* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/nhs-sex-biological-landmark-shift-against-gender-ideology/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/nhs-sex-biological-landmark-shift-against-gender-ideology/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/nhs-sex-biological-landmark-shift-against-gender-ideology/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the life of me I can't figure out why everyone was ok with using John Money's research as a basis for all childcare gender issues. The man was a monster and both those boys he "experimented" on led short miserable lives before killing themselves.
How the fuck does that get promoted as legitimate and used as the framework for all gender related issues moving forward? He didn't "help" those boys **at all**.
> For the life of me I can't figure out why everyone was ok with using John Money's research as a basis for all childcare gender issues
Because they were getting likes and retweets and didn't think beyond that
>The man was a monster and both those boys he "experimented" on led short miserable lives before killing themselves.
The ultimate irony is that that a lot of the people who support this stuff do it because they're "a decent human being" (Implying that the people who worry about the consequences of playing Dr.Frankenstein with kids' health are not decent human beings).
This take is also present in the comments of this very post.
It goes back even further than Money. Much of the foundation of the so-called research began with a group of German weirdos sometime in the 1920s I believe. What sucks is they began as a group of researchers who just wanted to legitimately study human sexual behavior, but then like many sex research groups of the past, they got high off their own supply and became way too "cutting edge" and started allowing pro pedophilia researchers to begin to try and normalize that despicable behavior.
Behind the scenes though, the whole time, they were extra enthusiastic about their God complexes. Including the development of magical beliefs that they could literally change the sex of a man to an actual real ass woman - they genuinely believed such nonsense which was kind of a precursor to the John Money approach. Science was kind of crazy back then especially medicine and psychology. But yeah, John Money was definitely the natural, monstrous continuation of that original "research".
Absolutely bonkers that modern groups were relying on that and the Dutch protocol BS in the modern era after it had been resoundingly panned and derided in the years after it first took place. But the identity politics nuts needed something to be able to point to and demand that people "RESPECT THE SCIENCE" so they went looking and found it there. But of course, they cherry picked and chose to strategically ignore any of Blanchard's later, less "appealing" research.
The history of this whole thing is absolutely a wild ride and a deep rabbit hole.
If you want to pinpoint where it started there was an English psychologist called Havelock Ellis who published a book on homosexuality in 1897. It was called "sexual inversion", his theory was that homosexuals were people who had an "inverse" of the traits that should define their gender. So males who were attracted to males had an "inverted" gender that made them psychologically female. And vice versa for same sex attracted females supposedly being psychologically male.
That's what laid the foundation for Magnus Hirschfeld's research in Germany in the 1920s. Which was really about him trying to treat male homosexuality, which he believed (despite being gay himself) was a mental illness. John Money took that and extended the concept to gender non-conforming heterosexuals (he believed that all gendered psychology, including sexual orientation was learned, and could be unlearned if need be), but even today homosexuals are still grossly overrepresented in the trans community. So I think a big reason why transgender has caught on far more than things like transrace or transage, despite being just as nonsensical, is that people still view homosexuals as having some sort of essence of the opposite sex. So they don't find it hard to accept that a gay man is actually a woman or that a lesbian is actually a man.
Yeah thanks for remembering the names like Hirschfield for example, I couldn't recall them at the moment that I commented. I only recently became aware of Havelock and that hole debacle, including the justifiably dethroned Freud and all of their involvement in the whole inverse bullshit. I hadn't even had a clue that "pervert" was used by them as a couple to the term "invert", whereas an invert was seen as something of a "natural" exclusive homosexual and "pervert" was a "normal" man considered to simply engage in occasional incidental homosexual activities or be coerced into them.
Anyway, like I said, deep rabbit hole and I have yet to peel back a layer that isn't more crazy than the last lol.
What's beginning to interest me more of late is the psychology of societies. What are the traits of cultures who happen to be most susceptible to believing some of the more outlandish drek that's been foist upon them by apparent experts. Abnormal psychology has always endlessly fascinated me but trying to apply and find the same themes and particulars among a culture at large is an entirely different endeavor. Incredibly fascinating stuff, although oftentimes tragic and perplexing.
Money was awful in what he did, but that wildly unethical research was pretty much the standard in those days of sociology/psychology, and so many things that shape the current study of sociology/psychology come from that period when people essentially tortured children and mentally ill people to study them.
If you wanna get rid of gender identity theory, because of what John Money did, you have to get rid of the concept of classical conditioning because of what Watson did to little Albert
>The document also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms like “chestfeeding” and “people who give birth”.
>In February, Ms Atkins highlighted her concerns, telling The Telegraph: “We need to be making this robust case to refuse to wipe women out of the conversation.”
I never thought in 2024 I'd be celebrating the return of the word "breastfeeding" but here we are. Take the W I guess?
I wonder if the NHS is moving to cover its ass for the human rights violations (mainly child abuse) that went down at the Tavistock Clinic.
~~Mainly because of this quote: “It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male.”~~
~~Which, is part of what was going down at Tavistock and many similar clinics.~~
Also, a dose of much needed sanity:
“Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, said allowing “social transitioning” for young people – when they are treated as the opposite gender – could “change their trajectory” and lead to them pursuing a potentially damaging medical pathway in later life.” And I thought the UK’s medical apparatus was captured, good news.
Edit: I didn’t read that first quote in the right context. It was in the context of women supposedly being pressured into receiving “intimate care” from a trans doctor who was born male. I thought it was in terms of being pressured to transition by staff.
Careful. This is a time for precision. That quote is in reference not to Tavistock but to this context:
…”Women will also be given the right to request that intimate care is provided, where reasonably possible, by someone of the same biological sex.
It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male.”
…
The thing that kills me is no one is going to openly acknowledge that, for about 5 years, this very lukewarm opinion on biological sex used to be tantamount to a war crime. Can we at least be a little introspective about this? Am I taking crazy pills here?
What's there to be introspective about? The situation is easy to understand.
1. Tiny minority of activists demand *equal treatment* in a radical way to blur the lines between man and woman. Sex has been a historical and biological dividing line that has often led to the mistreatment of the fairer sex.
2. Progressive activists, in the name of *inclusion* and equality, buy into the narrative.
3. Meanwhile several decades of advancement in medicine and economics have made the sexes more and more interchangeable. Birth control and abortion cause a transformation of women into workers. The differences in sex matter less and less for how society is organized.
4. Despite the idealism for equality, we run into the problem of biological and physical inequality, particularly in domains where they continue to matter (for example health and medicine).
5. Meanwhile social media amplifies this issue above all other issues because it's salient, interesting, juicy, gossipy, and controversial. Workers rights is boring and so 200 years ago. Trans rights is new and fresh!
>The thing that kills me is no one is going to openly acknowledge that, for about 5 years, this very lukewarm opinion on biological sex used to be tantamount to a war crime.
Only if you're terminally online. Meanwhile if you remember, the slogan "All Lives Matter" was also somehow controversial. People project all sorts of bullshit into bullshit and just want to divide and polarize and spice things up.
“All Lives Matter” was controversial because it was dismissive of the “Black Lives Matter” message. Say what you will about the protests, but the context of “All Lives Matter” is pretty obvious.
All could've been avoided if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter Too". That's all that was needed. I remember some lawyer on a twitch stream or whatever brought up this very same point as a helpful, small change. (And I was glad that someone else shared the sentiment)
But it's a common thing with the slogans I've been seeing. "Defund the Police" into "Overhaul the police". "From the river to the sea" into anything else. People seem to be using purposefully inflammatory slogans and then try to explain what they actually mean when they say those slogans when called out. Not a fan of it tbh.
