Change Your World-NOT your Body

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

More on the Transgender Kids Front

A young girl changes clothes and pronouns and whoosh she is suddenly a "boy" or "living as a boy". I could don bark and leaves and bury my feet in the earth but believe me you, I would still be living as a biological female, not a bloody tree!

These "trans kids" stories really hit home just how severe the Gender Straight Jacket determines the trans label. It becomes crystal clear that were there just clothes or toys or sports or music or movie or books etc that trans would disappear altogether.


dirt
Share:

20 comments:

  1. Stories of ftMs always break my heart. The fact that these GIRLS and WOMEN hate their female bodies and the societal roles it bounds them to (at least, under hetero-patriarchy) that they'd desire to shed themselves of any kind of female identity - especially to the point of body mutilation - saddens me. FUCK gender.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm pretty sure there is a large difference between switching your body to the gender that your mind is and becoming a bloody tree........yet another example of how people use exaggeration when they have nothing better to say like, oh idk, actual facts......

    Also...
    @Melete
    Love how you are all "women should be proud of being female" and then say fuck gender.....#makeupyourmindwoman

    ReplyDelete
  3. to above poster at 9:38,
    'woman/female' is a biological sex, not a mind-generated 'gender.'

    ReplyDelete
  4. The tree thing would be hilarious. I'm picturing the tree person darting off as they see a logger.

    There are pagans who believe they're Hamadryads- tree spirits.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The tree thing would be hilarious. I'm picturing the tree person darting off as they see a logger.

    Human beings Homo sapiens can no more change their actual sex than they can change their species. If a person is born a biological male, this what they are, and if a human is born female, this is what they are. Humans like all primates reproduce sexually. "Transitioning" or sex reassignment surgery amounts to extensive plastic surgery on healthy breasts and genitals and years of cross gender hormones. It doesn't change the genetics.

    Please don't tell me about intersex or disorders of sexual development because we have thoroughly covered this subject before. The vast majority of transgender identified individuals are either biological male or biological female without an actual medical intersex medical condition. It's essentially all in their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm pretty sure there is a large difference between switching your body to the gender that your mind is and becoming a bloody tree.

    No, I can't see a large difference. It's all a matter of perspective. How does this take into account people who de-transition, or go back to what they were before their mind convinced them that they were "born in the wrong body". How can a biological male say that he, "feels like a woman inside" when he has never been a female?

    There are people who actually think they are Napolean, or any number of dead historical figures. Also, some people actually believe that they are being told to do things because of dead spirits, or they think they are an animal. The mind can conjure up all sorts of fanciful notions. It doesn't make any of it true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Love how you are all "women should be proud of being female" and then say fuck gender.....#makeupyourmindwoman

    It's not that complicated. Female is an actual reality. Adult females are called women. Not everyone believes in the trans fantasy land in which men can simply call themselves women. THIS IS BEING FORCED ON WOMEN, AND MOST OF US DON'T BELIEVE IT.

    ReplyDelete
  8. to above poster at 9:38,
    'woman/female' is a biological sex, not a mind-generated 'gender.'


    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  9. to above poster at 9:38,
    'woman/female' is a biological sex, not a mind-generated 'gender.'


    If female didn't exist, this individual wouldn't have been born. Or, was he or she cloned, or found in a cabbage patch? No, the stork brought him or her, or was it just special magic?


    ReplyDelete
  10. Below is an excellent, scholarly paper entitled, "The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics" which draws comparisons between earlier eugenic movements and today's present transgendering of children.

    Women's Studies International Forum
    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    Jeffreys

    Connections between transgenderism and eugenics practice

    "There is a burgeoning literature on eugenics campaigns and practices from social historians and historians of science, which provides evidence of ideas and practices which are echoed in the contemporary practice of transgenderism. This literature describes how the eugenics movement developed in the US (Largent, 2008 and Reilly, 1991) and in Europe (Lucassen, 2010) and became centred on the practice of sterilization. Some point out that this practice, though it was mostly brought to an end in the 1970s, lingers on, particularly in relation to teenage girls who are considered at risk of pregnancy because they are vulnerable to sexual predation (Largent, 2008). This literature makes few connections with the contemporary practice of transgendering children despite the fact that this, like the sterilization of the unfit, is carried out by sexual scientists for the purpose of social engineering.

