catholics, tough and rugged boys, or good little girly girls. They shouldn’t have to wear that baggage if it doesn’t fit. But part of the early resistance may come from not wanting to have an imposed or settled identity at all, a natural human defiance that may also show an understandable resistance to adulthood in general.
Now people may decide–with good cause–to resist the more general, duller standards of adulthood (like “get serious” or “decide who you’re gonna be and stick with it”) and cast them aside as bullshit/not-for-me when they’re grown. But I’d hope that even most openminded and compassionate people can agree that surgical interventions for children are not a sensible or effective way to address the root cause of, much less “fix” a condition of bodily self-hatred.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with being a boy who likes dolls. Gender stereotypes are causing physically healthy individuals to mutilate their bodies and destroy their health. If your body is healthy, you don’t need drugs and surgery, regardless of your personal lifestyle preferences.
No authority to say it, but I think you are wrong. We are not born fully formed, but grow into who we are to a large extent by learning how to fit into our surroundings. At some point you find out you are a boy and not a girl, or vice versa, and you look for cues about how such a person is and should behave. That gives you a trellis to grow around, and a way of interacting that other people can mesh with. It may be hard for those who are not too good a fit, but at a minimum it gives you something to rebel against. The alternative is that each person gets the task of inventing who they are all by themselves without any help or cues, and then forcing the world to confirm the identity they have come up with. That would give a lot more uncertainty and anxiety to everybody, not just to those furthest from fitting the template.
Sure, flexibility is a good thing. But 1) many of those gender role features are there because they have some kind of fit with underlying averages, 2) The shift from sexless child to adult with desires and admirers is going to be a wrench no matter how roleless and featureless our expectations for people are.
Chromosomes are fixed, unchangeable features. That’s not an “idea”. It’s biological fact. And personal tastes in color or playthings is not imposed by parents: my daughter preferred Breyer horses to dolls (she hid her expensive American Girl in a linen closet), and pink disgusted her. My son’s favorite toy was a mechanical bird. They both loved rollerblading. Enabling dangerous fads isn’t acceptance, it’s neglect.
Absolutely. ‘Gender’ is evil. The conservative right believes that girls should simper, be passive and wear pink; the ‘identity’ Left believes that anyone who simpers, wears pink and is passive is a girl. There isn’t a hair’s breadth between them and both are born of misogyny and homophobia.
I agree that the “pink and blue stratification” you highlight seems unhelpful, even pointless. We needn’t divide things and preferences into a thousand pairs of gender-identified opposites.
It also seems we agree that being open to a child’s interests and preferences, without any reflexive reliance on tradition or expectation–which I support more than my skeptic’s case might show–is not the same as major, often permanent bodily alteration.
I think most people would agree that self-identities are not fixed and haven’t always calcified into place at 4, 14, or 44. Many children (and adults) also reject outward or “forced” identities as (for example) Catholics, tough and rugged boys, or good little girly girls. They shouldn’t have to wear that baggage if it doesn’t fit. But part of the early resistance may come from not wanting to have an imposed or settled identity at all, a natural human defiance that may also show an understandable resistance to adulthood in general.
Now people may decide–with good cause–to resist the more general, duller standards of adulthood (like “get serious” or “decide who you’re gonna be and stick with it”) and cast them aside as bullshit/not-for-me when they’re grown. But I’d hope that even most openminded and compassionate people can agree that surgical interventions for children are not a sensible or effective way to address the root cause of, much less “fix” a condition of bodily self-hatred.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with being a boy who likes dolls. Gender stereotypes are causing physically healthy individuals to mutilate their bodies and destroy their health. If your body is healthy, you don’t need drugs and surgery, regardless of your personal lifestyle preferences.
“Efforts to liberate children from the burden of traditional gender roles have helped lead to a net increase in related anxiety and adolescent self-disgust.”
I see it the other way around. The idea that there are fixed, unchangeable male and female features is what leads to a lot of unnecessary pain. Within this mindset, you can’t be a boy and like pink and dolls. If you like those, then you have to be a girl. That’s clearly expressed by parents who supported their children through transitioning. Just accepting that people can like or dislike different things, irrespective of gender, would go a long way toward helping children accept themselves as they are.
Judging by this article, a hard-hitting first-person account I have no reason to dispute, the inclination to harm oneself comes in large part from within, or “gets internalized” in common contemporary parlance.
If a young girl can develop a radical bodily self-hatred over YouTube, claims of the suicidal threat caused by merely questioning the underage self-questioner are thrown into greater doubt. That is, there is already a major risk of self-harm and even suicide connected with wanting to escape your given body. Helping a child to accept their inherited mortal frame, at least until legal adulthood, might in fact reduce the incidence of related self-harm. (Or maybe that’s wrong; it’s probably clear I have no expertise here).
From my point of view as a gender-change skeptic (at least at this level of incidence) who’d rather not make assumptions or condemn anyone, it seems that efforts to liberate children from the burden of traditional gender roles have helped lead to a net increase in related anxiety and adolescent self-disgust. Is there a middle path that makes being a boy or girl carry less specific “weight” and expectation, but discourages seeing one’s developing body as something to escape–at least until that body is fully grown?
I find all this very strange.
I hated my body at 12 or 13 because it was a child’s body and I hated being a child. I wanted to be a woman and be sexy. That didn’t mean that I wanted to be pink and girly (no one did in the early 70s), or that I wanted to be a boring housewife and mother. I wanted to go to university and be a high achieving, sexy woman with lovers. So did most of my friends.
I can only think that being in a girls’ grammar school had something to do with it. Those who set up girls’ schools and kept us separate from boys knew what they were doing. We were able to be ourselves and achieve without any pressure to conform to male expectations. Of course we had no idea of the reality of males, so most of our dreams came from books, but nowadays girls are subjected to the effects of boys watching pornography. Our way was better.
Our way is better? Such an unbelievably simplistic take on a highly complex situation. Apart from annoyingly pigeon-holing women into either sexy career climbers or boring mothers, you assume that going to an all girls school would insulate a teenager from the effects of gender ideology when they carry the world in their palm? The first girl I met that underwent a full medical transition at 16 went to an all girls school. So nope. As for porn, it’s not a unilateral relationship. Boys seek out porn because it’s easy and they are terrified of approaching girls in the post #metoo world. Girls are portrayed in the most vile fashion. I can see where disavowing femaleness would be attractive to a young female. So many things contributing but ‘your way’ of coming of age is not the antidote.
Boys were terrified of approaching girls in the pre-#metoo world. Not to mention confused, ignorant of what to do, and with a well-justified expectation of failure if they tried. Not everything has changed since the arrival of the smartphone.
Thank you for this reminder, which I was due for myself.
Agreed. But I would suggest sadly much worse now.
Thank you for this reminder, which I was due for myself.
Agreed. But I would suggest sadly much worse now.
Boys were terrified of approaching girls in the pre-#metoo world. Not to mention confused, ignorant of what to do, and with a well-justified expectation of failure if they tried. Not everything has changed since the arrival of the smartphone.
Our way is better? Such an unbelievably simplistic take on a highly complex situation. Apart from annoyingly pigeon-holing women into either sexy career climbers or boring mothers, you assume that going to an all girls school would insulate a teenager from the effects of gender ideology when they carry the world in their palm? The first girl I met that underwent a full medical transition at 16 went to an all girls school. So nope. As for porn, it’s not a unilateral relationship. Boys seek out porn because it’s easy and they are terrified of approaching girls in the post #metoo world. Girls are portrayed in the most vile fashion. I can see where disavowing femaleness would be attractive to a young female. So many things contributing but ‘your way’ of coming of age is not the antidote.
I find all this very strange.
I hated my body at 12 or 13 because it was a child’s body and I hated being a child. I wanted to be a woman and be sexy. That didn’t mean that I wanted to be pink and girly (no one did in the early 70s), or that I wanted to be a boring housewife and mother. I wanted to go to university and be a high achieving, sexy woman with lovers. So did most of my friends.
I can only think that being in a girls’ grammar school had something to do with it. Those who set up girls’ schools and kept us separate from boys knew what they were doing. We were able to be ourselves and achieve without any pressure to conform to male expectations. Of course we had no idea of the reality of males, so most of our dreams came from books, but nowadays girls are subjected to the effects of boys watching pornography. Our way was better.
It is not inevtable that prepubescent and teenaged girls hate their bodies, I was very fortunate in having parents and friends of a variety of ages genders etc who would listen explain and encourage. I was sporty energetic and extrovert which also helped. I found it strange and very interesting to learn how bodies worked. It was difficult at times, but not insurmountable to navigate puberty successfully.
It is not inevtable that prepubescent and teenaged girls hate their bodies, I was very fortunate in having parents and friends of a variety of ages genders etc who would listen explain and encourage. I was sporty energetic and extrovert which also helped. I found it strange and very interesting to learn how bodies worked. It was difficult at times, but not insurmountable to navigate puberty successfully.
This is a very interesting and beautifully written post…
However, as you have never been a teenage boy how could you assume how they might or might not feel? This is a common conceit of many feminist(ish) writers.
Perhaps the biggest difference between teenage girls and teenage boys and body and self-confidence issues etc. is that boys hide their insecurities and don’t talk about them… But women need to be special so…
It helps a lot to have a son and a daughter. They’re even different in the womb – so much so you can literally feel it as they grow. It is the greatest fortune of my life that my son and daughter are best friends. And they’re still very, very different from each other.
I don’t think it so much about girls needing to be”special”, but that feelings tend to be more overtly expressed by girls. You will notice one of the big differences between even the youngests of girls and boys is that the boys tend to be more object/action oriented and girls more relationship oriented. Girls are always falling in and out with best friends, and tend to pair bond quite a lot.
I think that Matt meant something different: that feminist ideology teaches women that they are special–that is, uniquely victimized, uniquely deserving of compassion (or even have some innate moral superiority to men). By now, that ideological message has become deeply embedded in our culture. Most people, both men and women are aware of that.