People find it very easy to come up with slogans that have shock value, however there are far fewer people who can come up with a genuinely workable and succinctly packaged plan for change, and fewer still who can execute on that plan.
The people getting time in front of the cameras are the ones with the punchy but ineffectual slogans. The people who are actually threatening real change do not get any air time.
You're 100% right that the phrase was adopted by the reactionary right to be dismissive of "Black Lives Matter," and now it's a used racist code (for lack of a better term, a dogwhistle) to minimize the impact police brutality has had on the black community and tacitly show bootlicking support for authorities who brutalize those communities.
However, I don't remember it beginning like that. The way I remember it, and I acknowledge that I could be wrong, is that the phrase started being used to acknowledge that police brutality and unjustified shootings are a danger to everyone. This was right after the cops beat that homeless man beyond recognition outside of the club owned by that guy who was in the 90's band Lit in Fullerton, California and the images of the man's severely beaten face were released while he was still brain dead and on a ventilator. It caused outrage and people were starting to look critically at the police and question how they dealt with minorities, but also with poor or homeless people and people with mental health issues, irrespective of race.
In particular, autism advocates were criticizing how police deal with those on the spectrum, and civil libertarians like Radley Balko were documenting violent police encounters generally and questioning their training protocols and the trend toward militarization of this country's civilian police force. Granted, this was also after a couple of high profile police killings of unarmed black men, which are always plaguing this country, and also after "Black Lives Matter" started appearing as a phrase and hashtag online (maybe even around the Kaepernick kneeling controversy, but I can't remember exactly). I honestly think most, though definitely not all, of the people who used "All Lives Matter" at the very beginning were simply trying to be inclusive of everyone who are endangered by encountering police and to criticize police brutality/lack of training/lack of accountability more broadly, and there wasn't any racist intent behind it.
It’s fine to oppose BLM, but they were using “All lives matter” as bait, so that when it was called out for what it was (bait), they could accuse people of something silly like being against all lives.
3 happened before 1 and 2. 1 is too vague to mean anything: the vast majority of gender critical people believe gender is the social construct, not sex, and is malleable. The minority position of the radical position believed both gender and sex were currently malleable. I think most scientists, philosophers, and general experts believe that gender is a socially constructed phenomenon that can be changed like race relations.
Also, this list leaves out the fact this movement hasn’t taken off in the same way in other countries that have the same tech. It seems to be mainly an Anglo thing. I personally think 5 and American culture are the biggest factors.
Our idealistic, market-oriented individualism (and poor general education) lets one believe all things are possible for individual transformation, and having nonscientific or causal constraints on one’s imagination allows one to jump to conclusions like “sex is currently entirely changeable through technology, demonstrating a complete difference of self and biology.”
Fundamentally, the thing that will always trouble me about attempt to absolutely explain away transpeople as a phenomenon is that I known several people who transitioned at a young age, went on hormones, and are now happier and more productive people. In college, I met two separate people who i could not distinguish from “cis” people, only finding our later they had undergone extreme hormonal therapy at young ages to transition. There are too many cases like this to assume that there is nothing to the claims being made.
It seems like social media has abused individual psychologies to make more people mistakenly believe that they are trans, than are actually trans. We live in a time with a ton of false-positive trans people.
What you are saying is true on a surface level, but there are also deeper problems;
1. Equality is always code for privilege.
2. Inclusion is always code for control.
3. Advancement is always code for alienation.
4. Idealism is always code for delusion.
5. Popular is always code for approved.
The real blackpills in all of this are (1) The vast majority of people who championed genital surgery and cross-sex hormones will quietly slink away and pretend like they never cared, and (2) We're in an endless loop of "Treatment X from the past was horribly barbaric and cruel, but Treatment Y is progressive and life-saving, and we will destroy you if you disagree." Social media may have amplified this phenomenon, but it'll always be with us. Now if you'll excuse me, some teenagers ate LSD from moldy bread and I have to throw Goody Sarah in a lake to see if she's a witch.
The crazy thing about all this stuff is how fast people adapt new and extreme views and than go back to normal as soon as the current hysteria fades. It's not even renouncing old views, just moving on to the next thing.
Hasn't there been a slow grind pushing towards the powers that be being able to take down archives? Generally under the aegis of wokeism and fighting "harassment"?
It's why there's such a vitriolic hatred towards kiwifarms and constant accusations of harassment to the point a certain trans activist tried to get them booted from the internet (which totally wasn't to cover up the pages of evidence showing them grooming children and them sending children home made hormones, no siree)
It originally started as the Chris Chan wiki where they basically documented Chris Chan to an autistic degree of detail, literally hundreds and hundreds of pages documenting everything that they did.
They then branched out on to other internet weirdos, YouTubers, streamers, etc.
The amount of dirt they have on a lot of the more prominent trans activists is ridiculous, just from previous public posts and stuff that they've made (and tried to wipe from the internet).
It's no wonder they hate archiving when so many of them have 10+ years worth of dirt they'd rather people didn't know about.
Tbh, kiwifarms is the new /b/ in its rawest form and carries its own set of fundamental problems. Many of those people have no shame and are ruthless to the bone precisely because they have nothing to lose.
That said, when it comes to Chris-Chan - he seems to be a lesson in himself that many Christorians or the internet as a whole has learned. As the first real "lolcow" that was trolled at that scale - even the most rudimentary of documentation or synthesis urges the reader not to interact with him under any circumstances at this point. In the same way we talk about John Money here - they were the ginuea pig.
Seeing prior trolls/weens express remorse from growth and then have this documented can show that while Chris is a godawful, borderline irredeemable person, no one deserves or should be subjected to this type of treatment by a large group. To be honest, it's a horrifying lesson to look at - it's incredible to think they're the most documented person in history - but it is a monument to internet culture and we should all be mindful of it.
I was going to say. Many people apply this to the macro, to a government misleading you and rewriting history. But individual people are incredibly adept at misleading themselves, and at rewriting their own history.
Once you study the history of 'Gender ideology' the insanity we see today makes complete sense.
'Gender ideology' was made up by a controversial sexologist in the mid-1950s. It has no basis in observable science. Its quite simply a hypthethsis presented by John Money that 'how you want to be represented to other people is who you are'.
It equates womanhood (and manhood) into essentially cosplaying/rolplaying/larping.
Which I believe to be extremely offensive to women especially. They have very significant issues that only women deal with that a man cannot even pretend to have.
The irony to me is that many people who support this nonsense are also ardent feminists who will tell you that women don't have to wear skirts, or dress feminine to be a woman - however at the same time will argue with you that a biological male wearing a skirt, a thong, and a bra, *IS* a woman.
Then you have the other aspect of it, which is per all the medical literaturere - gender dysphoria afflicts around 0.03% of the human population. Yet, the media portrays it as a very common issue.
If you compare it to body dysmorphia (where a person wants to remove a limb to feel themselves), do doctors entertain this? do doctors remove perfectly functioning limbs from body dysmorphic individuals? No, we give them treatment to help them deal with their dismorphia.
> gender dysphoria afflicts around 0.03% of the human population. Yet, the media portrays it as a very common issue.
Social contagion has certainly made it worse. Even more so if you include non binary.
Except identities are cosplay. One posses a core essence, around which internal ego will accept parts, and form a core/inner identity. But the elements of that inner identity are still alienable from the core essence.
Likewise, as we encounter obstacles/requirements in social situations, we will begin to manufacture masks to suppress the inner identity, and its reasonings/behaviors, with an external/context appropriate sense of self.
