TERF Battles - How radical lesbian feminists created a transphobic culture in the U.S. and provided anti-trans fuel for Right-Wing fundamentalist hate groups
This is one of the primary reasons why I support anti-discrimination legislation. Without explicit laws declaring discrimination to be illegal, hate groups like this gain dominance and ruin thousands of people's lives. Legislation provides persecuted minorities with a legal means of defending themselves against these kind of groups.
Anyway, it's good to see that this group is finally losing traction after having such a dominating influence for so long. Hopefully the LGBT community will decide to start excluding THEM for a change.
Anyway, it's good to see that this group is finally losing traction after having such a dominating influence for so long. Hopefully the LGBT community will decide to start excluding THEM for a change.
You are making the Gulch almost too toxic to visit, Mapmysexuality...how about a respite?
Though this thread has been pretty exhausting to me, so I may take a break for a while (unless something big happens).
I've never heard of this group and what 'dominate influence' have they had? Why give them the time of day even..if they really exist.
Feminist: That’s bullshit! Anatomy is not destiny!
Who spends their time having this argument? And has anyone heard of the TERF 'movement'? It sounds made up to me, Maph.
Maybe I'm out of touch...if so.. good!
Just google the names of the people listed in the article. Heck, just google the word "terf." These people are very real, I assure you.
From the article:
---
Until Raymond’s NCHCT position paper, the federal government supported trans care as medically necessary. This meant that poor trans people could access psychological and medical care because public and private insurers had no official basis upon which to reject coverage for trans care. Raymond asserted that trans medical care was a new and unethical phenomenon, and that legislation should block trans medical care and instead institute a national program of reparative therapy.
It was only after the NCHCT pushed Raymond’s bigotry in 1980 that the government reversed course in 1981 and took up Raymond’s views and rhetoric. Raymond’s bigotry became the government’s stance. This official anti-trans policy soon spread to private insurers, and the American trans population soon found itself without access to medically necessary health care.
During a time when employment discrimination against trans people became legal due to an appeals court ruling that trans people were not covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Raymond helped dismantle the trans community’s ability to access trans health care through public and private insurance. Raymond ushered in the era in which trans people (many if not most of whom were unemployed) had to pay out-of-pocket or go without. In essence, Raymond helped ensure the future of a medical system that was unresponsive to the needs of the trans community at every turn.
[...]
In the past few years, TERFs have tried to make their anti-trans movement a bit more personal. TERFs have acted to out trans people to their employers and to intervene in legal name/gender changes and medical care. Moreover, they’ve shown that they’re willing to go after trans kids, too. Recently, Cathy Brennan, an attorney who heads a particularly hateful TERF group, outed a trans youth at school and even went so far as to work with the ex-gay group Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) in targeting a sixteen-year-old trans girl. Brennan’s group acted as PJI’s mouthpiece, joined them in misgendering her, and promoted PJI’s bullying. The girl was pushed to the brink of suicide and was placed on suicide watch.
GROUPS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. ONLY INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS.
And forcing others to embrace one's mental/emotional issues is not a right.
However, the fact remains that discrimination is an act which denies individual rights to members of particular groups.
And I'm not saying people should be forced to embrace anyone, merely that they should be forced to stop persecuting minorities. If you're attacking someone, and I tell you to stop, that doesn't mean I want you to embrace that person or like them, just that I want you to stop actively hurting them.
GROUPS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. PERIOD.
No conditionals. Only individuals have rights.
Discrimination is an act which attempts to discern superior quality, based upon whatever criteria matter to the individual required to discriminate.
It is not persecution to behave as if a nut is a nut. YOU are the one hurting people, by pretending they're healthy when they need help.
And no, simply making a decision is not the only definition of discrimination. That is one definition, yes, but it is not the only definition.
From dictionary.com:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
It seems to me, Hiraghm, like you're trying to say that only definition #3 is valid, and that definition #2 is not. Unfortunately, that's not how language works. Words can and do have multiple meanings, and all of the definitions are valid. In this case, the one I'm talking about is definition #2. But thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding about the English language.
In the case of the LGBT community (especially the trans* community), all that was really needed was anti-discrimination legislation.
As for the general population, I think a more effective solution would have been to try and figure out why healthcare costs are so horribly inflated in the U.S. (the price of healthcare is significantly lower in other countries), and see what can be done to bring those costs down. Instead, the Affordable Care Act essentially leaves healthcare costs where they are, and attempts to enable people to afford the higher cost by making it a legal requirement to have health insurance, and then increasing everyone's premiums so we all have to pay even more. Apparently the word "affordable" was meant ironically...
But anyway, to get back on topic, I would say that no, employers should not be able to make hiring or firing decisions on absolutely any criteria they want. There are (and should be) legal limitations. Unfortunately, those limitations rarely include protections for the LGBT community (unless of course ENDA passes in the House, but that's still up in the air).