    The ideological foundations of eugenics emerged from the work of Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin (Largent, 2008). They were adopted and promoted by biologists, sexologists and psychiatrists who were politically leftwing such as J.B.S. Haldane and Henry Havelock Ellis in the UK, and Auguste Forel in Switzerland (Lucassen, 2010). It is relevant that all of these men saw themselves as socialists, because in the twenty-first century the practice of transgendering men, women and children, has been adopted as an issue of positive human rights by progressive people such as the Left theorist Judith Butler, rather than as a practice that violates rights (Butler, 2004). The Left of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was generally supportive of eugenic ideas, as exemplified by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, of the Fabian society in the UK (Lucassen, 2010). In Sweden social engineering through the sterilization of the unfit was adopted enthusiastically by the Myrdals, sociologists associated with the founding of the Swedish welfare state. Legislation to enable the sterilization of the unfit was adopted in Sweden in the 1920s and from then until the 1970s, 63,000 persons were sterilized, ninety percent of them women. Eugenics was adopted on the Left as a way to create a better “race”, meaning, at that time, “nation”."

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics"

    Women's Studies International Forum
    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    "Importantly, eugenicist ideas, including sterilization of the unfit, were adopted by many feminists before the Second World War. The US birth control campaigner Margaret Sanger was one of them. In 1932 she sought to explain how eugenics could lead to an end to war, through preventing overpopulation, particularly of the unfit, that she considered an important cause (Sanger, 1932). These measures included immigration policies to prevent entry of the unfit, segregation of the unfit so that they could not reproduce, and sterilization. Immigration controls, she said, should keep out, “feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others” and a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation” should be applied to those who might have “tainted progeny”. People should, she considered, be given the choice of segregation or sterilization. The British birth control campaigner, Marie Stopes, too was inspired by eugenicist ideas and concerned to limit the breeding of persons who were not of sufficient “quality”. She opined in a BBC interview as late as 1957 “We are breeding rubbish” (quoted in Garrett, 2007, p. xlii). The extent to which feminists embraced eugenics before the Second World War in the UK is a topic of controversy amongst historians. There is general agreement that feminists tended to include eugenic language in their theory and practice in order to make themselves more persuasive and easily understood, but their degree of commitment is another matter (Bland, 1995 and Makepeace, 2009). However, the absence of criticism, or active support, of the practice of transgendering adults and children, by those who see themselves as progressive or even feminist in the present, should not surprise, as there is a history of such support for similar projects in the earlier period.

    Sexual surgeries

    Eugenics practice was centred on the performance of sexual surgeries on those considered unfit, and the practice of sterilization of the unfit in the USA illustrates the scope and acceptability of the practice. Two-thirds of the states in the USA passed compulsory sterilization laws between 1907 and 1937 (Largent, 2008, p. 65). Sterilization was not just carried out for eugenic purposes, i.e. to prevent reproduction of defective children, but to punish and for therapeutic purposes such as changing unacceptable behavior. The sexual surgeries carried out on those considered unfit included complete castration, with removal of the testes, as well as the less invasive practice of sterilization through vasectomy. Largent explains that, in the US, amputation of the testes and scrotum was used from the late nineteenth century up to the 1930s to “treat, punish or control hundreds of rapists, child molesters, and men who engaged in activities associated with homosexuality” (Largent, 2008, p. 5). He calls this practice “mutilation”, and it was mostly practiced on men who were in mental hospitals and prisons. He explains that the reasons given changed over time, going from “punitive and eugenic” to “therapeutic and prophylactic” over four decades. The psychiatrists involved in sexual surgeries regularly used them as a “cure” for women's unacceptable behavior. G. Alder Blumer in the US at the end of the nineteenth century recommended “gynaecologic surgery” for women patients (Dowbiggin, 1997, p. 89). He considered that “insanity was a genital reflex”, an idea that was widespread from 1850 to 1900 and led to the removal of women's wombs and ovaries. In particular he recommended such surgery for women who were loud and vulgar in their language."