Well said, Paul, you really nailed what I was trying to say… I also did like Jane’s post as well…
This seems to me to be a strain of feminism. Not a unitary or equalitarian feminism but female chauvinism of a sort, especially in the moral sense you mentioned. It quite natural that women–though more empathetic on average–mightn’t quite appreciate what it’s like to inhabit a male body and cultural position from the inside, that it’s rather less of an unqualified privilege than they acknowledge (for example: go to war young man; wait on this sinking ship until the priority people are rescued; check out that noise; don’t cry).
But I really don’t think we’ve reached a point of gyno-centrism as you’ve claimed below. Just a different place of competing misunderstandings. Our mutual failures to really listen to and extend the benefit of the doubt to our “fellow opposites” is an abiding one. Over-correcting pendulum swings will occur. I hope we can avoid both defensive reactiveness and calls for “corrective injustice” more often.
I do think that we’re reached gynocentrism, AJ. I use that word not to describe women as individuals but to describe the pervasive institutionalization of gynocentrism–that is, a societal preoccupation with the needs and problems of women (the template that now governs attitudes toward racial minorities). Countless agencies, both public and private, monitor the condition of women. Governments have established well-financed bureaucracies, some ideological and others not, to ensure the well-being of women. And there’s nothing wrong with that per se. But it’s a zero-sum game and thus relies on a double standard. Anyone who argues that the needs and problems of men are equally (though not more) important (and not only because of their impact on women) can expect to be attacked for misogyny. I’m sure that I will on this very blog, because some bloggers have already seen fit to ridicule me. But I no longer care. I’m not here to be popular but to say what needs to be said, and I try to do so as judiciously and courteously as I can.
I appreciate your consistently fair-minded and courteous approach, one I try to follow with uneven success.
I believe you are the co-author of multiple well-known books on the subject of misandry. In your research and composition: Have you discovered some fair-minded feminists with a prevailing unitary or equalitarian approach, or a near-exclusive prevalence of man-hatred or female chauvinism?
Thanks, AJ. I don’t know how many readers will even see what follows, after several days, but your question is worth answering.
There have always been fair-minded, egalitarian, feminists. They see that feminism of one school or another can function as an ideology like any other. It’s not divine revelation and can therefore be studied objectively. They feel free to learn from its insights but also to notice its flaws. That takes courage, now more than ever in this woke age of cynicism and intimidation. I admire them for placing the search for truth above the search for political advantage, let alone for personal or communal gratification, because they pay a heavy price as heretics or infidels for their moral and intellectual integrity.
More important, there have always been fair-minded, egalitarian women (not all of whom are feminists). My co-author, for instance, was Katherine K. Young. Many of our most ardent supporters are the mothers of sons, who worry with good reason about the damaging effects of misandry on both their sons and their daughters (let alone on society as a whole).
The rise of wokism, which has absorbed not only feminist ideologies but also racial ones, has been a setback for all of us who still hope for an end to the fragmentation of society and the beginning of reconciliation between groups in conflict. But nothing lasts forever, not even moral panics such as the trans movement. I still think that people will eventually rebel against cynicism than now prevails. The goal of my research on misandry remains inter-sexual dialogue.
Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. Though this has understandably become something of a “ghost board” your response was important to me.
Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. Though this has understandably become something of a “ghost board” your response was important to me.
Thanks, AJ. I don’t know how many readers will even see what follows, after several days, but your question is worth answering.
There have always been fair-minded, egalitarian, feminists. They see that feminism of one school or another can function as an ideology like any other. It’s not divine revelation and can therefore be studied objectively. They feel free to learn from its insights but also to notice its flaws. That takes courage, now more than ever in this woke age of cynicism and intimidation. I admire them for placing the search for truth above the search for political advantage, let alone for personal or communal gratification, because they pay a heavy price as heretics or infidels for their moral and intellectual integrity.
More important, there have always been fair-minded, egalitarian women (not all of whom are feminists). My co-author, for instance, was Katherine K. Young. Many of our most ardent supporters are the mothers of sons, who worry with good reason about the damaging effects of misandry on both their sons and their daughters (let alone on society as a whole).
The rise of wokism, which has absorbed not only feminist ideologies but also racial ones, has been a setback for all of us who still hope for an end to the fragmentation of society and the beginning of reconciliation between groups in conflict. But nothing lasts forever, not even moral panics such as the trans movement. I still think that people will eventually rebel against cynicism than now prevails. The goal of my research on misandry remains inter-sexual dialogue.
I appreciate your consistently fair-minded and courteous approach, one I try to follow with uneven success.
I believe you are the co-author of multiple well-known books on the subject of misandry. In your research and composition: Have you discovered some fair-minded feminists with a prevailing unitary or equalitarian approach, or a near-exclusive prevalence of man-hatred or female chauvinism?
I do think that we’re reached gynocentrism, AJ. I use that word not to describe women as individuals but to describe the pervasive institutionalization of gynocentrism–that is, a societal preoccupation with the needs and problems of women (the template that now governs attitudes toward racial minorities). Countless agencies, both public and private, monitor the condition of women. Governments have established well-financed bureaucracies, some ideological and others not, to ensure the well-being of women. And there’s nothing wrong with that per se. But it’s a zero-sum game and thus relies on a double standard. Anyone who argues that the needs and problems of men are equally (though not more) important (and not only because of their impact on women) can expect to be attacked for misogyny. I’m sure that I will on this very blog, because some bloggers have already seen fit to ridicule me. But I no longer care. I’m not here to be popular but to say what needs to be said, and I try to do so as judiciously and courteously as I can.
I did know where he was going with that post, but it seemed too rooted in resentment and needed to be defused.
I don’t think there is any one ‘feminist ideology’. There are many strands and shades, but what they all have in common is positions and experiences that are articulated by women – into over-arching narratives of one type or other.
Well said, Paul, you really nailed what I was trying to say… I also did like Jane’s post as well…
This seems to me to be a strain of feminism. Not a unitary or equalitarian feminism but female chauvinism of a sort, especially in the moral sense you mentioned. It quite natural that women–though more empathetic on average–mightn’t quite appreciate what it’s like to inhabit a male body and cultural position from the inside, that it’s rather less of an unqualified privilege than they acknowledge (for example: go to war young man; wait on this sinking ship until the priority people are rescued; check out that noise; don’t cry).
But I really don’t think we’ve reached a point of gyno-centrism as you’ve claimed below. Just a different place of competing misunderstandings. Our mutual failures to really listen to and extend the benefit of the doubt to our “fellow opposites” is an abiding one. Over-correcting pendulum swings will occur. I hope we can avoid both defensive reactiveness and calls for “corrective injustice” more often.
I did know where he was going with that post, but it seemed too rooted in resentment and needed to be defused.
I don’t think there is any one ‘feminist ideology’. There are many strands and shades, but what they all have in common is positions and experiences that are articulated by women – into over-arching narratives of one type or other.
I think that Matt meant something different: that feminist ideology teaches women that they are special–that is, uniquely victimized, uniquely deserving of compassion (or even have some innate moral superiority to men). By now, that ideological message has become deeply embedded in our culture. Most people, both men and women are aware of that.
Well said, fed up of people who have never experienced being a teenage boy, or a man, but still feel they are able to comment on it with authority.
Or express a desire to change gender to become one. The desire at puberty to “not become a woman” is NOT the same as a “desire to become a man”
But I don’t think she did that.
Nevertheless, many who’ve never experienced it themselves comment on what the experience of wanting to change gender might or “must” be like, myself included. Still, offering a perspective in the first-person voice is not quite the same as calling yourself an authority.
Or express a desire to change gender to become one. The desire at puberty to “not become a woman” is NOT the same as a “desire to become a man”
But I don’t think she did that.
Nevertheless, many who’ve never experienced it themselves comment on what the experience of wanting to change gender might or “must” be like, myself included. Still, offering a perspective in the first-person voice is not quite the same as calling yourself an authority.
Thank you for saying that, Matt. Teenage boys are indeed, almost by definition, torn by anxiety, confusion and insecurity and never more so than in an increasingly gynocentric world that sees maleness itself as an innate flaw. Self-loathing does lead more than a few boys to behavior that is both destructive and self-destructive. Unlike teenage girls, at any rate, teenage boys are seldom taken seriously by anyone except as the gold standard of social problems. My own case was unusually severe, but the difference between my experience and that of any other boy was one of degree, not of kind, and therefore is worth mentioning briefly here.
As a teenage boy (and even before), I was desperately confused and anxious about my body. (Yes, I had wet dreams and began to masturbate for no obvious reason.) What would it mean to become a man, even one like my father? Not something satisfying, I believed. It seemed to me that my mother enjoyed her life much more than he enjoyed his. I didn’t think that I was a girl, although I did envy girls in some ways (apart from anything else, as I learned from watching countless war movies, for not having to worry about military conscription). Worse than hiding my confusion, however, was being socially radioactive. I was punished implacably by bullies–both male and female–for not performing properly according to the script. Gradually, I realized that whatever was “wrong” with me, I did not deserve constant ridicule and hostility. (In my Jewish day school, we learned about prophets and philosophers who had asked the universal human question: Why do innocent people, or peoples, suffer from injustice?) My father taught me by example to think for myself about this and other moral problems. Fortunately, no one had yet invented the notion of “transgenderism.” So, I endured and eventually made a good life for myself as a gay man.
I’ve just been back to the article Matt and I can’t find where Sarah makes assumptions about how boys feel.
I thought Sarah was very careful to point out that she was speaking about girls’ because she was drawing on her own personal experience of being one.
She was equally careful to point out that it isn’t only girls who have been affected by this scandal but, apart from referencing the well defined and acknowledged early cohort of predominately male children with GD, she didn’t examine boys’ motivations re trans identity at all.
Surely an essay from a man would better address the feelings of boys during puberty?