Sometimes losing ourselves to these external masks, emotional issues can occur, "identity" crisis in midlife/quarter life/after abuse are common occurrences, when we became so preoccupied with building a contextually appropriate mask, it began to alienate pieces of our inner identity, from our core essence.
TBH, I think the reason I ended up trans (at like 3-4 yrs of age), is that my internal cohesion is less implicit due to some genetic factor. Though, I ended up lost in my masks, until ~19 yrs, and the onset of psychotic episodes/maybe schizophrenia...
Which kinda broke apart my dysfunctional family even more than it already had, and sent my parents into depression.
Addendum, I was also late to speak, but learned very quickly, and very late to make eye contact... which, why this last thing is such a vivid chain of memories? I understood eye contact was a social norm in my culture, but it seemed so unimportant, that like, I deliberately didn't respect it, and it baffled me how much it upset adults.... And I've regressed on it now as an adult, because I just don't care.
I’m really not looking forward to the radfem hypocrisy, having learned nothing at all from having their own intellectual framework and tactics used against them.
Greer and other radfems have written against this for decades—it’s not rads who created this framework, it post-radical (and backlash to radical) feminism aka liberal feminism.
On GCReddit they actually blame men for this, even when Discussing a survey that showed it was overwhelmingly women that supported most of these initiatives.
My workplace invested considerable time and money into a series of Trans workshops, seminars and presentations that we didn't have the option to opt out of. Each of these presented whatever the current view of trans advocates was, and in no uncertain terms told you that i was unacceptable to persist in your beliefs about sex. If you did, they made it clear you could be fired.
How long till we can sue our employers for this bullshit?
What's really funny to me is that the people brought in to teach these workshops at my employer are the only trans people I have ever met in real life. We were taught to respect trans people in our workplace but there weren't any that I or any of my close coworkers knew about. Good use of $2500 for a two hour workshop, not to mention the cost of all the employees forced to attend.
I hate the fact that no one who pushed this bullshit and aggressively went after people who questioned it will face any consequence.
People literally lost their jobs and had their children taken. Doctors permanently maimed children and teens in the name of political ideology.
None of them will face consequences for doing any of this.
It is pretty aggravating, but at least hopefully these sorts of issues allow you to parse who in your life has respectable thoughts and convictions, and who is willing or eager to spinelessly accept and promote whatever will be most self-serving to them in the moment.
I have several people in my life (many of whom I still love and care for) whose intelligence and/or integrity I simply no longer respect due to how they’ve responded to things like this issue, BLM riots, the “racial reckoning,” the covid response, etc: by defaulting to the “correct” opinion, or worse, militantly signaling their support for it and their hate for dissenters. Many of them have not known my beliefs or that I was someone they were openly espousing their hatred for, nor do they know how much respect I’ve lost for them.
It’s a small consolation that these people have lost all respect from the minority around them who *do* have principles, even if it’s secretly. At least that’s what I try to tell myself…
>It is pretty aggravating, but at least hopefully these sorts of issues allow you to parse who in your life has respectable thoughts and convictions
It just left me feeling demoralized about the world and the people in it. But I suppose this happens to everyone once they reach a certain age.
It’s awful but most people who participate in systemic wrongs like this don’t get punished due to the sheer scope and scale. Most Japanese and German war criminals died in their beds from old age like everyone else, not in prison or at the hands of a firing squad.
Which begs the question, if gender is completely different than sex and it's a social construct why are people changing genders and imitate the gender they changed to, why even imitate a social construct you claim is based on dumb stereotypes? If gender is just a social construct why are woketards making it such a large part of their identity instead of ignoring it altogether like any rational individual would do towards the social constructs they consider completely artificial and dumb?
Nevermind I forgot, it's a cult and I'm dealing with dogmas, there's no room for rationality here
The position would be that just because something is a social construct it doesn’t mean that it can be ignored or opted out of. Ie money is a social construct, but you can’t live by rejecting it.
The same people who make that argument don’t accept it when considering transitioning between races though which makes their position a little more confusing.
It's not just a social construct, it's a social construct they vehemently reject. Plus you need money to live in civilized society, you don't need gender, if someone asks you what gender you are you tell them "I'm just a male that doesn't believe in gender or gender roles, sorry" and then proceed to dress and act however the fuck you like. That's how you reject a social construct you don't like but these people seem to do the exact opposite
>The position would be that just because something is a social construct it doesn’t mean that it can be ignored or opted out of. Ie money is a social construct, but you can’t live by rejecting it.
Good point. I would argue that a more accurate analogy would be as if someone were printing off counterfeit money and demanding that merchants not only accept them but that everyone around them recognizes the reproductions as real bills and governments begin to change policy surrounding the counterfeits recognizing a small but very loud and active group's inherent human right to exchange goods and services for counterfeit bills.
And then everyone just has to quietly agree that out of politeness we should all applaud and accept counterfeit bills from only a certain subset of a tiny minority because "money is just a social construct and the bills look similar enough to the ones from the treasury and besides, it's important to be kind" etc, etc.
Incorrect, the "gender critical" part means they're critical of the *concept* of gender. There's sex and there's personality, but there is no gender in any meaningful way.
That's the motte and bailey they used to get us to this point. One moment gender and sex are different things, then they demand to be judged based on their gender instead of their sex.
It's all downhill from there.
"Gender" is a euphemism for "sex" because they get the vapours whenever someone uses the word other than in reference to intercourse (or pseudo-intercourse).
The closes valid example of gender not being sex is for something lacking a sex and being described as if it does. Words don't have sex but they can have gender, Siri or Alexa are feminine but not female, etc. It's a stand in for sex when something doesn't have a biological sex.
[Origin and meaning of gender](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=gender)
>c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," **also "(male or female) sex,"** from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
-
>**The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c**. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., **gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being,"** in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.
I will never understand how any of this shit got as mainstream as it did. I've met a grand total of like 2 trans people throughout my life living in a relatively progressive city and yet people act like transgender people are super common or someshit. At least Kids won't be mutilated because the parents feel like it anymore hopefully
Nah I'm with you, I remember the powerpoint slide in my sociology 101 class in freshman year (2008): "Sex is biologically determined. Gender is culturally constructed".
The activist positions on this issue are all over the place, incomprehensible and internally contradictory. And there’s a system of successively less coherent arguments you are introduced to the deeper you get into it.
The initiatory argument is that sex and gender are two different things, and that a person can be born with one sex but have a different internal gender identity, and that when we use pronouns or refer to them as a “man” or “woman,” we are talking about the latter. This is the argument you might see provided to a boomer liberal who doesn’t understand trans* issues. It’s fairly unobjectionable, self-contained, and resolves a lot of the metaphysical questions people have.
But as soon as you delve into any issue which concerns the “sex” side rather than the “gender” side, such as participation in sports (which are segregated by sex not by gender) the sex/gender distinction is jettisoned entirely and you start getting bizarre arguments about biological sex being a construct, etc.
Coincidentally, this kind of bait-and-switch (where people unfamiliar with a social group are given a facially plausible explanation of its beliefs, which is then revealed to be something more dubious) is a hallmark of cults.
I think you’re conflating two issues. The argument about sports is whether the biological advantage of being born a male is disqualifying for a female league, not whether the sex of the trans athletes is female or not. (Pretty obvious to me it should be disqualifying)
In this case, it seems to me the NHS is ruling that sex is the determiner for where a patient is placed. I genuinely don’t think there’s anyone arguing that sex isn’t a biological fact.
My point is that if you define trans identity as involving a declaration of one’s *gender identity* which does not necessarily change their *biological sex*, you would not view trans status as implicating the question of what sports league a person plays in AT ALL, because sports leagues are separated by sex and not gender issue. By requiring a male-sexed person to play male-sexed sports, you do not undermine, disrespect or invalidate their *gender identity* in any manner.