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics"

    Women's Studies International Forum
    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    "One significant connection between the heyday of eugenics and the transgendering of children today is that lesbians and gay men form a constituency that is targeted by both practices. The grim details of the control and punishment of lesbians and gay men by the scientists of sex throughout most of the twentieth century was laid out in the earliest, gay liberation-inspired, history of lesbians and gay men in the US, Jonathan Katz's Gay American History (1976). This history is important because the carrying out of sexual surgeries on lesbians and gay men is common to both the early period and to the transgenderism of the present. Katz writes that, “Lesbians and Gay men have long been subjected to a varied, often horrifying list of ‘cures’ at the hands of psychiatric-psychological professionals, treatments usually aimed at asexualization or heterosexual reorientation" (Katz, 1976, p. 197). These treatments, which went on well into the second half of the twentieth century, included surgeries such as castration, hysterectomy, and vasectomy. Women were subjected in the nineteenth century to surgical removal of the ovaries and of the clitoris, a treatment designed as a “cure” for various forms of what was called female “erotomania”, and included lesbianism. Lobotomy was performed as late as the 1950s. A range of drug therapies were also used such as the administration of hormones, LSD, sexual stimulants, and sexual depressants, alongside other treatments such as hypnosis and electric and chemical shock treatment, and aversion therapy (Katz, 1976, p.197). Katz comments that the homosexual victims of sexual surgeries were sometimes “acquiescent”, and sought out treatment, as those requesting to be transgendered do today. Indeed involuntariness is by no means a necessary element in eugenics practices generally. Katz explains that the case histories he examined in his research showed, “Numbers of these histories concern guilt-ridden, self-hating homosexuals, who have so internalized society's condemnation that they seek out cruel forms of treatment as punishment; they play what can only be termed a masochistic game, in which the doctor is assigned, and accepts, a truly sadistic (as well as remunerative) role” (Katz, 1976, p. 200). Katz does not include the transgendering of homosexual men and lesbians within these abusive medical treatments, but Bernice Hausman, in her feminist critique of transgenderism, does (Hausman, 1995). Hausman argues that the treatment of intersexuality and transsexuality in the mid twentieth century was motivated by a large extent by the desire to reduce the possibility of homosexuality and to create heterosexual citizens. She points out the first example of sex change surgery to be highlighted in the media in the US, that of Christine Jorgensen in 1951, concerned a man who described himself to his doctors as either homosexual or a woman, and was persuaded by them that he suffered from a condition that pervaded every cell of his body, that of being a woman (Hausman, 1995). The Jorgensen case led to a surge of interest in changing sex in those who, as Hausman puts it, were thus encouraged to see themselves as patients."

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics"

    Women's Studies International Forum
    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    "Despite the similarity between the control of homosexuality in eugenics practice and in transgenderism, this is seldom discussed in the social science literature today. The fact that many of the men and most of the women who seek to transition are homosexual before treatment is, nonetheless, an open secret. Though males seeking to be transgendered may be attracted to women or other men, it is recognized that the women are generally lesbians before they are diagnosed as “transgender”, “Virtually all females with Gender Identity Disorder will receive the same specifier-Sexually Attracted to Female- although there are exceptional cases involving females who are sexually Attracted to Males” (Mental Health Today, n.d.). Professionals involved in treating Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood are aware that three quarters of the boys referred for diagnosis by their parents will be homosexual or bisexual when they reach adulthood (Mental Health Today, n.d.).

    The lawyer and transgender rights activist, Shannon Minter, has provided a compilation of quotations from sexologists and those involved in the creation and implementation of the diagnosis of gender identity, that is designed to make evident their desire to prevent the development of homosexuality (Minter, 1999). Minter argues that, “If GID in children was not strongly associated with homosexuality in adulthood”, it is unlikely that cross-gender behaviors in children “would have been designated psychiatric disorders or become the focus of an entire clinical field devoted to … ‘correcting’ cross-gender behaviors” (Minter, 1999, p. 27). Surprisingly, however, there has been little concern expressed by lesbian and gay activists about the way in which the practice of transgenderism is harmful to members of this community. The gay anthropologist, David Valentine, argues that this lack of criticism of transgenderism on the part of gay men stems from their desire to expel effeminate gay men from the category of homosexuality in order to shore up their image as conforming with malestream masculinity (Valentine, 2007)."