True enough but such articles seem to imply that boys don’t have such insecurities. That such concerns are the domain of girls only or at least primarily… 30 years of 4 days a week in the gym speaks otherwise, at least to me…
True enough but such articles seem to imply that boys don’t have such insecurities. That such concerns are the domain of girls only or at least primarily… 30 years of 4 days a week in the gym speaks otherwise, at least to me…
I’m all for a bit of arguing with the fems but I don’t think it’s at all necessary here, there’s nothing wrong with writing about girls and their experiences, she was not dismissive of the experiences of boys.
Fair…
Fair…
This comment didn’t make it, but I’ll try again.
Thank you for saying that, Matt. Teenage boys are indeed, almost by definition, torn by anxiety, confusion and insecurity and never more so than in an increasingly gynocentric world that sees maleness itself as an innate flaw. Self-loathing does lead more than a few boys to behavior that is both destructive and self-destructive. Unlike teenage girls, at any rate, teenage boys are seldom taken seriously by anyone except as the gold standard of social problems. My own case was unusually severe, but the difference between my experience and that of any other boy was one of degree, not of kind, and therefore is worth mentioning briefly here.
As a teenage boy (and even before), I was desperately confused and anxious about my body. (Yes, I had wet dreams and began to masturbate for no obvious reason.) What would it mean to become a man, even one like my father? Not something satisfying, I believed. It seemed to me that my mother enjoyed her life much more than he enjoyed his. I didn’t think that I was a girl, although I did envy girls in some ways (apart from anything else, as I learned from watching countless war movies, for not having to worry about military conscription). Worse than hiding my confusion, however, was being socially radioactive. I was punished implacably by bullies–both male and female–for not performing properly according to the script. Gradually, I realized that whatever was “wrong” with me, I did not deserve constant ridicule and hostility. (In my Jewish day school, we learned about prophets and philosophers who had asked the universal human question: Why do innocent people, or peoples, suffer from injustice?) My father taught me by example to think for myself about this and other moral problems. Fortunately, no one had yet invented the notion of “transgenderism.” So, I endured and eventually made a good life for myself as a gay man.
It helps a lot to have a son and a daughter. They’re even different in the womb – so much so you can literally feel it as they grow. It is the greatest fortune of my life that my son and daughter are best friends. And they’re still very, very different from each other.
I don’t think it so much about girls needing to be”special”, but that feelings tend to be more overtly expressed by girls. You will notice one of the big differences between even the youngests of girls and boys is that the boys tend to be more object/action oriented and girls more relationship oriented. Girls are always falling in and out with best friends, and tend to pair bond quite a lot.
Well said, fed up of people who have never experienced being a teenage boy, or a man, but still feel they are able to comment on it with authority.
Thank you for saying that, Matt. Teenage boys are indeed, almost by definition, torn by anxiety, confusion and insecurity and never more so than in an increasingly gynocentric world that sees maleness itself as an innate flaw. Self-loathing does lead more than a few boys to behavior that is both destructive and self-destructive. Unlike teenage girls, at any rate, teenage boys are seldom taken seriously by anyone except as the gold standard of social problems. My own case was unusually severe, but the difference between my experience and that of any other boy was one of degree, not of kind, and therefore is worth mentioning briefly here.
As a teenage boy (and even before), I was desperately confused and anxious about my body. (Yes, I had wet dreams and began to masturbate for no obvious reason.) What would it mean to become a man, even one like my father? Not something satisfying, I believed. It seemed to me that my mother enjoyed her life much more than he enjoyed his. I didn’t think that I was a girl, although I did envy girls in some ways (apart from anything else, as I learned from watching countless war movies, for not having to worry about military conscription). Worse than hiding my confusion, however, was being socially radioactive. I was punished implacably by bullies–both male and female–for not performing properly according to the script. Gradually, I realized that whatever was “wrong” with me, I did not deserve constant ridicule and hostility. (In my Jewish day school, we learned about prophets and philosophers who had asked the universal human question: Why do innocent people, or peoples, suffer from injustice?) My father taught me by example to think for myself about this and other moral problems. Fortunately, no one had yet invented the notion of “transgenderism.” So, I endured and eventually made a good life for myself as a gay man.
I’ve just been back to the article Matt and I can’t find where Sarah makes assumptions about how boys feel.
I thought Sarah was very careful to point out that she was speaking about girls’ because she was drawing on her own personal experience of being one.
She was equally careful to point out that it isn’t only girls who have been affected by this scandal but, apart from referencing the well defined and acknowledged early cohort of predominately male children with GD, she didn’t examine boys’ motivations re trans identity at all.
Surely an essay from a man would better address the feelings of boys during puberty?
I’m all for a bit of arguing with the fems but I don’t think it’s at all necessary here, there’s nothing wrong with writing about girls and their experiences, she was not dismissive of the experiences of boys.
This comment didn’t make it, but I’ll try again.
Thank you for saying that, Matt. Teenage boys are indeed, almost by definition, torn by anxiety, confusion and insecurity and never more so than in an increasingly gynocentric world that sees maleness itself as an innate flaw. Self-loathing does lead more than a few boys to behavior that is both destructive and self-destructive. Unlike teenage girls, at any rate, teenage boys are seldom taken seriously by anyone except as the gold standard of social problems. My own case was unusually severe, but the difference between my experience and that of any other boy was one of degree, not of kind, and therefore is worth mentioning briefly here.
As a teenage boy (and even before), I was desperately confused and anxious about my body. (Yes, I had wet dreams and began to masturbate for no obvious reason.) What would it mean to become a man, even one like my father? Not something satisfying, I believed. It seemed to me that my mother enjoyed her life much more than he enjoyed his. I didn’t think that I was a girl, although I did envy girls in some ways (apart from anything else, as I learned from watching countless war movies, for not having to worry about military conscription). Worse than hiding my confusion, however, was being socially radioactive. I was punished implacably by bullies–both male and female–for not performing properly according to the script. Gradually, I realized that whatever was “wrong” with me, I did not deserve constant ridicule and hostility. (In my Jewish day school, we learned about prophets and philosophers who had asked the universal human question: Why do innocent people, or peoples, suffer from injustice?) My father taught me by example to think for myself about this and other moral problems. Fortunately, no one had yet invented the notion of “transgenderism.” So, I endured and eventually made a good life for myself as a gay man.
This is a very interesting and beautifully written post…
However, as you have never been a teenage boy how could you assume how they might or might not feel? This is a common conceit of many feminist(ish) writers.
Perhaps the biggest difference between teenage girls and teenage boys and body and self-confidence issues etc. is that boys hide their insecurities and don’t talk about them… But women need to be special so…
As a teenage boy, I remember disliking my body too – being embarassed of it, hating the way it changed, the spots and greasy hair, the fact that I developed a capacity to blush at *almost anything*. Hating the obligatory nakedness of the boys changing rooms and showers at school. I can also remember in late teens and well into my twenties, often wishing that I didn’t have to be ‘in the flesh’ – that I could somehow be ‘pure spirit’. It wasn’t all-pervasive, and it passed, but I wouldn’t say that being a teenage boy is a piece of cake either, as evidenced by higher suicide rates and the general culture of concealmeant of vulnerability.
And the female gaze is also sizing up male contempories very much at that age – all boys know who the school ‘alphas’ are, and whether they are one of them. That’s not to say that girls don’t experience nore extreme changes and aren’t more focused on their bodies and physical attractiveness at that age, but it’s not nothing, and we do *all* enetr the sexual marketplace during puberty, and experience the pressures arising from that, compared to which even a somewhat unhappy pre-pubescent childhood is a blissful state of grace.
I did however have the luxury of being straight, and it never occurred to me to ‘want to be’ anything other than what I was – it just wasn’t on my radar that there was such a thing, though it wouldn’t have mettered if it was. Gender dysphoria must be a horrific and unnerving thing to go through, but it does, from the outside, look like a lot of people that are experiencing it are simply gay people experiencing anxiety and depression coupled with a more general body dysmorphia, and I believe the data bears that out – as referred to in a recent interview with de-transitioner Chloe Cole.
As a teenage boy, I remember disliking my body too – being embarassed of it, hating the way it changed, the spots and greasy hair, the fact that I developed a capacity to blush at *almost anything*. Hating the obligatory nakedness of the boys changing rooms and showers at school. I can also remember in late teens and well into my twenties, often wishing that I didn’t have to be ‘in the flesh’ – that I could somehow be ‘pure spirit’. It wasn’t all-pervasive, and it passed, but I wouldn’t say that being a teenage boy is a piece of cake either, as evidenced by higher suicide rates and the general culture of concealmeant of vulnerability.
And the female gaze is also sizing up male contempories very much at that age – all boys know who the school ‘alphas’ are, and whether they are one of them. That’s not to say that girls don’t experience nore extreme changes and aren’t more focused on their bodies and physical attractiveness at that age, but it’s not nothing, and we do *all* enetr the sexual marketplace during puberty, and experience the pressures arising from that, compared to which even a somewhat unhappy pre-pubescent childhood is a blissful state of grace.
I did however have the luxury of being straight, and it never occurred to me to ‘want to be’ anything other than what I was – it just wasn’t on my radar that there was such a thing, though it wouldn’t have mettered if it was. Gender dysphoria must be a horrific and unnerving thing to go through, but it does, from the outside, look like a lot of people that are experiencing it are simply gay people experiencing anxiety and depression coupled with a more general body dysmorphia, and I believe the data bears that out – as referred to in a recent interview with de-transitioner Chloe Cole.
“The tragedy of a mysoginistic world is that it makes girls believe they need a cure for femaleness.”
This characterization is so wide of the mark it makes one wonder if the writer is in intentional denial of the facts. In her so-called “mysoginistic world”, by nearly every measure, girls are succeeding and surpassing boys; in testing, in university places, in managerial positions in both public and private sectors – except perhaps for suicide, where boys have the edge with 70% of cases. Girls are supported with hiring quotas, with all-female electoral lists, and with a media always ready to cheer on women’s successes, while blaming the patriarchy for their disappointments.