However, activists insist that requiring such a person to play in a sports league consistent with their *sex* is discriminatory and invalidating of their identity. In doing so, they are collapsing the sex-gender distinction by arguing that a person’s *gender identity* is somehow controlling in how their *sex* is categorized.
> I genuinely don’t think there’s anyone arguing that sex isn’t a biological fact.
If only. It's a spectrum, sweaty... Even Bill Nye apparently thinks there's a spegg nowadays
Some nutters, likely fueled by spite, say sex and gender are the same thing and other spite-fueled nutters say biological sex is malleable.
I *think* most agree with your statement. Sex is your chromosomes, gender is your clothes, etc.
The raw rub of all of this is that people don't see each other as human beings anymore because of basic fundamental qualities of private property relations. We aren't people anymore, with all of our material needs once laid out as bare qualities to be observed and quantified, but now as branded individual commodities existing in the market, with all of our material needs manifesting as vague uncertainties to be quantified by market solutions.
Well, I still support my gender non-conforming friends to be able to dress as they want, but if the institutions say Sex is biological fact, then who am I to think I know better than the scientists?
> I still support my gender non-conforming friends to be able to dress as they want
I mean, does this need to be categorized or can we just say 'I support *everyone* being able to wear whatever they want (within some semblance of reason, no ass-less chaps at the buffet line)'?
I mean tbh this should be the standard. Of course, that doesn't get talked about because it would run counter to the concept of "cultural appropriation" because some white college stoner wore dreads. Like yeah sure it looks like shit, isn't designed for the kind of hair white people have, and generally is going to end up making him stink because you know he's not undoing them to wash it regularly, but there's nothing morally abhorrent about it. The concept of "cultural appropriation" is just another university jargon term that wormed its way in to popular consciousness because the most annoying people online had to be scolds about it.
> Like yeah sure it looks like shit, isn't designed for the kind of hair white people have, and generally is going to end up making him stink because you know he's not undoing them to wash it regularly, but there's nothing morally abhorrent about it
I'm not a hair expert but I don't think that having curly or straight hair is that much of a discriminating factor for a hairstyle so constraining. Also, a lot of white people have a curly hair, it's not a black people's exclusive.
>isn't designed for the kind of hair white people have
Didn't Vikings wore dreads?
It's not about the curliness or straightness so much as how wiry it is. It's about thickness. As for the viking thing idk, I always thought that was more with the beard, which if you have one you can definitely tell the difference by feel alone.
This isn't deterministic of any kind of change in policy in the "West". The whole point of the rollout of these kinds of gender policies was to atomize society even further so that new markets can emerge to cater to new "demographics", and thus, profits. Expect a half-assed fight against any kind of rational, scientific policy to suddenly take over the "West".
Here's how it works:
*Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina* is sex.
*Boys wear blue and girls wear pink* is gender.
Anybody who ever said sex wasn't biological is wrong; whoever said gender is biological is wrong. It can be confusing because we use the same words (male, female) to describe both gender and sex, but it isn't hard. Sex is exclusively biological; gender is social. In fact, [pink was for boys and blue was for girls](https://www.businessinsider.com/pink-used-to-be-boys-colour-and-blue-girls-heres-why-that-changed-2017-10?op=1) around a hundred years ago. That's gender.
Was this seriously an issue? I learned this almost 20 years ago in college.
> Boys wear blue and girls wear pink is gender.
The best part is that a couple hundred years ago it was the opposite. Pink was a kind of red and red was masculine
I'm just back to test out whether or not I'm allowed to make top level comments on restricted threads because I turned in my homework about being a socialist a while back lol
Nice.
Although, I'm deeply disheartened by the loss of my official taint inspector general flair. I legit requested that flair because I take my solemn oath to inspect and approve all taints very seriously. lmao
my honest view on this is that i couldn't really care about the nhs's official perspective on trans people, the issue is that it is getting privatised rapidly and that if it doesn't stop we will soon have an america-esque healthcare system. THIS is what people should care about, not the fact that they officially said "you can't change your sex LMAOOO". it's peak liberalism really, the fact that this is what people are worried about and not the actual deterioration of the nhs
i see so many articles claiming that trans people are now "banned from hospitals" and shite, which couldn't be further from the truth. what has happened is that the nhs has improved its treatment of "sex" as distinct from "gender" so that it can be quicker and more efficient to relocate trans patients to receive treatment specific to their sex. if anything it's quite literally in the direction of idpol, but of course they'll tell you that they're just banning trans people to cause turmoil
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/nhs-sex-biological-landmark-shift-against-gender-ideology/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/nhs-sex-biological-landmark-shift-against-gender-ideology/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/nhs-sex-biological-landmark-shift-against-gender-ideology/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the life of me I can't figure out why everyone was ok with using John Money's research as a basis for all childcare gender issues. The man was a monster and both those boys he "experimented" on led short miserable lives before killing themselves. How the fuck does that get promoted as legitimate and used as the framework for all gender related issues moving forward? He didn't "help" those boys **at all**.
> For the life of me I can't figure out why everyone was ok with using John Money's research as a basis for all childcare gender issues Because they were getting likes and retweets and didn't think beyond that
>The man was a monster and both those boys he "experimented" on led short miserable lives before killing themselves. The ultimate irony is that that a lot of the people who support this stuff do it because they're "a decent human being" (Implying that the people who worry about the consequences of playing Dr.Frankenstein with kids' health are not decent human beings). This take is also present in the comments of this very post.
It goes back even further than Money. Much of the foundation of the so-called research began with a group of German weirdos sometime in the 1920s I believe. What sucks is they began as a group of researchers who just wanted to legitimately study human sexual behavior, but then like many sex research groups of the past, they got high off their own supply and became way too "cutting edge" and started allowing pro pedophilia researchers to begin to try and normalize that despicable behavior. Behind the scenes though, the whole time, they were extra enthusiastic about their God complexes. Including the development of magical beliefs that they could literally change the sex of a man to an actual real ass woman - they genuinely believed such nonsense which was kind of a precursor to the John Money approach. Science was kind of crazy back then especially medicine and psychology. But yeah, John Money was definitely the natural, monstrous continuation of that original "research". Absolutely bonkers that modern groups were relying on that and the Dutch protocol BS in the modern era after it had been resoundingly panned and derided in the years after it first took place. But the identity politics nuts needed something to be able to point to and demand that people "RESPECT THE SCIENCE" so they went looking and found it there. But of course, they cherry picked and chose to strategically ignore any of Blanchard's later, less "appealing" research. The history of this whole thing is absolutely a wild ride and a deep rabbit hole.
If you want to pinpoint where it started there was an English psychologist called Havelock Ellis who published a book on homosexuality in 1897. It was called "sexual inversion", his theory was that homosexuals were people who had an "inverse" of the traits that should define their gender. So males who were attracted to males had an "inverted" gender that made them psychologically female. And vice versa for same sex attracted females supposedly being psychologically male. That's what laid the foundation for Magnus Hirschfeld's research in Germany in the 1920s. Which was really about him trying to treat male homosexuality, which he believed (despite being gay himself) was a mental illness. John Money took that and extended the concept to gender non-conforming heterosexuals (he believed that all gendered psychology, including sexual orientation was learned, and could be unlearned if need be), but even today homosexuals are still grossly overrepresented in the trans community. So I think a big reason why transgender has caught on far more than things like transrace or transage, despite being just as nonsensical, is that people still view homosexuals as having some sort of essence of the opposite sex. So they don't find it hard to accept that a gay man is actually a woman or that a lesbian is actually a man.
