14

9 comments

[–] crodish [OP] 11 points Edited

Tweet Archive: https://archive.ph/VIqrX

1) the government said it would PAUSE the conversion therapy ban on Trans people because conversion therapy for sexual orientation and conversion therapy for gender identity need to be recognized and treated as separate issues, which they are
2) if explorative talk therapy is "torture", that explains a lot about why so many of you still have issues
3) there are separate laws that would deal with people who end up "dead" and pausing the conversion therapy ban isn't one of them

So fucking dramatic.

No source on "morally mandate trans people out of existence" ever being said. Twisting words, as usual.

Edit: even the un-updated government page (from 9 Dec 2021) for conversion therapy says this: https://archive.ph/fcu7G

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy#banning-acts-of-conversion-therapy

I want to reassure those who may have concerns about the impact of this ban on clinicians’ independence as well as on freedom of speech. People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals. It is also vitally important that no person is forced or coerced into conversion therapy, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. This is especially the case for those who are under 18 and where this might result in an irreversible decision. These proposals therefore do not alter the existing clinical regulatory framework or the independence of regulated clinicians working within their professional obligations.

The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone.

Even back then they were able to see how the mob cries of "transphobia!" were impacting the way clinicians and people were able to speak up. The affirmation-only model is already in direct violation of this, since it literally "encourage[s people] towards one particular path". The LGB never needed medicalization and surgery to be themselves, and offering them such WAS conversion therapy.

We can define sexual orientation as being only opposite sex, only same sex, or both sex attraction. But TRA can't even define what "transgender" means. How are we supposed to stop "not being transgender to being transgender" if we can't even define what that is?! It could be anywhere from a boy who always played with dolls to a girl who hated pink. A man who suddenly decides wanting to be transgender would absolve all of his previous criminal records, or a move to a female prison. Or just "feel transgender". There's a 1001 reasons to "being transgender" ever since they took it off the DSM5.

It is this reason that they said okay to banning conversion therapy on sexual orientation (because it's clearly defined), but not to gender identity (which isn't). It's so fucking simple that even an outsider like me understands it, and yet all these people constantly churn and froth the waters into a oppression frenzy and scream and wail about things that aren't even fucking mentioned or happening, just like the Don't Say Gay Bill, or the "trans murder/suicide epidemic".

The UK alone had 0 trans murders last year. Women continue to be killed daily on the sole basis of their sex around the world.

Jesus christ.

No source on "morally mandate trans people out of existence" ever being said. Twisting words, as usual.

I believe the source for this mangled quote was Janice Raymond. It's from The Transsexual Empire and was meant in the sense of not playing along with the assertion that someone can be or become the opposite sex by playing the opposite sex-role (gender) but instead mandating away (abolishing) gender. She explicitly does not even want to outlaw transition surgeries, but instead wants to get rid of the conditions that lead to people wanting them, specifically the existence of "sex-role stereotyping" aka gender. They'd know this if they read the rest of the paragraph. No one wants to harm or kill trans-identified people, we just don't think gender should be a thing, and getting rid of it would, as something of a side-effect, get rid of gender identity and thus transgender identity as well. By "mandating it out of existence" (the full original quote, "I contend that the problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence" shows that she does not mean mandating any person out of existence, but instead the ideology) she meant allowing people to be unconventional men/women, normalising this and eventually getting rid of gender entirely, instead of "letting" them assume the opposite sex-role or pretending they're the opposite sex.

No idea what that has to do with this lunch, though.

[–] crodish [OP] 1 points Edited

Ah, thanks for that. I genuinely had no idea. Googled a bit and found this tAkEdOwN which included the phrase in question: https://archive.ph/DVU8R#selection-1341.95-1341.103

The gist of it is TRA apparently blame all TERFs for this phrase, which I've literally not heard of until your comment. I think the implication must have been that all the women in that lunch defer to a book called The Transsexual Empire as their bible lmfao. Like all other people can't see what is wrong with the movement unless they've read this book.

Thank you for the details! The language they use, “excluding trans from a bill on torture”, is very reactionary, victimizing, and I think it purposefully preys on people who try to be sympathetic to the TRA cause. I don’t follow UK news so I read the word torture and was real confused for a moment. But it’s just a pause on a conversion therapy ban? Geez. I love your comments, I wish I had a little crodish to break everything down for me! lol

Aww, thanks! I ramble too much lol

But yeah it was in response to this news from a few weeks back. Another case of the T piggybacking off the LGB even when they have completely separate goals.

Conversion therapy: Ban to go ahead but not cover trans people
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60947028
https://archive.ph/RZxz2

It needs to be said over and over again: Transition is conversion therapy. Make your gay son a straight daughter and your lesbian daughter a straight son.

Image Transcription: Twitter


Max Morgan, @Spill...

JK Rowling: "I love trans people. If your rights are ever under attack, I will march with you."

UK Gov: "We're gonna exclude trans people from a ban on torture."

JK Rowling: "Oh, sorry, I would march, but I'm hosting a little lunch for some people who want you dead lol."

[Photograph of JK Rowling's ladies' lunch.]

Max Morgan, @Spille...

Quick note to the honking dickheads telling me I'm being 'dramatic':

Various attendees have written books or signed declarations stating their desire to 'morally mandate trans people out of existence' (or similar)

Not sure how you think they intend to accomplish this? Hugs?

TRAs: Die in a fire! [death threats, rape threats, more death threats, girldick], terf!

Also TRAs: Why won't you defend us??