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics"

    Women's Studies International Forum
    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    "The interest of eugenicists in the control and punishment of homosexuality was a part of their interest in the creation of properly gendered and sexed families and children, an aspect of the movement which relates clearly to the transgendering of children that takes place today. The historian of the US eugenics movement, Alexandra Stern, explains how the eugenics movement shifted focus after the Second World War to concentrate on making families conform to its idea of appropriate gender roles (Stern, 2005). Stern explains that in the 1950s there was less enthusiasm for the more familiar practices of eugenics which were stigmatized by association with Nazism, such as sterilization, though, as she says, these by no means came to an end, and the laws stayed on the books. Instead eugenicists gravitated towards what was called “positive” eugenics, concentrating on population control and “often began to locate the marrow of human differentiation not in racial distinctions… but in sex and gender”, such that, ‘the racism of the 1920s was rearticulated into the sexism of the 1950s’ (Stern, 2005, p. 154). The American Institute of Family Relations (AIFR), which was a main motor of eugenic population policy in the 1950s, and its director, Paul Popenoe, promoted a “family-centric eugenics that demanded sex and gender uniformity” and promoted the idea that the male/female distinction was the greatest that could exist between two human beings and was based on evolution, nature and genetics (Stern, 2005, p. 155). When clients were assessed for counseling by the AIFR, the first step was “gauging the degree to which their gender identity and comportment corresponded to their anatomical sex” (Stern, 2005, p. 167). They were then treated on the basis of ideas emanating at that time from “psychiatry, psychometrics, endocrinology and sex research” (Stern, 2005, p. 180). This form of eugenics practice is exemplified in the way in which sexologists in this period developed ideas of “gender” and “gender identity” and used them in their approach to children they identified as intersex and in their treatment of transgenderism, a practice which continues today (Hausman, 1995 and Meyerowitz, 2002). The avoidance of homosexuality and the construction of robustly heterosexual, and gendered, families, children and adults motivated the sexologists of the period.

    The continuation of this branch of eugenics throws into question the extent to which the eugenics movement has gone into desuetude. Though the acceptability of sterilizing some constituencies of the “unfit” has lessened, sterilization and sexual surgeries on children identified as transgender is an increasing trend, as this article seeks to show. Largent (2008) identifies what he sees as the final death of the American eugenics movement as taking place in the 1980s. It took decades from the 1930s onwards, he explains, to bring it to an end. Opposition to sterilization of the unfit came from civil rights organizations, and movements “focusing on race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and physical and mental disabilities” as well as those advocating for the rights of prisoners and mental health patients (Largent, 2008, p. 140). However, the practice of sterilizing children with intellectual disabilities continues in many countries, including the US. Researchers in Australia found that between 1992 and 1997 there were around 200 sterilisations of young girls performed in Australian hospitals every year (Brady & Grover, 1997). The practice is strongly opposed by disability rights' groups such as Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA, 2007)."

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics"

    Women's Studies International Forum
    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    "A groundswell of human rights activism against coerced sterilization of women as a violation of women's reproductive rights, is now developing which uses concepts which could also be applied to the sterilization of children identified as transgender. The Centre for Reproductive Rights in New York, for instance, considers that coerced sterilization, that is without full and unpressured consent, should be considered “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment” (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2010). They argue that, “Experts recognize that the permanent deprivation of one's reproductive capacity without informed consent generally results in psychological trauma, including depression and grief” (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2010, p. 20). The Centre points out that the Human Rights Council has stated that coercive sterilization violates the right to be free from “torture and CIDT (cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment), as provided for under the ICCPR” (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2010, p. 20). Coercive sterilization is recognized by the committee which oversees the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Centre states, as infringing the “rights to human dignity and physical and mental integrity” (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2010, p. 20). In relation to children who are transgendered, the question arises of the extent to which they can be seen as uncoerced, considering that their parents, the medical profession, and the courts, are advocating this treatment for them, and they are told that it will alleviate their mental distress."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stories of ftMs always break my heart. The fact that these GIRLS and WOMEN hate their female bodies and the societal roles it bounds them to (at least, under hetero-patriarchy) that they'd desire to shed themselves of any kind of female identity - especially to the point of body mutilation - saddens me. FUCK gender.

    This video is extremely sad for several reasons. It's also rather disturbing to me because it makes it sound as if what is actually happening to children is portrayed as progressive. There is nothing progressive at all about the mutilation of healthy female bodies. Indeed, it's been going on for thousands of years. If she isn't sterilized with a regimen of puberty suppressing drugs followed by testosterone, then she probably will be either binding her breasts, or getting "top surgery" as she gets older. Do people know what "top surgery" entails? I know it might offend people to call this young woman she instead of "he", but not everyone rejoices in the erasing of female identity, or the eugenics of children who don't fit neatly into sex based gender roles. It's much easier to identity as a boy and drop the female identity altogether than be a girl who rejects traditional sex roles. This is supposed to be trendy, and even revolutionary, but it's nothing but warmed over sexism.