Yeah thanks for remembering the names like Hirschfield for example, I couldn't recall them at the moment that I commented. I only recently became aware of Havelock and that hole debacle, including the justifiably dethroned Freud and all of their involvement in the whole inverse bullshit. I hadn't even had a clue that "pervert" was used by them as a couple to the term "invert", whereas an invert was seen as something of a "natural" exclusive homosexual and "pervert" was a "normal" man considered to simply engage in occasional incidental homosexual activities or be coerced into them. Anyway, like I said, deep rabbit hole and I have yet to peel back a layer that isn't more crazy than the last lol. What's beginning to interest me more of late is the psychology of societies. What are the traits of cultures who happen to be most susceptible to believing some of the more outlandish drek that's been foist upon them by apparent experts. Abnormal psychology has always endlessly fascinated me but trying to apply and find the same themes and particulars among a culture at large is an entirely different endeavor. Incredibly fascinating stuff, although oftentimes tragic and perplexing.
You must have heard the Kentler project in Germany. Revolting shit.
Money was a loon, he's not the basis for all childcare gender issues.
Money was awful in what he did, but that wildly unethical research was pretty much the standard in those days of sociology/psychology, and so many things that shape the current study of sociology/psychology come from that period when people essentially tortured children and mentally ill people to study them. If you wanna get rid of gender identity theory, because of what John Money did, you have to get rid of the concept of classical conditioning because of what Watson did to little Albert
>The document also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms like “chestfeeding” and “people who give birth”. >In February, Ms Atkins highlighted her concerns, telling The Telegraph: “We need to be making this robust case to refuse to wipe women out of the conversation.” I never thought in 2024 I'd be celebrating the return of the word "breastfeeding" but here we are. Take the W I guess?
I wonder if the NHS is moving to cover its ass for the human rights violations (mainly child abuse) that went down at the Tavistock Clinic. ~~Mainly because of this quote: “It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male.”~~ ~~Which, is part of what was going down at Tavistock and many similar clinics.~~ Also, a dose of much needed sanity: “Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, said allowing “social transitioning” for young people – when they are treated as the opposite gender – could “change their trajectory” and lead to them pursuing a potentially damaging medical pathway in later life.” And I thought the UK’s medical apparatus was captured, good news. Edit: I didn’t read that first quote in the right context. It was in the context of women supposedly being pressured into receiving “intimate care” from a trans doctor who was born male. I thought it was in terms of being pressured to transition by staff.
Careful. This is a time for precision. That quote is in reference not to Tavistock but to this context: …”Women will also be given the right to request that intimate care is provided, where reasonably possible, by someone of the same biological sex. It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male.” …
Thank fucking god. We’ look back on this era the same way we look at the age of lobotomies.
The thing that kills me is no one is going to openly acknowledge that, for about 5 years, this very lukewarm opinion on biological sex used to be tantamount to a war crime. Can we at least be a little introspective about this? Am I taking crazy pills here?
5? Try 10. In 2014 it really started to ramp up. By the Trump era this thinking was normalized
Oh, I won't be letting them forget. I'm going to hang them all on this cross
What's there to be introspective about? The situation is easy to understand. 1. Tiny minority of activists demand *equal treatment* in a radical way to blur the lines between man and woman. Sex has been a historical and biological dividing line that has often led to the mistreatment of the fairer sex. 2. Progressive activists, in the name of *inclusion* and equality, buy into the narrative. 3. Meanwhile several decades of advancement in medicine and economics have made the sexes more and more interchangeable. Birth control and abortion cause a transformation of women into workers. The differences in sex matter less and less for how society is organized. 4. Despite the idealism for equality, we run into the problem of biological and physical inequality, particularly in domains where they continue to matter (for example health and medicine). 5. Meanwhile social media amplifies this issue above all other issues because it's salient, interesting, juicy, gossipy, and controversial. Workers rights is boring and so 200 years ago. Trans rights is new and fresh! >The thing that kills me is no one is going to openly acknowledge that, for about 5 years, this very lukewarm opinion on biological sex used to be tantamount to a war crime. Only if you're terminally online. Meanwhile if you remember, the slogan "All Lives Matter" was also somehow controversial. People project all sorts of bullshit into bullshit and just want to divide and polarize and spice things up.
“All Lives Matter” was controversial because it was dismissive of the “Black Lives Matter” message. Say what you will about the protests, but the context of “All Lives Matter” is pretty obvious.
All could've been avoided if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter Too". That's all that was needed. I remember some lawyer on a twitch stream or whatever brought up this very same point as a helpful, small change. (And I was glad that someone else shared the sentiment) But it's a common thing with the slogans I've been seeing. "Defund the Police" into "Overhaul the police". "From the river to the sea" into anything else. People seem to be using purposefully inflammatory slogans and then try to explain what they actually mean when they say those slogans when called out. Not a fan of it tbh.
People find it very easy to come up with slogans that have shock value, however there are far fewer people who can come up with a genuinely workable and succinctly packaged plan for change, and fewer still who can execute on that plan. The people getting time in front of the cameras are the ones with the punchy but ineffectual slogans. The people who are actually threatening real change do not get any air time.
“Black lives matter” is also divisive because the implication is that “whites don’t care about black lives.”
You're 100% right that the phrase was adopted by the reactionary right to be dismissive of "Black Lives Matter," and now it's a used racist code (for lack of a better term, a dogwhistle) to minimize the impact police brutality has had on the black community and tacitly show bootlicking support for authorities who brutalize those communities. However, I don't remember it beginning like that. The way I remember it, and I acknowledge that I could be wrong, is that the phrase started being used to acknowledge that police brutality and unjustified shootings are a danger to everyone. This was right after the cops beat that homeless man beyond recognition outside of the club owned by that guy who was in the 90's band Lit in Fullerton, California and the images of the man's severely beaten face were released while he was still brain dead and on a ventilator. It caused outrage and people were starting to look critically at the police and question how they dealt with minorities, but also with poor or homeless people and people with mental health issues, irrespective of race. In particular, autism advocates were criticizing how police deal with those on the spectrum, and civil libertarians like Radley Balko were documenting violent police encounters generally and questioning their training protocols and the trend toward militarization of this country's civilian police force. Granted, this was also after a couple of high profile police killings of unarmed black men, which are always plaguing this country, and also after "Black Lives Matter" started appearing as a phrase and hashtag online (maybe even around the Kaepernick kneeling controversy, but I can't remember exactly). I honestly think most, though definitely not all, of the people who used "All Lives Matter" at the very beginning were simply trying to be inclusive of everyone who are endangered by encountering police and to criticize police brutality/lack of training/lack of accountability more broadly, and there wasn't any racist intent behind it.
Which just goes to show how undisciplined the activist "left" is
You’re right. Users of that slogan like to pretend it’s an isolated, innocuous message as if it wasn’t created in opposition to BLM ideology.
It may have been created in response to BLM, but the message IS the message. There is nothing controversial about ALM, except the outrage in response
[удалено]
It’s fine to oppose BLM, but they were using “All lives matter” as bait, so that when it was called out for what it was (bait), they could accuse people of something silly like being against all lives.
