luka
Well-known member
male lesbians
The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General
- Thread starter padraig (u.s.)
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 44 pages of prepubescent pharmacological blockers 45 pages of prepubescent whining 67 pages of prepubescent pharmacological blockers absurd contortions benny and benny drinking benny b still butthurt by maridonna bisque denoncement conversations cotton ceiling doesn't even know who totnumb are dogging has no gender handwaving women's rights hm govts mask dom fetish i identify as a knobhead jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 maxi celibacy men's rights to women's bogs nonce biscuits and his moral high grooming ground oh here we go again 18 paragraphs about communism padrage phallusy political male lesbianism sanctimonious man really hates misogynists shed ted utd simple cancer insult skunk+internet casualty=as serious as cancer take a bite of peach there is no such thing as society what gender is the hand of god? world's worst dinner party
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Nah that sounds gross and weird.
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
If you imagine yourself as a girl and you're the same as yourself as a man, then you know you're a male lesbian.
Also, for the sake of consistency, I hope Padraig curses you all out, since you've all derailed the thread much worse than I ever have.
Also, for the sake of consistency, I hope Padraig curses you all out, since you've all derailed the thread much worse than I ever have.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Except me, naturlich (aside from that time he scolded me for not engaging with the text, re: Hayek)
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
That is oxymoronic and probably didn't happen.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
I just don't see how that can be, when my mom tells me almost every day precisely that I'm "not a stupid nerd."
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
On the other days, however...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
She gives you the unvarnished truth that you are indeed the stupidest nerd of all time.
The SNOAT.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
How much longer can I keep this thread about me until Padraig comes back and clobbers me?
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
I'm sure it puts him in the perfect position to declare whether or not I am, after all, a stupid nerd.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
Not only acceptance but awareness. As recently as 20 years ago there was almost no public trans representation outside the queer community, and the little you could find was often the crudest, most outlandish (and often offensive - Ace Ventura comes to mind as a particularly infamous example) examples. It is quite common to see people transitioning as adults talk about how they wish they hadn't waited so long, and the older people are when they begin transitioning the more common it becomes. Sadly, that is also a reason that the trans population is disproportionately young - both because when older queer folks were younger they may have not known about or felt it possible to pursue transitioning, and because of many of them didn't survive, whether it be HIV, suicide, violence, or what have you. as tough as things are now, it is still vastly easier to be trans in 2023 than it was in 1993.
Anti-trans people want to spin this as "social contagion", but that is highly dubious for a number of reasons. First, there is a very obvious parallel to the increase of openly gay people in earlier generation as it became more socially acceptable and crucially, safer to come out. Second, the social contagion aka "rapid onset gender dysphoria" aka ROGD theory is based on a single study by Lisa Littman. I don't want to get sidetracked in this answer so I'll get into that in a separate post below, but suffice it to say that study has many issues.
But to answer the actual question, basically yes, more acceptance/awareness.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
So I want to get into that ROGD study and by extension the world of GC/anti-trans NGOs or think tanks etc
for the tldr, just skip to the next post
if you do want to read all the details, consider it a resource for anyone who'd like to understand the mechanics of the GC scene
First, the study itself. It was a survey of parents - with no input from actual patients - on three anti-trans websites which has since been heavily criticized on a number of grounds including methodology, and strongly refuted by the entire American medical establishment. Littman herself is firmly in the GC academic camp (if you look up her bio, she sits on an advisory boards of multiple GC think tanks) along with the infamous duo of Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey, who I'll get into in a second. Every study since on trans minors - except one carried out by, no surprise, Bailey - has refuted ROGD, either finding no evidence to support its conclusions or evidence directly refuting them.
If you look at the groups Littman is involved with - she chairs the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research, and sits on the advisory boards of Genspect and the Gender Dysphoria Alliance - two things become very clear. First off, they're a who's who of the academic end of the TERF/GC world, and second they're extremely incestuous. It's basically the same handful of people in slightly different combinations.