    This is a child who was born female. I wonder if this young person knows that she will never fully be male. I hope she isn't put on puberty suppressing drugs, or starts talking about "T" (testosterone) at age 16.



    ReplyDelete
  17. First of all, I wish the young person known as Wren all the best. I don't quite feel comfortable discussing this because this is only an eleven year old child, but if this young person has the blessings of the parents to act as some sort of poster child for transgender, I believe I'm entitled to make some comments and general observations.

    In the video, it says that Wren said she was a boy at age two. I'm having difficulty buying into this idea that this girl knew she was a boy at age two.

    Completely absent from this whole discussion are ways in which parental attitudes and culture shape what this young person thinks and does. I've always argued that at this age it's impossible to separate what is implanted by the parents and hundreds of trans websites, etc. from the actual gender dysphoria or belief that she is really a boy.

    People are already calling this child born female "he" and "him". Actually, five year old girls are already being called "he". There was a Washington Post video of a five year old transgender child, and if we go to Trans Kids Purple Rainbow, other parents have already decided that their female children are "he" as well. Do parents get to decide if their female child is really a "he" or "him"? Is this a good idea in general, and are there ethical implications involved? No one is supposed to ask because everyone is so wrapped up in the illusion. What happens if the parents really wanted a boy instead of a girl? Or, isn't it possible that the parents simply feel incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of having a girl who doesn't fit neatly into what society says is feminine, and therefore we have a way to remedy or fix the child? It strikes me as strange and rather disturbing that despite the fact that this is an eleven year old child that no one thought to question the parent's motives or influence from cultural factors (everything people see and read online about transgender, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Disturbing. So there will be no more tomboy girls then? I was a hardcore tomboy, I never fit in, I hated my femaleness because it held me back from the fun things boys did. Yes, I was made fun of. I refused dresses and skirts and girly things, but neither did I want to be one of the boys especially in school because so many of them were bullies.

    Outside of school, I played mostly with other boys, and they constantly wanted me to 'prove' I was male like them. So I often did at the end of my fists. I refused to reveal my body parts, the way they so easily did to 'prove' their maleness.

    So, everyone in school is going to conform to the 'girl' role or the 'boy' role, and you won't have sensitive nonmasculine boys or hardcore tomboy girls like myself anymore who DEFY these very roles.

    Having a boy who is identifying as a girl with a penis in a girls' bathroom would be frightening to many of the girls. And I worry about this girl who is identifying as a boy in boys' bathrooms, and her sexual safety. It may not be a problem at her age now, but certainly would be once kids start sexually maturing in junior high/high school and she could be subject to sexual assault for not having conforming body parts to the outer identity.

    I'm all for boys/girls/ AND gender neutral bathrooms, so kids and adults can feel comfortable and be safe in the bathroom that best suits them.

    The pressure to conform is enormous. Whether it's 'transkid' conforming to the OPPOSITE sex role, or a regular kid. But it invisibilizes and continues the sexism of the roles in the first place by eliminating the kids that don't want to transify, or don't want to conform: boys with long hair and more 'girly' interests or who like colors and bling, and girls like myself who like boys' things, boys clothes, but never had the hardness in emotion or personality boys are expected to have. I never wanted the penis, only the privilege boys were allowed, and not to be limited to the domestic sphere like most of the girls gameplaying imitates.

    This doesn't really free anyone to further be themselves. IT just puts them in another straitjacket.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I do wonder about the motives of the parents too - seems to me they are not loving the child they have got so much as the (actually non-existent) child they would have preferred.

    It's not a rare phenomenon, specially if a child is non-conforming (you hear it a lot from parents of non-neurotypical kids).

    I am the second child of four and the only girl, but my mother was perfectly clear that it would have been better - OBVIOUSLY, objectively better, and I was perverse not to agree - to have had four sons.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In the video, the teacher says that Wren uses the boy's washroom, and when they took a camping trip, she stayed with the boys. What are they doing to do when she starts puberty? I can't imagine any 15 or 16 year old girl using the same restroom with teenage boys. Also, what do they do when they go out in public or travel? What kind of mother would let her 14 or 15 teenage daughter use the same men's restroom as a 40 year old male? This is exceedingly creepy not to mention unsafe.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © The dirt from Dirt | Powered by Blogger
Design by SimpleWpThemes | Blogger Theme by NewBloggerThemes.com | Distributed By Blogger Templates20