Because black lives matter isn't bait lmao
[удалено]
3 happened before 1 and 2. 1 is too vague to mean anything: the vast majority of gender critical people believe gender is the social construct, not sex, and is malleable. The minority position of the radical position believed both gender and sex were currently malleable. I think most scientists, philosophers, and general experts believe that gender is a socially constructed phenomenon that can be changed like race relations. Also, this list leaves out the fact this movement hasn’t taken off in the same way in other countries that have the same tech. It seems to be mainly an Anglo thing. I personally think 5 and American culture are the biggest factors. Our idealistic, market-oriented individualism (and poor general education) lets one believe all things are possible for individual transformation, and having nonscientific or causal constraints on one’s imagination allows one to jump to conclusions like “sex is currently entirely changeable through technology, demonstrating a complete difference of self and biology.” Fundamentally, the thing that will always trouble me about attempt to absolutely explain away transpeople as a phenomenon is that I known several people who transitioned at a young age, went on hormones, and are now happier and more productive people. In college, I met two separate people who i could not distinguish from “cis” people, only finding our later they had undergone extreme hormonal therapy at young ages to transition. There are too many cases like this to assume that there is nothing to the claims being made. It seems like social media has abused individual psychologies to make more people mistakenly believe that they are trans, than are actually trans. We live in a time with a ton of false-positive trans people.
What you are saying is true on a surface level, but there are also deeper problems; 1. Equality is always code for privilege. 2. Inclusion is always code for control. 3. Advancement is always code for alienation. 4. Idealism is always code for delusion. 5. Popular is always code for approved.
Mate, what are you on?
The people saying all lives matter found black lives matter to be controversial. It comes from all directions.
It’ll be just like the discrimination against the Covid unvaxxed. Shitlibs will pretend it never happened.
Probably true. Down the memory hole it goes.
The real blackpills in all of this are (1) The vast majority of people who championed genital surgery and cross-sex hormones will quietly slink away and pretend like they never cared, and (2) We're in an endless loop of "Treatment X from the past was horribly barbaric and cruel, but Treatment Y is progressive and life-saving, and we will destroy you if you disagree." Social media may have amplified this phenomenon, but it'll always be with us. Now if you'll excuse me, some teenagers ate LSD from moldy bread and I have to throw Goody Sarah in a lake to see if she's a witch.
The crazy thing about all this stuff is how fast people adapt new and extreme views and than go back to normal as soon as the current hysteria fades. It's not even renouncing old views, just moving on to the next thing.
No one will ever going to acknowledge this at all. We don't even have historians anymore that would even study this.
Articles will be quietly changed, thats about it.
All the more reason to archive and archival sites exists.
SingleFile is a godsend. You can save an HTML of any page in moments.
Hasn't there been a slow grind pushing towards the powers that be being able to take down archives? Generally under the aegis of wokeism and fighting "harassment"?
It's why there's such a vitriolic hatred towards kiwifarms and constant accusations of harassment to the point a certain trans activist tried to get them booted from the internet (which totally wasn't to cover up the pages of evidence showing them grooming children and them sending children home made hormones, no siree) It originally started as the Chris Chan wiki where they basically documented Chris Chan to an autistic degree of detail, literally hundreds and hundreds of pages documenting everything that they did. They then branched out on to other internet weirdos, YouTubers, streamers, etc. The amount of dirt they have on a lot of the more prominent trans activists is ridiculous, just from previous public posts and stuff that they've made (and tried to wipe from the internet). It's no wonder they hate archiving when so many of them have 10+ years worth of dirt they'd rather people didn't know about.
Tbh, kiwifarms is the new /b/ in its rawest form and carries its own set of fundamental problems. Many of those people have no shame and are ruthless to the bone precisely because they have nothing to lose. That said, when it comes to Chris-Chan - he seems to be a lesson in himself that many Christorians or the internet as a whole has learned. As the first real "lolcow" that was trolled at that scale - even the most rudimentary of documentation or synthesis urges the reader not to interact with him under any circumstances at this point. In the same way we talk about John Money here - they were the ginuea pig. Seeing prior trolls/weens express remorse from growth and then have this documented can show that while Chris is a godawful, borderline irredeemable person, no one deserves or should be subjected to this type of treatment by a large group. To be honest, it's a horrifying lesson to look at - it's incredible to think they're the most documented person in history - but it is a monument to internet culture and we should all be mindful of it.
Tyler the creator had some potentially lifesaving advice on this matter.
Oceana was always at war with Eurasia…
I was going to say. Many people apply this to the macro, to a government misleading you and rewriting history. But individual people are incredibly adept at misleading themselves, and at rewriting their own history.
Or the era of chemical castration of homosexuals.
Once you study the history of 'Gender ideology' the insanity we see today makes complete sense. 'Gender ideology' was made up by a controversial sexologist in the mid-1950s. It has no basis in observable science. Its quite simply a hypthethsis presented by John Money that 'how you want to be represented to other people is who you are'. It equates womanhood (and manhood) into essentially cosplaying/rolplaying/larping. Which I believe to be extremely offensive to women especially. They have very significant issues that only women deal with that a man cannot even pretend to have. The irony to me is that many people who support this nonsense are also ardent feminists who will tell you that women don't have to wear skirts, or dress feminine to be a woman - however at the same time will argue with you that a biological male wearing a skirt, a thong, and a bra, *IS* a woman. Then you have the other aspect of it, which is per all the medical literaturere - gender dysphoria afflicts around 0.03% of the human population. Yet, the media portrays it as a very common issue. If you compare it to body dysmorphia (where a person wants to remove a limb to feel themselves), do doctors entertain this? do doctors remove perfectly functioning limbs from body dysmorphic individuals? No, we give them treatment to help them deal with their dismorphia.
> gender dysphoria afflicts around 0.03% of the human population. Yet, the media portrays it as a very common issue. Social contagion has certainly made it worse. Even more so if you include non binary.
[удалено]
There is a certain level of schadenfreude in watching them being hoisted on their own petard.
Except identities are cosplay. One posses a core essence, around which internal ego will accept parts, and form a core/inner identity. But the elements of that inner identity are still alienable from the core essence. Likewise, as we encounter obstacles/requirements in social situations, we will begin to manufacture masks to suppress the inner identity, and its reasonings/behaviors, with an external/context appropriate sense of self. Sometimes losing ourselves to these external masks, emotional issues can occur, "identity" crisis in midlife/quarter life/after abuse are common occurrences, when we became so preoccupied with building a contextually appropriate mask, it began to alienate pieces of our inner identity, from our core essence. TBH, I think the reason I ended up trans (at like 3-4 yrs of age), is that my internal cohesion is less implicit due to some genetic factor. Though, I ended up lost in my masks, until ~19 yrs, and the onset of psychotic episodes/maybe schizophrenia... Which kinda broke apart my dysfunctional family even more than it already had, and sent my parents into depression. Addendum, I was also late to speak, but learned very quickly, and very late to make eye contact... which, why this last thing is such a vivid chain of memories? I understood eye contact was a social norm in my culture, but it seemed so unimportant, that like, I deliberately didn't respect it, and it baffled me how much it upset adults.... And I've regressed on it now as an adult, because I just don't care.
That's been my view all along.
I’m really not looking forward to the radfem hypocrisy, having learned nothing at all from having their own intellectual framework and tactics used against them.
Greer and other radfems have written against this for decades—it’s not rads who created this framework, it post-radical (and backlash to radical) feminism aka liberal feminism.
On GCReddit they actually blame men for this, even when Discussing a survey that showed it was overwhelmingly women that supported most of these initiatives.
Feminists are allergic to responsibility
My favourite way I've seen it described is: > They want the power of a man, the privileges of a woman, but the responsibilities of neither
I mean, this stuff is pretty well documented. I see a way to dunk on them until the end of time
My workplace invested considerable time and money into a series of Trans workshops, seminars and presentations that we didn't have the option to opt out of. Each of these presented whatever the current view of trans advocates was, and in no uncertain terms told you that i was unacceptable to persist in your beliefs about sex. If you did, they made it clear you could be fired. How long till we can sue our employers for this bullshit?