Perhaps if “girls feel they need a cure for their femaleness” , it is because they are less and less experiencing what nature intended for biological women – childbearing. Now there’s a radical and revolutionary thought!
Contrary to the biased view expressed in this article the majority of girls do not believe they need a cure for femaleness.
The majority of girls are exploiting their sexuality to the fullest and making a living doing it. The amount of money they are making is something most men can only dream of.
The “ majority” of girls are doing no such thing. Such venom in your comment – as well as the fantasy that this female majority are making huge amounts of money – say far more about your attitude towards women than it does of objective reality. Most women manage to get by in life without commodifying their sexuality. Just a quick look at Only Fans stats, for example, belies this assumption: “ Most of OnlyFans’ creators make less than $100 every month; the top percentage of creators are making between $1000 to $30,000 monthly.” https://ashleyjohn1189.medium.com/how-much-do-girls-make-on-onlyfans-b5f715afff71#:~:text=While%20the%20average%20earnings%20of,of%20%247.20%20isn't%20easy.
OnlyFans mirrors the exact same trend in dating apps…….status and money aggregate ar the top and only for a very few tippy tops. The rest are being thrown the crumbs.
It’s estimated that up to a third of female university students are funding their education as Sugar Babies.
Absolutely nothing wrong with this if that’s what they want to do. “My body my choice” right?
OnlyFans mirrors the exact same trend in dating apps…….status and money aggregate ar the top and only for a very few tippy tops. The rest are being thrown the crumbs.
It’s estimated that up to a third of female university students are funding their education as Sugar Babies.
Absolutely nothing wrong with this if that’s what they want to do. “My body my choice” right?
The “ majority” of girls are doing no such thing. Such venom in your comment – as well as the fantasy that this female majority are making huge amounts of money – say far more about your attitude towards women than it does of objective reality. Most women manage to get by in life without commodifying their sexuality. Just a quick look at Only Fans stats, for example, belies this assumption: “ Most of OnlyFans’ creators make less than $100 every month; the top percentage of creators are making between $1000 to $30,000 monthly.” https://ashleyjohn1189.medium.com/how-much-do-girls-make-on-onlyfans-b5f715afff71#:~:text=While%20the%20average%20earnings%20of,of%20%247.20%20isn't%20easy.
Contrary to the biased view expressed in this article the majority of girls do not believe they need a cure for femaleness.
The majority of girls are exploiting their sexuality to the fullest and making a living doing it. The amount of money they are making is something most men can only dream of.
“The tragedy of a mysoginistic world is that it makes girls believe they need a cure for femaleness.”
This characterization is so wide of the mark it makes one wonder if the writer is in intentional denial of the facts. In her so-called “mysoginistic world”, by nearly every measure, girls are succeeding and surpassing boys; in testing, in university places, in managerial positions in both public and private sectors – except perhaps for suicide, where boys have the edge with 70% of cases. Girls are supported with hiring quotas, with all-female electoral lists, and with a media always ready to cheer on women’s successes, while blaming the patriarchy for their disappointments.
Perhaps if “girls feel they need a cure for their femaleness” , it is because they are less and less experiencing what nature intended for biological women – childbearing. Now there’s a radical and revolutionary thought!
Anyone still believing these “gender identity” ideologues are something to do with gender dysphoria needs their own bumps felt. This is just another left wing assault on civic society trying to set child against parent as they try with black against white or poor against rich. Rooted in the failed leftist “anti-philosophies” of the 60s these schemes don’t seem to have a lot of success. I see their fellow traveller Putin favours the old approach – guns and bombs etc. I wonder how long his Western leftist allies will carry on using indirect assaults that don’t appear to work before they too, revert to type?
Anyone still believing these “gender identity” ideologues are something to do with gender dysphoria needs their own bumps felt. This is just another left wing assault on civic society trying to set child against parent as they try with black against white or poor against rich. Rooted in the failed leftist “anti-philosophies” of the 60s these schemes don’t seem to have a lot of success. I see their fellow traveller Putin favours the old approach – guns and bombs etc. I wonder how long his Western leftist allies will carry on using indirect assaults that don’t appear to work before they too, revert to type?
Wait till the left manage to foment civil war between the Muslim invaders they fawn upon, and the indigenous population. That’ll put a stop to this sort of nonsense. Nothing like having real problems, to drive out imaginary ones.
Wait till the left manage to foment civil war between the Muslim invaders they fawn upon, and the indigenous population. That’ll put a stop to this sort of nonsense. Nothing like having real problems, to drive out imaginary ones.
It’s hard to get one’s head around what’s happening with children in such a short space of time. I’m not a parent so I’m more of an observor than a participant, but I can’t imagine having to navigate what’s going on now. There seem to be so many factors at work in the gender crisis, and there are no “authorities” that’s for sure. When I read stories my first response is, but why. No one seems to know except that its all very disturbing.
It’s hard to get one’s head around what’s happening with children in such a short space of time. I’m not a parent so I’m more of an observor than a participant, but I can’t imagine having to navigate what’s going on now. There seem to be so many factors at work in the gender crisis, and there are no “authorities” that’s for sure. When I read stories my first response is, but why. No one seems to know except that its all very disturbing.
Men, if you want to have a little insight into the female experience among the males of this world, read Julia Williamson’s article in HuffPo entitled “Sometime In My 50s, I Became Invisible To Men”. It is short and concise, soberingly descriptive, without jerking your tears with “the tragedy of being a woman”, without clobbering you with “misogyny”. My guess is that this article was supposed to be about the misuse of gender medicine in adolescence, but whatever important information was presented here about the topic, was overshadowed by it being saturated with the use of such tired, old cliches.
Interesting article, yes. And makes me think of my favourite sociolinguist, Deborah, Tannen, for a lot of the underlying mechanisms. But before we get too excited about women depending on the male gaze and becoming invisible as they get older, I’d like to point out that many/most/all men are *never* visible, at any time in their lives. Not in this sense, at least, of “gathering grins, glances, appreciative smiles, and flirting”. Instead you learn from childhood to claim space and respect, to compete for the floor, and to fit sensibly into a hierarchy where the others do that too. As for ‘Women don’t owe you shit’. that is actually too restrictive. The full statement is “Nobody gives a shit about what you want”.
Interesting article, yes. And makes me think of my favourite sociolinguist, Deborah, Tannen, for a lot of the underlying mechanisms. But before we get too excited about women depending on the male gaze and becoming invisible as they get older, I’d like to point out that many/most/all men are *never* visible, at any time in their lives. Not in this sense, at least, of “gathering grins, glances, appreciative smiles, and flirting”. Instead you learn from childhood to claim space and respect, to compete for the floor, and to fit sensibly into a hierarchy where the others do that too. As for ‘Women don’t owe you shit’. that is actually too restrictive. The full statement is “Nobody gives a shit about what you want”.
Men, if you want to have a little insight into the female experience among the males of this world, read Julia Williamson’s article in HuffPo entitled “Sometime In My 50s, I Became Invisible To Men”. It is short and concise, soberingly descriptive, without jerking your tears with “the tragedy of being a woman”, without clobbering you with “misogyny”. My guess is that this article was supposed to be about the misuse of gender medicine in adolescence, but whatever important information was presented here about the topic, was overshadowed by it being saturated with the use of such tired, old cliches.
David Lewis
8 months ago
At my all-boys minor public school in the 70s Sex Education was cringingly ‘delivered’ as part of the biology syllabus. As a pre-pubescent teenage boy I remember being bewildered by what I had learned. I could not, for the life of me, understand the need for contraception. I imagined that after 5 years of marriage Norma would turn to Norman and say: “My dear, I think it’s time we had a baby. Tonight we’ll do that disgusting business we learned about in biology, but it’ll be worth it when we have our beautiful baby. Why on earth was there a need to allow people to do that disgusting business without pregnancy resulting?
About a year later puberty hit me like a cricket bat and I suddenly understood why contraception was such a good thing.
David Lewis
8 months ago
At my all-boys minor public school in the 70s Sex Education was cringingly ‘delivered’ as part of the biology syllabus. As a pre-pubescent teenage boy I remember being bewildered by what I had learned. I could not, for the life of me, understand the need for contraception. I imagined that after 5 years of marriage Norma would turn to Norman and say: “My dear, I think it’s time we had a baby. Tonight we’ll do that disgusting business we learned about in biology, but it’ll be worth it when we have our beautiful baby. Why on earth was there a need to allow people to do that disgusting business without pregnancy resulting?
About a year later puberty hit me like a cricket bat and I suddenly understood why contraception was such a good thing.
Although I am male I have been a supporter of women’s rights since the late 70’s. I do not claim to be a feminist as I am not sure any man can be one. My sexual fantasies fall firmly within the category of treating women like objects. However, in the same way that homosexuality has existed as long as humanity, I must assume that so too has gender dysmorphia.
But, like food allergies, this problem did not ‘exist’ when I was growing up. Obviously food allergies did exist, but on a scale that made them practically invisible. I notice in poor countries they are invisible.
As a chef I have had hundreds of conversations with customers who claim to have have food ‘intolerances’; I estimate 95% are self-diagnosed. None can explain the difference between an intolerance and an allergy. A genuine allergy to gluten is extremely serious. Claiming to be gluten intolerant is like claiming to be a bit pregnant. Their ‘diagnosis’ ALWAYS includes the word bloated.
Nevertheless it is indisputable that more people suffer from food allergies now than 30 years ago. There is now convincing research that this is a result of people growing up in ultra- hygienic environments with little contact with ‘dirt’, or to use the proper term. soil.
One thing I have never seen discussed is why gender dysmorphia now seems more common. Even excluding wrong assessment it does appear to be a more prevalent phenomenon. Around 20 years ago I read an article that said pollution from PVC plastics running into rivers was causing male fish to become female. Recent studies show that micro plastics are now inside almost every human. This is also true of the chemical components of Teflon.