Genspect, among numerous anti-scentific and fringe views. opposes transition for any under their mid-20s (which directly influenced the failed Oklahoma law to ban gender-affirming care for anyone under 26) and falsely claims that there is no evidence (there's plenty of evidence) that social or medical transition decreases suicide risk for youth with gender dysphoria. It's very closely linked to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) - really they're the same group, both run by Stella O'Malley, with virtually identical advisory boards - which promotes the same ideas and is often cited not only in the press but also in legal despite not being accredited by any major medical body in the U.S. or UK, and has close ties to evangelical anti-LGBTQ+ activists like Julia Maxwell (look up Lovewise UK) and the truly odious and misleadingly named American College of Pedatricians (ACPeds), which is not only anti-trans, but strenuously anti-gay and anti-reproductive rights as well (again, just go to their website, it's all there), and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Another thing all of these groups support is gender conversion therapy. O'Malley is a member of Thoughtful Therapists, who also have links to evangelicals, and whose main issue is opposing conversion therapy bans that would stop them from doing "exploratory therapy" which in other words is basically trying to convince people to detransition.
The Gender Dysphoria Alliance's board includes multiple members of Genspect's board, and Ray Blanchard. Blanchard is a sexologist who came up with the widely discredited, and deeply offensive, theory that views all trans women thru a fetishistic lens as either "homosexual transsexuals" (attracted to men) or "autogynephiles" (sexually attracted to the idea of being women), and was the driving force behind its inclusion in the DSM-V. His theory is a foundational element of TERF/GC ideology, and has more recently spilled out into less specialized, more general anti-trans discourse. the GDA's website also cites work by J. Michael Baily, the foremost promoter of Blanchard's ideas, and problematic for many, many reasons (again, look him up). It also shares board members with Genspect, including multiple detransitioned folks.
The board of The Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria (these fucking names!) includes Littman, Bailey, and Stella O'Malley again, as well as Lisa Marchiano, a Jungian analyst associated with SEGM and another promoter of ROGD and detransitioning. I won't go over its policies bc they're more of the same. It is specifically associated with that Bailey study above that claims to support Littman's ROGD conclusions.
I could go on but you get the idea
for the tldr, just skip to the next post
if you do want to read all the details, consider it a resource for anyone who'd like to understand the mechanics of the GC scene
First, the study itself. It was a survey of parents - with no input from actual patients - on three anti-trans websites which has since been heavily criticized on a number of grounds including methodology, and strongly refuted by the entire American medical establishment. Littman herself is firmly in the GC academic camp (if you look up her bio, she sits on an advisory boards of multiple GC think tanks) along with the infamous duo of Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey, who I'll get into in a second. Every study since on trans minors - except one carried out by, no surprise, Bailey - has refuted ROGD, either finding no evidence to support its conclusions or evidence directly refuting them.
If you look at the groups Littman is involved with - she chairs the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research, and sits on the advisory boards of Genspect and the Gender Dysphoria Alliance - two things become very clear. First off, they're a who's who of the academic end of the TERF/GC world, and second they're extremely incestuous. It's basically the same handful of people in slightly different combinations.
Genspect, among numerous anti-scentific and fringe views. opposes transition for any under their mid-20s (which directly influenced the failed Oklahoma law to ban gender-affirming care for anyone under 26) and falsely claims that there is no evidence (there's plenty of evidence) that social or medical transition decreases suicide risk for youth with gender dysphoria. It's very closely linked to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) - really they're the same group, both run by Stella O'Malley, with virtually identical advisory boards - which promotes the same ideas and is often cited not only in the press but also in legal despite not being accredited by any major medical body in the U.S. or UK, and has close ties to evangelical anti-LGBTQ+ activists like Julia Maxwell (look up Lovewise UK) and the truly odious and misleadingly named American College of Pedatricians (ACPeds), which is not only anti-trans, but strenuously anti-gay and anti-reproductive rights as well (again, just go to their website, it's all there), and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Another thing all of these groups support is gender conversion therapy. O'Malley is a member of Thoughtful Therapists, who also have links to evangelicals, and whose main issue is opposing conversion therapy bans that would stop them from doing "exploratory therapy" which in other words is basically trying to convince people to detransition.