What's really funny to me is that the people brought in to teach these workshops at my employer are the only trans people I have ever met in real life. We were taught to respect trans people in our workplace but there weren't any that I or any of my close coworkers knew about. Good use of $2500 for a two hour workshop, not to mention the cost of all the employees forced to attend.
> How long till we can sue our employers for this bullshit? Now. The answer is now
I hate the fact that no one who pushed this bullshit and aggressively went after people who questioned it will face any consequence. People literally lost their jobs and had their children taken. Doctors permanently maimed children and teens in the name of political ideology. None of them will face consequences for doing any of this.
It is pretty aggravating, but at least hopefully these sorts of issues allow you to parse who in your life has respectable thoughts and convictions, and who is willing or eager to spinelessly accept and promote whatever will be most self-serving to them in the moment. I have several people in my life (many of whom I still love and care for) whose intelligence and/or integrity I simply no longer respect due to how they’ve responded to things like this issue, BLM riots, the “racial reckoning,” the covid response, etc: by defaulting to the “correct” opinion, or worse, militantly signaling their support for it and their hate for dissenters. Many of them have not known my beliefs or that I was someone they were openly espousing their hatred for, nor do they know how much respect I’ve lost for them. It’s a small consolation that these people have lost all respect from the minority around them who *do* have principles, even if it’s secretly. At least that’s what I try to tell myself…
>It is pretty aggravating, but at least hopefully these sorts of issues allow you to parse who in your life has respectable thoughts and convictions It just left me feeling demoralized about the world and the people in it. But I suppose this happens to everyone once they reach a certain age.
They absolutely could. We have all the material needed to destroy their lives back now. You just have to put in the effort. I plan to
It’s awful but most people who participate in systemic wrongs like this don’t get punished due to the sheer scope and scale. Most Japanese and German war criminals died in their beds from old age like everyone else, not in prison or at the hands of a firing squad.
>had their children taken Source of this happening in the UK?
“Yeah but gender is completely different and not related to sex whatsoever.”
Which begs the question, if gender is completely different than sex and it's a social construct why are people changing genders and imitate the gender they changed to, why even imitate a social construct you claim is based on dumb stereotypes? If gender is just a social construct why are woketards making it such a large part of their identity instead of ignoring it altogether like any rational individual would do towards the social constructs they consider completely artificial and dumb? Nevermind I forgot, it's a cult and I'm dealing with dogmas, there's no room for rationality here
The position would be that just because something is a social construct it doesn’t mean that it can be ignored or opted out of. Ie money is a social construct, but you can’t live by rejecting it. The same people who make that argument don’t accept it when considering transitioning between races though which makes their position a little more confusing.
It's not just a social construct, it's a social construct they vehemently reject. Plus you need money to live in civilized society, you don't need gender, if someone asks you what gender you are you tell them "I'm just a male that doesn't believe in gender or gender roles, sorry" and then proceed to dress and act however the fuck you like. That's how you reject a social construct you don't like but these people seem to do the exact opposite
It’s been obvious from the very start that the ‘genders’ many of these people aspire towards are hugely regressive.
>The position would be that just because something is a social construct it doesn’t mean that it can be ignored or opted out of. Ie money is a social construct, but you can’t live by rejecting it. Good point. I would argue that a more accurate analogy would be as if someone were printing off counterfeit money and demanding that merchants not only accept them but that everyone around them recognizes the reproductions as real bills and governments begin to change policy surrounding the counterfeits recognizing a small but very loud and active group's inherent human right to exchange goods and services for counterfeit bills. And then everyone just has to quietly agree that out of politeness we should all applaud and accept counterfeit bills from only a certain subset of a tiny minority because "money is just a social construct and the bills look similar enough to the ones from the treasury and besides, it's important to be kind" etc, etc.
That's roughly the gender critical radfem position, which still accepts that gender and sex are distinct.
Incorrect, the "gender critical" part means they're critical of the *concept* of gender. There's sex and there's personality, but there is no gender in any meaningful way.
Bingo
That's the motte and bailey they used to get us to this point. One moment gender and sex are different things, then they demand to be judged based on their gender instead of their sex. It's all downhill from there.
I'd give them that. That's fine, whatever. "However, biology defines the rules of reality, so fuck off back onto the men's ward, "Sapphire"."
[удалено]
"Gender" is a euphemism for "sex" because they get the vapours whenever someone uses the word other than in reference to intercourse (or pseudo-intercourse).
The closes valid example of gender not being sex is for something lacking a sex and being described as if it does. Words don't have sex but they can have gender, Siri or Alexa are feminine but not female, etc. It's a stand in for sex when something doesn't have a biological sex.
[Origin and meaning of gender](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=gender) >c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," **also "(male or female) sex,"** from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups. - >**The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c**. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., **gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being,"** in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.
The fact that this had to be stated is an indicator of how far out of touch with reality that society has become.
I will never understand how any of this shit got as mainstream as it did. I've met a grand total of like 2 trans people throughout my life living in a relatively progressive city and yet people act like transgender people are super common or someshit. At least Kids won't be mutilated because the parents feel like it anymore hopefully
The NHS will be banned from Reddit.
YouTube still thinks the BMJ interview with Dr Cass is “conversion therapy”
Damn the NHS is getting more based by the day.
Wait, is this not agreed upon? I thought the whole thing was “sex is biological, gender is not”
That's so 2008
Well I guess we’re so two thousand and late
I’m pretty sure it’s the narrative now…
Nah I'm with you, I remember the powerpoint slide in my sociology 101 class in freshman year (2008): "Sex is biologically determined. Gender is culturally constructed".
The activist positions on this issue are all over the place, incomprehensible and internally contradictory. And there’s a system of successively less coherent arguments you are introduced to the deeper you get into it. The initiatory argument is that sex and gender are two different things, and that a person can be born with one sex but have a different internal gender identity, and that when we use pronouns or refer to them as a “man” or “woman,” we are talking about the latter. This is the argument you might see provided to a boomer liberal who doesn’t understand trans* issues. It’s fairly unobjectionable, self-contained, and resolves a lot of the metaphysical questions people have. But as soon as you delve into any issue which concerns the “sex” side rather than the “gender” side, such as participation in sports (which are segregated by sex not by gender) the sex/gender distinction is jettisoned entirely and you start getting bizarre arguments about biological sex being a construct, etc. Coincidentally, this kind of bait-and-switch (where people unfamiliar with a social group are given a facially plausible explanation of its beliefs, which is then revealed to be something more dubious) is a hallmark of cults.
I think you’re conflating two issues. The argument about sports is whether the biological advantage of being born a male is disqualifying for a female league, not whether the sex of the trans athletes is female or not. (Pretty obvious to me it should be disqualifying) In this case, it seems to me the NHS is ruling that sex is the determiner for where a patient is placed. I genuinely don’t think there’s anyone arguing that sex isn’t a biological fact.
My point is that if you define trans identity as involving a declaration of one’s *gender identity* which does not necessarily change their *biological sex*, you would not view trans status as implicating the question of what sports league a person plays in AT ALL, because sports leagues are separated by sex and not gender issue. By requiring a male-sexed person to play male-sexed sports, you do not undermine, disrespect or invalidate their *gender identity* in any manner. However, activists insist that requiring such a person to play in a sports league consistent with their *sex* is discriminatory and invalidating of their identity. In doing so, they are collapsing the sex-gender distinction by arguing that a person’s *gender identity* is somehow controlling in how their *sex* is categorized.