Is it impossible to speculate there might be a connection?
Although I am male I have been a supporter of women’s rights since the late 70’s. I do not claim to be a feminist as I am not sure any man can be one. My sexual fantasies fall firmly within the category of treating women like objects. However, in the same way that homosexuality has existed as long as humanity, I must assume that so too has gender dysmorphia.
But, like food allergies, this problem did not ‘exist’ when I was growing up. Obviously food allergies did exist, but on a scale that made them practically invisible. I notice in poor countries they are invisible.
As a chef I have had hundreds of conversations with customers who claim to have have food ‘intolerances’; I estimate 95% are self-diagnosed. None can explain the difference between an intolerance and an allergy. A genuine allergy to gluten is extremely serious. Claiming to be gluten intolerant is like claiming to be a bit pregnant. Their ‘diagnosis’ ALWAYS includes the word bloated.
Nevertheless it is indisputable that more people suffer from food allergies now than 30 years ago. There is now convincing research that this is a result of people growing up in ultra- hygienic environments with little contact with ‘dirt’, or to use the proper term. soil.
One thing I have never seen discussed is why gender dysmorphia now seems more common. Even excluding wrong assessment it does appear to be a more prevalent phenomenon. Around 20 years ago I read an article that said pollution from PVC plastics running into rivers was causing male fish to become female. Recent studies show that micro plastics are now inside almost every human. This is also true of the chemical components of Teflon.
Is it impossible to speculate there might be a connection?
What a great piece!
It’s almost as if now that women are ascending from second class and should be roaring, forces are attempting to push them back down by getting them to self doubt the value of their womanhood.
It’s almost as if now that women are ascending from second class and should be roaring, forces are attempting to push them back down by getting them to self doubt the value of their womanhood.
Great article, but please don’t use the term tomboy. It reinforces the idea that certain behaviors or interests are better suited to boys.
What word would you prefer? What term would you coin to confer what is already agreed upon as a girl who doesn’t conform to highly feminized stereotypes but can still, god forbid, be an amazing version of female? This thinking is EXACTLy the problem. The Left has co-opted and demolished language to the point that nothing means anything anymore and everything is a transgression.
There is no need for a word for a girl who behaves differently from the average girl, because it doesn’t matter.
There is a word for that. ‘Newspeak’. A deliberately impoverished language imposed on the plebs by a group of ideological dictators in order to make it impossible to think or utter heretical thoughts.
There is a word for that, it is called evolution. Language evolves. Nothing wrong with that. It changes because the needs of its speakers change. There is nothing wrong with discussing the use of words and expressions. To impose a ban on discussing our language is dictatorial and a bit foolish.
Well, if language is supposed to change to fit the needs of speakers, I would note that the author clearly saw a need for the word ‘tomboy’, to refer to a commonly understood concept. You are the one who is telling her to stop using that word, because you disapprove of the concept. That is not language ‘evolving’, that is language being changed to reflect a dominant (?) ideology.
That is called an opinion. As far as I know, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. It has nothing to do with an ideology. It is a bit of a cliché to use the term ‘ideology’ everytime someone has a different opinion than you.
Won’t do, my friend. An opinion is one person having a point of view on an isolated topic, like split infinitives, or whether ‘data’ should be plural. Your point on ‘tomboy’ fits straight into a collective, progressive campaign of explicit social manipulation, to eradicate wrongthink. The purpose is *not* to change language so that it reflects what people have to say or the world they live in, but to change the way people think in order to change the world. It goes back at least fifty years, to the successful attempt to impose ‘non-sexist English’ and get rid of gendered pronouns, and incorporates such gems as ‘enslaved person’, ‘person of colour’, ‘chest feeding’, and ‘menstruators’.
Language changes, when people feel reality change and need new words. The introduction of ‘Ms’, for instance was necessary because there was an actual need for a respectful female title that did not depend on the (now irrelevant) marital status – though other languages managed simply by changing the meaning of the equivalent (Frau, Madame). Language ‘is changed’ when a dominant group wants to enforce its ideology, be it woke westerners, emperors, or followers of president Xi or Kim Young Un’.
Added:
Checking out Paul Nathanson on Google, I found this definition: An ideology is “a worldview that relies on a systematic representation of reality in order to attain social, political, and economic goals.” I’d say iot fits your position pretty well.
I think you are a genius, you figured who I am and what I think on the basis of one comment! Bravo!
Thanks for the compliment, but this quote makes it very easy:
The word ‘tomboy’ has a clear and well understood meaning, of a girl who behaves in a particular way that fits with traditionally boyish behaviour, and clearly rejects traditionally girlish pursuits. The author used that word so that she could describe the way she was (or rather: was not) as a child, in a manner that all her readers clearly understood. And you object to the word, not because it is in in some way insulting or misleading, but because you seem to think it is somehow wrong for the author to say what she is saying.
What should one make of that? You look like a perfect fit with the general progressive change-minds-by-censoring language approach, but OK, I might be wrong. I’ll bite: What do you think the author should have said instead of ‘tomboy’? And what difference do you think it would have made?
I express my opinion based on my personal experiences. Throughout my youth and adult life, I have not been a woman who fits the standard image of a woman in terms of behavior. As a result, I have never really belonged. That’s why I find it hurtful when people label women who behave differently as boyish or manly. I am just as much of a woman as any other woman.
OK, that deserves respect. I apologise, first for misrepresenting you, and second for being so combative about it. I can see why you would find that word hurtful, and I would not use it in front of you if we met – it is ill to speak of the rope in the hanged man’s house, as they say.
If you are still up for a more general discussion (I would understand if you prefer to avoid it): If one is very different to others in terms of interest or behaviour, will that not in itself make it harder to (feel you) belong? Sad as it may be, how much can it help to suppress the use of stereotypes and words that presuppose certain expectations – if those expectations are in many cases accurate and people will still think and act on them?
I come to think of one woman I have met: Butch lesbian, with a rugby-playing son, drank a mean pint and very knowledgable about the rules of rugby. She had clearly chosen a quite masculine interaction style (and could reasonably be described as such) , but I do not think either her wife or any of the people in the group thought of her as anything else than a woman. But then, of course, I am a man and I just found her easy to get along with. If you will permit me a (fully ignorable) personal question: is it the men who are troublesome about the way you are, or is it the women? Or both?
Thank you for your understanding. I’m what some people would call a nerd, I’m not a social butterfly, not into small talk. That’s not something people usually expect from women.I generally don’t get along well with women. I don’t have any problem with it now, but I can get annoyed when people still think in boxes like that.
Thank you for your understanding. I’m what some people would call a nerd, I’m not a social butterfly, not into small talk. That’s not something people usually expect from women.I generally don’t get along well with women. I don’t have any problem with it now, but I can get annoyed when people still think in boxes like that.
OK, that deserves respect. I apologise, first for misrepresenting you, and second for being so combative about it. I can see why you would find that word hurtful, and I would not use it in front of you if we met – it is ill to speak of the rope in the hanged man’s house, as they say.
If you are still up for a more general discussion (I would understand if you prefer to avoid it): If one is very different to others in terms of interest or behaviour, will that not in itself make it harder to (feel you) belong? Sad as it may be, how much can it help to suppress the use of stereotypes and words that presuppose certain expectations – if those expectations are in many cases accurate and people will still think and act on them?
I come to think of one woman I have met: Butch lesbian, with a rugby-playing son, drank a mean pint and very knowledgable about the rules of rugby. She had clearly chosen a quite masculine interaction style (and could reasonably be described as such) , but I do not think either her wife or any of the people in the group thought of her as anything else than a woman. But then, of course, I am a man and I just found her easy to get along with. If you will permit me a (fully ignorable) personal question: is it the men who are troublesome about the way you are, or is it the women? Or both?
I express my opinion based on my personal experiences. Throughout my youth and adult life, I have not been a woman who fits the standard image of a woman in terms of behavior. As a result, I have never really belonged. That’s why I find it hurtful when people label women who behave differently as boyish or manly. I am just as much of a woman as any other woman.
Thanks for the compliment, but this quote makes it very easy:
The word ‘tomboy’ has a clear and well understood meaning, of a girl who behaves in a particular way that fits with traditionally boyish behaviour, and clearly rejects traditionally girlish pursuits. The author used that word so that she could describe the way she was (or rather: was not) as a child, in a manner that all her readers clearly understood. And you object to the word, not because it is in in some way insulting or misleading, but because you seem to think it is somehow wrong for the author to say what she is saying.
What should one make of that? You look like a perfect fit with the general progressive change-minds-by-censoring language approach, but OK, I might be wrong. I’ll bite: What do you think the author should have said instead of ‘tomboy’? And what difference do you think it would have made?
I think you are a genius, you figured who I am and what I think on the basis of one comment! Bravo!
Won’t do, my friend. An opinion is one person having a point of view on an isolated topic, like split infinitives, or whether ‘data’ should be plural. Your point on ‘tomboy’ fits straight into a collective, progressive campaign of explicit social manipulation, to eradicate wrongthink. The purpose is *not* to change language so that it reflects what people have to say or the world they live in, but to change the way people think in order to change the world. It goes back at least fifty years, to the successful attempt to impose ‘non-sexist English’ and get rid of gendered pronouns, and incorporates such gems as ‘enslaved person’, ‘person of colour’, ‘chest feeding’, and ‘menstruators’.
Language changes, when people feel reality change and need new words. The introduction of ‘Ms’, for instance was necessary because there was an actual need for a respectful female title that did not depend on the (now irrelevant) marital status – though other languages managed simply by changing the meaning of the equivalent (Frau, Madame). Language ‘is changed’ when a dominant group wants to enforce its ideology, be it woke westerners, emperors, or followers of president Xi or Kim Young Un’.
Added:
Checking out Paul Nathanson on Google, I found this definition: An ideology is “a worldview that relies on a systematic representation of reality in order to attain social, political, and economic goals.” I’d say iot fits your position pretty well.