The Gender Dysphoria Alliance's board includes multiple members of Genspect's board, and Ray Blanchard. Blanchard is a sexologist who came up with the widely discredited, and deeply offensive, theory that views all trans women thru a fetishistic lens as either "homosexual transsexuals" (attracted to men) or "autogynephiles" (sexually attracted to the idea of being women), and was the driving force behind its inclusion in the DSM-V. His theory is a foundational element of TERF/GC ideology, and has more recently spilled out into less specialized, more general anti-trans discourse. the GDA's website also cites work by J. Michael Baily, the foremost promoter of Blanchard's ideas, and problematic for many, many reasons (again, look him up). It also shares board members with Genspect, including multiple detransitioned folks.
The board of The Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria (these fucking names!) includes Littman, Bailey, and Stella O'Malley again, as well as Lisa Marchiano, a Jungian analyst associated with SEGM and another promoter of ROGD and detransitioning. I won't go over its policies bc they're more of the same. It is specifically associated with that Bailey study above that claims to support Littman's ROGD conclusions.
I could go on but you get the idea
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
To sum up the above
The beating heart of GC/TERF ideology is a tightly knit, deeply incestuous group of think tanks etc that promote the same handful of ideas - ROGD (i.e. "social contagion") as a driving force of gender dysphoria and transition, that people aren't cognitively mature until their mid-20s (and so shouldn't be able to receive gender-affirming care until that age), that social and/or medical transition does not lower suicide risks nor increase happiness, that detransition is common and as adjunct to that that many youth experiencing gender dysphoria will grow out of it, and so on. They are often allied to mostly American right-wing religious, often evangelical groups which are not only anti-trans but anti-LGBTQ+ more generally as well as anti-choice, two things which GCs nominally oppose (indeed all of their websites not only explicitly say they're pro-gay, but claim - another common GC line - that transitioning is de facto conversion therapy for gay people). These groups cherry-pick, distort, and/or create evidence to fit their ideology, then claim to be objective and evidence-based. Their ideas not recognized as scientific by any major medical organizations, and are based on a handful of largely discredited academics who also happen to be members of all of these groups. These ideas have filtered widely into anti-trans discourse and even more seriously, into American (and presumably British, tho idk as much there) lawmaking.
It's like the fossil fuel industry and climate change - creating a largely fake scientific debate with a handful of misleadingly named groups and using a handful of willing academics for credibility, funded by money from dubious sources
The beating heart of GC/TERF ideology is a tightly knit, deeply incestuous group of think tanks etc that promote the same handful of ideas - ROGD (i.e. "social contagion") as a driving force of gender dysphoria and transition, that people aren't cognitively mature until their mid-20s (and so shouldn't be able to receive gender-affirming care until that age), that social and/or medical transition does not lower suicide risks nor increase happiness, that detransition is common and as adjunct to that that many youth experiencing gender dysphoria will grow out of it, and so on. They are often allied to mostly American right-wing religious, often evangelical groups which are not only anti-trans but anti-LGBTQ+ more generally as well as anti-choice, two things which GCs nominally oppose (indeed all of their websites not only explicitly say they're pro-gay, but claim - another common GC line - that transitioning is de facto conversion therapy for gay people). These groups cherry-pick, distort, and/or create evidence to fit their ideology, then claim to be objective and evidence-based. Their ideas not recognized as scientific by any major medical organizations, and are based on a handful of largely discredited academics who also happen to be members of all of these groups. These ideas have filtered widely into anti-trans discourse and even more seriously, into American (and presumably British, tho idk as much there) lawmaking.
It's like the fossil fuel industry and climate change - creating a largely fake scientific debate with a handful of misleadingly named groups and using a handful of willing academics for credibility, funded by money from dubious sources