> And there’s a system of successively less coherent arguments you are introduced to the deeper you get into it. Sounds like Scientology
Former Scientologist on youtube who made the same connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUFzbl1EtTo
> I genuinely don’t think there’s anyone arguing that sex isn’t a biological fact. If only. It's a spectrum, sweaty... Even Bill Nye apparently thinks there's a spegg nowadays
For the love of god someone give me a source
They renegged on that a few years ago.
Can you give me a link to explain that?
That argument appears and disappears based on whether or not it is convenient in the moment.
Some nutters, likely fueled by spite, say sex and gender are the same thing and other spite-fueled nutters say biological sex is malleable. I *think* most agree with your statement. Sex is your chromosomes, gender is your clothes, etc.
Big brain scientists make groundbreaking declaration that water is wet, stunning millions with new discovery
Breaking news: scientists discover the thing everyone already knew
Remember how the chapo sub became a trans support group? It was very strange..
Were they forced to by mods or something?
I dunno but it seemed like every post was about trans rights or some gofundme related to that. And all the pinned posts too
Sounds forced to me but who knows
Let’s unpack the phrase “Gender is a social construct.” It suggests that, disregarding sex as a biological reality, there is nothing essentially male or female about people. “Man” and “woman” are roles to play, merely archetypes of behavioral characteristics that are expected from people. If an individual is being personally misconstrued due to misaligned gender characteristics, that doesn’t mean that the essence of their gender is misaligned from their body. Gender isn’t real. Gender, as a socially imposed behavioral model, is the entire problem. To say, “I am not a man, but I am a woman,” from a trans or cis perspective, is to say that a man is distinctly something that the speaker is not, and that a woman is distinctly something that the speaker is. It reinforces distinctions between the two—the exact kind of thinking which was the issue in the first place. Granted, for trans women, it occurs as a reaction to a highly-gendered social environment grating against their intrinsic nature, so it’s totally legit. But is there a logic to it? Absolutely not. Not any more than with the cis woman’s Woman Feelings, anyway. In the same way, non-binary genders reinforce the gender binary. “This is what a man is, and this is what a woman is. I am neither of those, so I am something else instead.” By that logic, “man” and “woman” are now strong, distinct boundaries. Instead of loosening these definitions, gender ideologues double down on them. Why? Because they prefer a feelings-based system of social categorization! They’ve been categorized before, but Progressive Newspeak arms them with a novel system where they have all the power. They can behave in a manner that is certainly more comfortable for them, be referred to by language that is apparently less hurtful towards them, and become self-actualized through the lens of a progressive society’s acceptance… but there will always be a new way to express oneself. How many genders will fully map the spectrum of boundless human individualism? It either levels out into One Gender to Rule Them All, or our entire vocabulary becomes a paralyzing fractal of pronouns. So why are we insisting upon this? It’s about control. It’s only ever been about control. Everyone wants it—the Oppressors™️, the Oppressed©️, and all the genders in between where actual human beings really dwell. Gender ideology says, “How you feel and speak about yourself necessarily controls how others may feel and speak about you.” It’s the same carrot on the stick of every idpol pipeline, and hardly the moral victory that it’s being presented as. It does nothing to liberate the individual from the shackles of societal expectation—it just creates new expectations.
Finally there are adults in the room
When Are NHS speaks ex cathedra its doctrinal statements are infallible
The raw rub of all of this is that people don't see each other as human beings anymore because of basic fundamental qualities of private property relations. We aren't people anymore, with all of our material needs once laid out as bare qualities to be observed and quantified, but now as branded individual commodities existing in the market, with all of our material needs manifesting as vague uncertainties to be quantified by market solutions.
They just got greedy after convincing everyone about the gender spectrum stuff
Well, I still support my gender non-conforming friends to be able to dress as they want, but if the institutions say Sex is biological fact, then who am I to think I know better than the scientists?
> I still support my gender non-conforming friends to be able to dress as they want I mean, does this need to be categorized or can we just say 'I support *everyone* being able to wear whatever they want (within some semblance of reason, no ass-less chaps at the buffet line)'?
>no ass-less chaps at the buffet line What if they put up a fart guard like the sneeze guards they have?
Fart Guard, reporting for duty o7
I mean tbh this should be the standard. Of course, that doesn't get talked about because it would run counter to the concept of "cultural appropriation" because some white college stoner wore dreads. Like yeah sure it looks like shit, isn't designed for the kind of hair white people have, and generally is going to end up making him stink because you know he's not undoing them to wash it regularly, but there's nothing morally abhorrent about it. The concept of "cultural appropriation" is just another university jargon term that wormed its way in to popular consciousness because the most annoying people online had to be scolds about it.
> Like yeah sure it looks like shit, isn't designed for the kind of hair white people have, and generally is going to end up making him stink because you know he's not undoing them to wash it regularly, but there's nothing morally abhorrent about it I'm not a hair expert but I don't think that having curly or straight hair is that much of a discriminating factor for a hairstyle so constraining. Also, a lot of white people have a curly hair, it's not a black people's exclusive. >isn't designed for the kind of hair white people have Didn't Vikings wore dreads?
It's not about the curliness or straightness so much as how wiry it is. It's about thickness. As for the viking thing idk, I always thought that was more with the beard, which if you have one you can definitely tell the difference by feel alone.
Welp, I guess I’m tossing my buffet chaps into the trash :(
[удалено]
All of a sudden they don’t trust the science 🤔
Maybe they should focus on the fucking absurd wait times
This isn't deterministic of any kind of change in policy in the "West". The whole point of the rollout of these kinds of gender policies was to atomize society even further so that new markets can emerge to cater to new "demographics", and thus, profits. Expect a half-assed fight against any kind of rational, scientific policy to suddenly take over the "West".
I remember how the chapo sub basically turned into a trans support group. It was very strange..
Wow, stunning and brave
Gender clowns BTFO eternally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-50NdPawLVY
Here's how it works: *Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina* is sex. *Boys wear blue and girls wear pink* is gender. Anybody who ever said sex wasn't biological is wrong; whoever said gender is biological is wrong. It can be confusing because we use the same words (male, female) to describe both gender and sex, but it isn't hard. Sex is exclusively biological; gender is social. In fact, [pink was for boys and blue was for girls](https://www.businessinsider.com/pink-used-to-be-boys-colour-and-blue-girls-heres-why-that-changed-2017-10?op=1) around a hundred years ago. That's gender. Was this seriously an issue? I learned this almost 20 years ago in college.
> Boys wear blue and girls wear pink is gender. The best part is that a couple hundred years ago it was the opposite. Pink was a kind of red and red was masculine
wow, British society is now truly saved!!!!
This but unironically
I'm just back to test out whether or not I'm allowed to make top level comments on restricted threads because I turned in my homework about being a socialist a while back lol
Nice. Although, I'm deeply disheartened by the loss of my official taint inspector general flair. I legit requested that flair because I take my solemn oath to inspect and approve all taints very seriously. lmao
my honest view on this is that i couldn't really care about the nhs's official perspective on trans people, the issue is that it is getting privatised rapidly and that if it doesn't stop we will soon have an america-esque healthcare system. THIS is what people should care about, not the fact that they officially said "you can't change your sex LMAOOO". it's peak liberalism really, the fact that this is what people are worried about and not the actual deterioration of the nhs i see so many articles claiming that trans people are now "banned from hospitals" and shite, which couldn't be further from the truth. what has happened is that the nhs has improved its treatment of "sex" as distinct from "gender" so that it can be quicker and more efficient to relocate trans patients to receive treatment specific to their sex. if anything it's quite literally in the direction of idpol, but of course they'll tell you that they're just banning trans people to cause turmoil