That is called an opinion. As far as I know, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. It has nothing to do with an ideology. It is a bit of a cliché to use the term ‘ideology’ everytime someone has a different opinion than you.
Well, if language is supposed to change to fit the needs of speakers, I would note that the author clearly saw a need for the word ‘tomboy’, to refer to a commonly understood concept. You are the one who is telling her to stop using that word, because you disapprove of the concept. That is not language ‘evolving’, that is language being changed to reflect a dominant (?) ideology.
There is a word for that, it is called evolution. Language evolves. Nothing wrong with that. It changes because the needs of its speakers change. There is nothing wrong with discussing the use of words and expressions. To impose a ban on discussing our language is dictatorial and a bit foolish.
There is a word for that. ‘Newspeak’. A deliberately impoverished language imposed on the plebs by a group of ideological dictators in order to make it impossible to think or utter heretical thoughts.
There is no need for a word for a girl who behaves differently from the average girl, because it doesn’t matter.
Oh please don’t mess with well understood language – that is part of the problem. ‘Gender’ for ‘sex’, ‘transwomen are women’, ‘chestfeeding’ for ‘breastfeeding’. Let women (and everyone else) speak.
As long as we put labels on certain types of behaviour, there will be persons who think they do not fit in and get the idea in their head they are born in the wrong body. So lets just stop stereotyping people.
Stereotypes are useful, as are behavioural norms. Just image working in a company where you meet a lot of people constantly, and where people from Japan, Italy, England, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia all expect to behave the way they were used to growing up – and *you* had to adapt to their expectations. It would be completely impossible. Stereotypes and norms allows us to find common effective ways of interacting that do not require us to learn an entire culture every time we need to talk to a shop assistant.
‘”Lets just stop stereotyping people” in practice translates as ‘*I* want to behave as I want, be who I am, and be treated in the particular way I choose – and *you* have to do the work of adapting’. Not a reasonable demand.
Lets just stop stereotyping people in practice translates as Lets respect each other’s differences without putting a label on it.
Even the most openminded among us “use” stereotypes and norms to some extent ( I don’t even want to furnish examples, but they needn’t be ethnic or gender-based). The problem comes from treating them as truths and then tending to see even frequent exceptions as “proving the rule”. We can cut down on stereotypes without running any danger of losing our mental shortcuts, such as seeing a large man having a loud argument with himself as more dangerous than a calm, smiling old woman.
Though I think there’s some truth in the saying “you teach people how to treat you”, it’s not often effective to attempt to teach them with demands and threats.
Good example with the shopkeeper. We can be respectful according to our own “generalized” norms and expect a certain mutual indulgence across cultural traditions. Asking a lot of questions about the given shopkeeper’s background and culture may or may not be welcomed.
I doubt it. Once we have defined stereotypes as something that needs to be cut down, we are in a hall of mirrors where we need to pretend to ourselves and others that we do not see what we see or think what we think. Imagine for a moment that your ‘large man having a loud argument with himself’ was black, and any right-thinking person would nail you for racist stereotyping if you started worrying. Stereotypes are rough and imprecise so you should be careful about relying too much on them, but they can still be a helpful starting point. You should just be smart and polite about them.
I’m surprised to hear you compare cutting down on stereotypical thinking to some distorted freefall (house of mirrors) or slippery slope.
I think it’s far more useful to question and continue to question our assumptions, both inherited and self-acquired, especially once we are grown. Being polite about one’s prejudice is not a very advanced stage of thinking, in particular when you just keep it yourself and pretend you are not prejudiced–no progress.
The man in my example may be black or white. But let’s stipulate that he is black. Why is my worry racist and how is it right thinking to assume that?
I’ve heard black people admit they are more afraid of a big, tough-looking black man than the “equivalent” white guy. The level of fear may be racialized, but it is not racist, in my opinion. Some white dudes are scary, but reacting to a prison-tattooed white guy with a measure of caution or worry is not bigotry against the once-incarcerated, because it is correlated with real risk. If someone is losing their mind, I step more carefully (though often without fear) and if that person looks like a gang member to me, in my stereotyped estimation, why would I ignore that so I can appear to myself (or whomever) to be “doing the work” or “one of the good ones”?
We agree that it’s important not to lean on our stereotypes, and I’d agree that they are an essentially harmless starting point if we can pivot right away and attempt to see that person as an individual. No need to feel or ascribe guilt, or rest in convenient assumptions.
It does not sound like we disagree too much in practice. Still,I suspect that as long as you mix up ‘stereotypes’ with ‘prejudice’ and ‘bigotry’ the way you do, there will be an irresistible pressure to suppress stereotypes and replace them with what is supposed to be ‘unbigoted’ attitudes that ignore the very sensible attitudes that you recommend. Hence I insist on seeing stereotypes as normal and useful, if rough and fallible, rather than something that should in principle be avoided.
Fair enough. Thanks for the exchange.
Fair enough. Thanks for the exchange.
It does not sound like we disagree too much in practice. Still,I suspect that as long as you mix up ‘stereotypes’ with ‘prejudice’ and ‘bigotry’ the way you do, there will be an irresistible pressure to suppress stereotypes and replace them with what is supposed to be ‘unbigoted’ attitudes that ignore the very sensible attitudes that you recommend. Hence I insist on seeing stereotypes as normal and useful, if rough and fallible, rather than something that should in principle be avoided.
I’m surprised to hear you compare cutting down on stereotypical thinking to some distorted freefall (house of mirrors) or slippery slope.
I think it’s far more useful to question and continue to question our assumptions, both inherited and self-acquired, especially once we are grown. Being polite about one’s prejudice is not a very advanced stage of thinking, in particular when you just keep it yourself and pretend you are not prejudiced–no progress.
The man in my example may be black or white. But let’s stipulate that he is black. Why is my worry racist and how is it right thinking to assume that?
I’ve heard black people admit they are more afraid of a big, tough-looking black man than the “equivalent” white guy. The level of fear may be racialized, but it is not racist, in my opinion. Some white dudes are scary, but reacting to a prison-tattooed white guy with a measure of caution or worry is not bigotry against the once-incarcerated, because it is correlated with real risk. If someone is losing their mind, I step more carefully (though often without fear) and if that person looks like a gang member to me, in my stereotyped estimation, why would I ignore that so I can appear to myself (or whomever) to be “doing the work” or “one of the good ones”?
We agree that it’s important not to lean on our stereotypes, and I’d agree that they are an essentially harmless starting point if we can pivot right away and attempt to see that person as an individual. No need to feel or ascribe guilt, or rest in convenient assumptions.
I doubt it. Once we have defined stereotypes as something that needs to be cut down, we are in a hall of mirrors where we need to pretend to ourselves and others that we do not see what we see or think what we think. Imagine for a moment that your ‘large man having a loud argument with himself’ was black, and any right-thinking person would nail you for racist stereotyping if you started worrying. Stereotypes are rough and imprecise so you should be careful about relying too much on them, but they can still be a helpful starting point. You should just be smart and polite about them.
Lets just stop stereotyping people in practice translates as Lets respect each other’s differences without putting a label on it.
Even the most openminded among us “use” stereotypes and norms to some extent ( I don’t even want to furnish examples, but they needn’t be ethnic or gender-based). The problem comes from treating them as truths and then tending to see even frequent exceptions as “proving the rule”. We can cut down on stereotypes without running any danger of losing our mental shortcuts, such as seeing a large man having a loud argument with himself as more dangerous than a calm, smiling old woman.
Though I think there’s some truth in the saying “you teach people how to treat you”, it’s not often effective to attempt to teach them with demands and threats.
Good example with the shopkeeper. We can be respectful according to our own “generalized” norms and expect a certain mutual indulgence across cultural traditions. Asking a lot of questions about the given shopkeeper’s background and culture may or may not be welcomed.
But do you see a terminology-first path to inclusion and social justice?
Because treating innocently-meant words like automatic offenses and teaching that unintended or even purposeful disrespect equals violence and inescapable victimization doesn’t seem to be persuading anyone who’s not already onboard. Does the world just need to wait until nearly anyone over 35, the benighted “language-purity deniers”, have died off?
Also, euphemisms like “currently unhoused” for homeless or “gender questioning” for wanting to escape your body at any cost actually serve, to a major degree, to distance us from the real human suffering involved. Being ultra-careful with our words can only do so much before we need to toughen up, smarten up, and love each more, in a way that doesn’t stop at the lips –not turn up the knobs on the wrongspeak meter.
’Deprived’ or in ‘high deprivation’ is my bete noir. Deprived of what, by whom? ‘Poor’ was a great word and I miss it.
’Deprived’ or in ‘high deprivation’ is my bete noir. Deprived of what, by whom? ‘Poor’ was a great word and I miss it.
Stereotypes are useful, as are behavioural norms. Just image working in a company where you meet a lot of people constantly, and where people from Japan, Italy, England, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia all expect to behave the way they were used to growing up – and *you* had to adapt to their expectations. It would be completely impossible. Stereotypes and norms allows us to find common effective ways of interacting that do not require us to learn an entire culture every time we need to talk to a shop assistant.
‘”Lets just stop stereotyping people” in practice translates as ‘*I* want to behave as I want, be who I am, and be treated in the particular way I choose – and *you* have to do the work of adapting’. Not a reasonable demand.
But do you see a terminology-first path to inclusion and social justice?
Because treating innocently-meant words like automatic offenses and teaching that unintended or even purposeful disrespect equals violence and inescapable victimization doesn’t seem to be persuading anyone who’s not already onboard. Does the world just need to wait until nearly anyone over 35, the benighted “language-purity deniers”, have died off?
Also, euphemisms like “currently unhoused” for homeless or “gender questioning” for wanting to escape your body at any cost actually serve, to a major degree, to distance us from the real human suffering involved. Being ultra-careful with our words can only do so much before we need to toughen up, smarten up, and love each more, in a way that doesn’t stop at the lips –not turn up the knobs on the wrongspeak meter.
As long as we put labels on certain types of behaviour, there will be persons who think they do not fit in and get the idea in their head they are born in the wrong body. So lets just stop stereotyping people.
Trying to police the words people use is usually just a warm-up for trying to police the thoughts people entertain.
What word would you prefer? What term would you coin to confer what is already agreed upon as a girl who doesn’t conform to highly feminized stereotypes but can still, god forbid, be an amazing version of female? This thinking is EXACTLy the problem. The Left has co-opted and demolished language to the point that nothing means anything anymore and everything is a transgression.
Oh please don’t mess with well understood language – that is part of the problem. ‘Gender’ for ‘sex’, ‘transwomen are women’, ‘chestfeeding’ for ‘breastfeeding’. Let women (and everyone else) speak.
Trying to police the words people use is usually just a warm-up for trying to police the thoughts people entertain.
Great article, but please don’t use the term tomboy. It reinforces the idea that certain behaviors or interests are better suited to boys.
“GIDS, it seems, was no longer interested in asking questions…Trans support groups like Mermaids and GIRES promoted an “affirmative model”, which insisted that any child who said they were trans should be treated as trans.”
What part of the feminist mantra #BelieveAllWomen don’t you understand?
After repeating this ad nauseam for years what did you expect?
You could find fault with the actual hastag: BelieveWomen. But adding “all” rather changes the message doesn’t it? Like altering the wording to “Only Black Lives Matter”. Slogans are reductive in nature already. You don’t need to doctor them to make your case.
You could find fault with the actual hastag: BelieveWomen. But adding “all” rather changes the message doesn’t it? Like altering the wording to “Only Black Lives Matter”. Slogans are reductive in nature already. You don’t need to doctor them to make your case.
“GIDS, it seems, was no longer interested in asking questions…Trans support groups like Mermaids and GIRES promoted an “affirmative model”, which insisted that any child who said they were trans should be treated as trans.”
What part of the feminist mantra #BelieveAllWomen don’t you understand?
After repeating this ad nauseam for years what did you expect?
How utterly predictable that Sarah Ditum, as a feminist, has zero interest in, and therefore zero compassion for, all the males that have been mutilated and changed for life as a result of trans ideology.
Trans ideology didn’t fall out of a clear blue sky, the blame for it can be laid fairly and squarely at the doors of feminists, though they will never acknowledge it, let alone show remorse for it.
An article by the peerless anti-feminist Men’s Rights Advocate (MRA) Professor Janice Fiamengo, Anti-trans Feminists Are Now Reaping the Whirlwind https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/anti-trans-feminists-are-now-reaping?
Mike Buchanan
Party leader
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Hmmm. I wouldn’t think of Susie Green as a feminist, but look at what happened to her child, for whom I feel huge compassion.
Thanks Wendy, I was referring to Sarah Ditum as a feminist.
“I wouldn’t think of Susie Green as a feminist, but look at what happened to her child,”
*I wouldn’t think of Susie Green as a feminist, but look at what she did to her child
Thanks Wendy, I was referring to Sarah Ditum as a feminist.
“I wouldn’t think of Susie Green as a feminist, but look at what happened to her child,”
*I wouldn’t think of Susie Green as a feminist, but look at what she did to her child
How utterly predictable that you should make an assumption, “…has zero interest in, and therefore zero compassion for, all the males…” and thus utterly misinterpret the article.
If Sarah wishes to write an insightful piece on the experiences of girls going through puberty, you are equally entitled to write one about the experiences of boys going through puberty. Simply attacking her because she wasn’t “inclusive” in this article does your cause no favours whatsoever.
All of us, as human beings, should be able to take these insights into our stride and value them in their own terms, for the ultimate benefit of all of us. Yes, that includes the benefit of men and boys.
Yes, but Ditum herself explicitly introduced the general topic of comparative suffering (albeit with a disclaimer): “But — without diminishing the harm done to boys, which was plentiful — girls were particularly damaged by GIDS…” Moreover, the entire essay is implicitly about comparative suffering: “The tragedy of a misogynistic world is that it makes girls believe they need a cure for femaleness.” Why shouldn’t readers comment on those statements?
Thanks Paul. World to end, women and girls most affected.
Thanks Paul. World to end, women and girls most affected.
Yes, but Ditum herself explicitly introduced the general topic of comparative suffering (albeit with a disclaimer): “But — without diminishing the harm done to boys, which was plentiful — girls were particularly damaged by GIDS…” Moreover, the entire essay is implicitly about comparative suffering: “The tragedy of a misogynistic world is that it makes girls believe they need a cure for femaleness.” Why shouldn’t readers comment on those statements?
Re:
“zero compassion for, all the males that have been mutilated and changed for life as a result of trans ideology”.
I had a good friend (male) who identified as female for over 10 yrs and detransitioned entirely successfully. Providing men don’t have genital surgery (and the vast majority do not) this is relatively straightforward.
The same cannot be said for young women. Testosterone alters the female body quickly and permanently; body and facial hair, but a receding hairline or baldness; an Adam’s apple and deep voice; acne if you’re really lucky. And goodness only knows what happens to reproductive organs – the Tavistock apparently did no follow up.
Though the media tend to focus on male to female transitioners, I do believe that young women and girls are the real victims of this cult. And I suspect that most of them are on the autism spectrum.
I doubt there are many boys and young men being chemically or physically castrated in the UK, but this really is happening to girls and young women.
What about the boys who, far more often than girls, are heavily medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder?
Yes, I once wrote a paper on that when it was only a thing in the US. Lots of professional people wanting diagnoses for their sons in the belief that Ritalin improved academic performance…
Yes, I once wrote a paper on that when it was only a thing in the US. Lots of professional people wanting diagnoses for their sons in the belief that Ritalin improved academic performance…
What about the boys who, far more often than girls, are heavily medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder?
I don’t think that is true at all. The article arises primarily because of the exponential increase in young girls identifying as boys – to the extent it has become the largest group seeking to transition. This is a totally new phenomenon – and is of major concern because it involves children.Of course nobody wants to see young boys, usually nascently homosexual, to be subject to such treatment either.
The other growing demographic is older, autogynephilic men – who tend to have been cross dressing for a life time, then decide to go ” full time”.
Gender Identity ideology arises out of both the women’s movement and the gay liberation movement – but has really been given a platform by Queer Theory – which arose on US university campuses in the 1980’s and 90s
It’s true that trans activists have tried to legitimate their own movement by citing the earlier gay movement, but the two are profoundly different. Many gay people–and I include myself–find the analogy dangerously false. Gay people promote the idea that it’s okay to be different from straight people in one way, not for the idea that biological sex itself is nothing more than an oppressive “social construct” and therefore irrelevant. Gay people have never encouraged people to mutilate their bodies, let alone those of children, in the name of an ideology.
But trans gender ideology (and other gender ideologies) did arise out of another movement, one that is seldom mentioned. Postmodernism, after all, denied (and still denies) the very existence of objective truth, let alone the need to seek it despite the constraints of finite minds. By doing so, it undermined not only meaningful discourse in the public square but also any form of scholarship–including biology and the other sciences. Consequently, life is nothing more than a struggle for power, a battle for “our truth” against “their truth.” Postmodernists and their ideological allies can say that no argument is inherently correct and therefore that any inconvenient argument may be silenced.
It’s true that trans activists have tried to legitimate their own movement by citing the earlier gay movement, but the two are profoundly different. Many gay people–and I include myself–find the analogy dangerously false. Gay people promote the idea that it’s okay to be different from straight people in one way, not for the idea that biological sex itself is nothing more than an oppressive “social construct” and therefore irrelevant. Gay people have never encouraged people to mutilate their bodies, let alone those of children, in the name of an ideology.
But trans gender ideology (and other gender ideologies) did arise out of another movement, one that is seldom mentioned. Postmodernism, after all, denied (and still denies) the very existence of objective truth, let alone the need to seek it despite the constraints of finite minds. By doing so, it undermined not only meaningful discourse in the public square but also any form of scholarship–including biology and the other sciences. Consequently, life is nothing more than a struggle for power, a battle for “our truth” against “their truth.” Postmodernists and their ideological allies can say that no argument is inherently correct and therefore that any inconvenient argument may be silenced.
It’s no so much no compassion but that females have always been given special/preferential treatment because of their value in society, that of being the only sex that can give life. Only recently since the societal cancer known as m3rd Wave Feminism have women tried to claim they are oppressed or in some way 2nd class. Their more woman entering colleges today and has been for several years and corporations are going out of their way to give preferential treatment so as to not be labeled misogynist. 3rd Wave Feminist have successfully weaponized the males desire to appease teh female and if men don’t stand up and put an end to this they will lead society to collapse for only the comfortable and foolish western nations tolerate 3rd wave feminism as well as the rest of the woke ideological non-sense.
The proponents of the basis for “wokeism” i.e. Critical Theorists, are almost entirely male. Your proposition that it’s feminism that’s causing “societal collapse” is not only nonsense, but false in the sense that society isn’t collapsing.
Are we going through a phase of rethinking what it might mean to be human? Yes. Has the rise of the internet allowed us to see ourselves reflected back to effect this process? Yes. Does this cause discomfort to those groups who’ve hitherto been in a position to call the shots? Yes.
I’d advise all those males who see the rights they’ve enjoyed over females being removed from under them to stop panicking and start thinking more clearly.
Almost entirely male? That would be news to Kimberlé Crenshaw, Sandra Harding, Cheryl Harris, Mari Matsuda, Patricia J. Williams, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Khiara Bridges, Patricia Hill Collins, Camara Phyllis Jones and so on. And where do these women come from? Many of them come directly from ideological branches of feminism, which in turn come directly from neo-Marxism. Critical theory, critical race theory and critical gender theory are all closely linked. Many of the theories that now sound revolutionary in connection with race, in fact, were already de rigueur thirty or forty years ago in connection with gender.
It remains to be seen if society is collapsing or improving. History doesn’t leave much room for hope, however, because utopian dreams, usually guided by cynical political ideologies–and critical race theory is very cynical–have led often to dystopian nightmares. It’s hardly “nonsense” to raise questions about prevailing ideologies.
As for “rethinking what it means to be human” and causing “discomfort,” I suggest on moral grounds that you avoid arguing, even implicitly, that justice and revenge are synonymous. As I see it, justice is by definition about reconciliation. And I see no evidence whatsoever that any of these critical theories are likely to bring that about. On the contrary, they’re likely to foster ever more polarization.
Almost entirely male? That would be news to Kimberlé Crenshaw, Sandra Harding, Cheryl Harris, Mari Matsuda, Patricia J. Williams, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Khiara Bridges, Patricia Hill Collins, Camara Phyllis Jones and so on. And where do these women come from? Many of them come directly from ideological branches of feminism, which in turn come directly from neo-Marxism. Critical theory, critical race theory and critical gender theory are all closely linked. Many of the theories that now sound revolutionary in connection with race, in fact, were already de rigueur thirty or forty years ago in connection with gender.
It remains to be seen if society is collapsing or improving. History doesn’t leave much room for hope, however, because utopian dreams, usually guided by cynical political ideologies–and critical race theory is very cynical–have led often to dystopian nightmares. It’s hardly “nonsense” to raise questions about prevailing ideologies.
As for “rethinking what it means to be human” and causing “discomfort,” I suggest on moral grounds that you avoid arguing, even implicitly, that justice and revenge are synonymous. As I see it, justice is by definition about reconciliation. And I see no evidence whatsoever that any of these critical theories are likely to bring that about. On the contrary, they’re likely to foster ever more polarization.
Actually, evolution is more complicated than you seem to assume (which is why I’m always cautious when discussing it with those who advocate “evolutionary psychology.”) We know very little about our remote ancestors, let alone how evolutionary mechanisms persist in our own time. What seems like common sense to some people now might not have seemed like common sense to early humans, let alone to the chimps and bonobos.
First, it takes both women and men to reproduce and bring children to maturity, neither of which is a synonym for “giving life” or even “giving birth.”
Moreover, no society could exist if both women and men didn’t make existential, sacrificial, contributions. It’s true that men were often killed by predatory animals or humans (and still are in some places or at some times). It’s true also, however, that women often died in childbirth (and still do in some places). We have no evidence that our remote ancestors throughout most of human history sat around debating which sex was more important than the other or deserved more privileges than the other. People just did whatever they had to do and could do in order to ensure communal survival (because all humans must live in communities).
I’m a modern person, in any case, and I see no moral justification for arguing that either sex is more valuable or should be more privileged than the other. Every society needs a social contract, of course, whether formal or informal. Whatever the arrangements, however, both sexes must find them fair enough to make the required trade-offs. No one can have it all.
Well-stated. The growth of the notion that a social contract (though not without escape clauses) or expected/negotiated trade-off of any kind constitutes a heavy burden may be part of what leads some to conflate common contracts with “oppressive social constructs”.
One may choose to live only on the fringe of any community, or even totally outside of society. But that’s a fairly extreme choice (especially the hermit’s path) and doesn’t show that normal, to-some-degree voluntary contracts or trade-offs resemble a cage–or cage with no compensatory comforts–for most people.
Evolution is certainly complicated, and one should indeed be extremely cautious about assuming things about making assiumptions about the way people lived back then – that just happen to confirm the conclusion you wanted anyway.But I’d say there is a solid case for the idea that men are more driven – evolutionally – for having lots of sex without worrying too much about when or with whom, whereas women are geared to be more selective, both about which partners to do it with, and when the time is right.
Well-stated. The growth of the notion that a social contract (though not without escape clauses) or expected/negotiated trade-off of any kind constitutes a heavy burden may be part of what leads some to conflate common contracts with “oppressive social constructs”.
One may choose to live only on the fringe of any community, or even totally outside of society. But that’s a fairly extreme choice (especially the hermit’s path) and doesn’t show that normal, to-some-degree voluntary contracts or trade-offs resemble a cage–or cage with no compensatory comforts–for most people.
Evolution is certainly complicated, and one should indeed be extremely cautious about assuming things about making assiumptions about the way people lived back then – that just happen to confirm the conclusion you wanted anyway.But I’d say there is a solid case for the idea that men are more driven – evolutionally – for having lots of sex without worrying too much about when or with whom, whereas women are geared to be more selective, both about which partners to do it with, and when the time is right.
The proponents of the basis for “wokeism” i.e. Critical Theorists, are almost entirely male. Your proposition that it’s feminism that’s causing “societal collapse” is not only nonsense, but false in the sense that society isn’t collapsing.
Are we going through a phase of rethinking what it might mean to be human? Yes. Has the rise of the internet allowed us to see ourselves reflected back to effect this process? Yes. Does this cause discomfort to those groups who’ve hitherto been in a position to call the shots? Yes.
I’d advise all those males who see the rights they’ve enjoyed over females being removed from under them to stop panicking and start thinking more clearly.
Actually, evolution is more complicated than you seem to assume (which is why I’m always cautious when discussing it with those who advocate “evolutionary psychology.”) We know very little about our remote ancestors, let alone how evolutionary mechanisms persist in our own time. What seems like common sense to some people now might not have seemed like common sense to early humans, let alone to the chimps and bonobos.
First, it takes both women and men to reproduce and bring children to maturity, neither of which is a synonym for “giving life” or even “giving birth.”
Moreover, no society could exist if both women and men didn’t make existential, sacrificial, contributions. It’s true that men were often killed by predatory animals or humans (and still are in some places or at some times). It’s true also, however, that women often died in childbirth (and still do in some places). We have no evidence that our remote ancestors throughout most of human history sat around debating which sex was more important than the other or deserved more privileges than the other. People just did whatever they had to do and could do in order to ensure communal survival (because all humans must live in communities).
I’m a modern person, in any case, and I see no moral justification for arguing that either sex is more valuable or should be more privileged than the other. Every society needs a social contract, of course, whether formal or informal. Whatever the arrangements, however, both sexes must find them fair enough to make the required trade-offs. No one can have it all.
Hmmm. I wouldn’t think of Susie Green as a feminist, but look at what happened to her child, for whom I feel huge compassion.
How utterly predictable that you should make an assumption, “…has zero interest in, and therefore zero compassion for, all the males…” and thus utterly misinterpret the article.
If Sarah wishes to write an insightful piece on the experiences of girls going through puberty, you are equally entitled to write one about the experiences of boys going through puberty. Simply attacking her because she wasn’t “inclusive” in this article does your cause no favours whatsoever.
All of us, as human beings, should be able to take these insights into our stride and value them in their own terms, for the ultimate benefit of all of us. Yes, that includes the benefit of men and boys.
Re:
“zero compassion for, all the males that have been mutilated and changed for life as a result of trans ideology”.
I had a good friend (male) who identified as female for over 10 yrs and detransitioned entirely successfully. Providing men don’t have genital surgery (and the vast majority do not) this is relatively straightforward.
The same cannot be said for young women. Testosterone alters the female body quickly and permanently; body and facial hair, but a receding hairline or baldness; an Adam’s apple and deep voice; acne if you’re really lucky. And goodness only knows what happens to reproductive organs – the Tavistock apparently did no follow up.
Though the media tend to focus on male to female transitioners, I do believe that young women and girls are the real victims of this cult. And I suspect that most of them are on the autism spectrum.
I doubt there are many boys and young men being chemically or physically castrated in the UK, but this really is happening to girls and young women.
I don’t think that is true at all. The article arises primarily because of the exponential increase in young girls identifying as boys – to the extent it has become the largest group seeking to transition. This is a totally new phenomenon – and is of major concern because it involves children.Of course nobody wants to see young boys, usually nascently homosexual, to be subject to such treatment either.
The other growing demographic is older, autogynephilic men – who tend to have been cross dressing for a life time, then decide to go ” full time”.
Gender Identity ideology arises out of both the women’s movement and the gay liberation movement – but has really been given a platform by Queer Theory – which arose on US university campuses in the 1980’s and 90s
It’s no so much no compassion but that females have always been given special/preferential treatment because of their value in society, that of being the only sex that can give life. Only recently since the societal cancer known as m3rd Wave Feminism have women tried to claim they are oppressed or in some way 2nd class. Their more woman entering colleges today and has been for several years and corporations are going out of their way to give preferential treatment so as to not be labeled misogynist. 3rd Wave Feminist have successfully weaponized the males desire to appease teh female and if men don’t stand up and put an end to this they will lead society to collapse for only the comfortable and foolish western nations tolerate 3rd wave feminism as well as the rest of the woke ideological non-sense.
How utterly predictable that Sarah Ditum, as a feminist, has zero interest in, and therefore zero compassion for, all the males that have been mutilated and changed for life as a result of trans ideology.
Trans ideology didn’t fall out of a clear blue sky, the blame for it can be laid fairly and squarely at the doors of feminists, though they will never acknowledge it, let alone show remorse for it.
An article by the peerless anti-feminist Men’s Rights Advocate (MRA) Professor Janice Fiamengo, Anti-trans Feminists Are Now Reaping the Whirlwind https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/anti-trans-feminists-are-now-reaping?
Mike Buchanan
Party leader
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
The multitude of young women posting on YouTube, Instagram and OnlyFans appear to totally disagree with everything written in this article.
There are many young women making a rich living from their bodies and they’re not bashful about announcing it.
It seems that the minority or girls discussed here need to take a lesson from the business savvy majority.
The multitude of young women posting on YouTube, Instagram and OnlyFans appear to totally disagree with everything written in this article.
There are many young women making a rich living from their bodies and they’re not bashful about announcing it.
It seems that the minority or girls discussed here need to take a lesson from the business savvy majority.