The LGBT community is faced with discrimination in a unique way because their status as minorities might not be discovered until after they've been working at the company for a while, meaning that an employer can unknowingly hire an LGBT person thinking they're just a regular straight, cisgender person, and then fire them after they come out of the closet. That sort of thing can destroy people's lives, and it should not be legal.
Same thing goes for insurance companies.
Maph...we are never going to agree on this topic....passing laws (MORE laws) to take over the business choices of business owners and using FORCE is never okay. Let the free market decide the winners and losers.
Medical rates are a completely different topic, but it again stems from government requirements that require many man hours to comply with and raise costs for everyone. So...health savings accounts is where it should be...make people responsible for their own decisions and expenses and open up the topic of costs and necessities instead of other parties making decisions and deciding costs and what THEY deem necessary for individuals (NOT THEIR BUSINESS)... If a tranny can haggle a sex change op down to what THEY can afford then more power to 'em.
Deciding that your body is not what you really are is called psychosis. Not too long ago homosexuality was classed as a disease in that thick book of diagnostic medicine doctors use. Then the AMA (I think) bowed to political correctness
People involved in that movement don't want to be classed as being sick, BUT the simple truth is that two men or two women, or whatever combination you want to select cannot reproduce. ONLY male/female pairing will. Therefor, the solution is medical treatment for the disease OR live with the impairment.
And before anybody jumps on me saying I don't have a clue, remember that I live in a wheelchair. I could decide that living in this chair is a violation of my civil rights and that somebody HAS to pay whatever it costs to "fix" me into a cyborg that can walk. Stupid, oh yeah, but no more so than saying the things all these groups are saying.
There's apparently no way of 'correcting' homosexuality. That has been tried for centuries by religious organizations and psychologists. Many young kids ended up killing themselves thanks to the pressure for results... But you say it's curable? Could you please provide me your source for that claim?
As an objectivist gay man, I actually spent most of my life trying to 'convert' myself haha. It didn't work. I suppose it's practically impossible, in the same way you can't make a straight man feel sexual attraction for other men, no matter how much you try to prepare him for that. That's just denying reality, isn't it?
If gay people are really unable to change, then the natural rules for straight males do not apply to them. Our genes must have a different function in nature, I suppose, since we didn't go extinct after so long, and we're not exactly as rare as most genetic mutations. Who knows, maybe increasing the chances of our sibling's offspring of surviving by providing them with an extra layer of protection is actually our real purpose in nature? If that's the case, we're not deviants at all. We're excelling at that function, apparently.
Now, I may be wrong, as I'm not well-versed in this field, but isn't something considered a disease only if it brings distress to the person? Additionally, would you allow some sort of treatment to your own son if you found out he had homosexual tendencies? Is that something that you, as an objectivist, would do?
And now the last one: do you think that homosexuality and objectivism are actually irreconcilable? Can't a person be both without being rationally inconsistent?
-X-
Sorry for the amount of questions, sir. It's just that I never had the opportunity to ask another fellow objectivist what he thinks about this particular subject.
Take care.
Please read this article:
Intersexes in Humans: An Introductory Exploration, by Duane E. Jeffery:
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conten...
And I'm fully aware of the fact that homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness, but that was only because of the biased view that researches and scientists previously held on the subject prior to more modern studies which proved that sexual orientation was genetic and controlled by biology.
As for the transgender community, seeking medical treatment is exactly what they do when they transition.
Your comparison of gender transition being akin to a wheelchair user becoming a cyborg is rather silly. A better and more accurate analogy would be if there was some kind of medical procedure which could repair your spinal cord. If such a treatment existed, wouldn't you want to take advantage of it?
It's a choice to correct or not to correct a deviancy from the successful norm. Declaring that I have no option is not validation for demanding the service be provided. The comparison is valid.
As for the link you supplied, I really don't consider data from a position oriented lobby group as being untarnished in their point of view. Hardly a source that would stand up to pier review.
Apart from you personal obsession on this subject, from which I deduct you are involved personally at some level, I remain uninfluenced from my opinion that like sex pairing will not result in reproduction. Therefore I maintain it is deviancy, and curable - but I don't think I should be forced to pay for it.
Healthcare costs in the US started inflating with Medicare and Medicaid, now they're going even higher. Get the government and imbecilic bureaucrats out of the hospital room.
What destroys the lives is not an employer expecting a mentally healthy employee, but people with mental illness not seeking appropriate help.
Disabled people also qualify as minorities.
I suppose you'd also say that parents of gay kids who allow their children to freely express who they are are also engaging in child abuse?
This is truly a 'give-me-a-break moment.' Hair color and feet size are genetic conditions. I suppose you can dye your hair a different color, but that's not permanent or mutilating. Feet size surgical correction strikes me as mutilating, ie. Chinese feet binding.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/27...
But all of that reinforces my statement above that it is not a genetic condition. It is a pre-natal defect that affects many areas of normal human development. i still don't see any justification for medical mutilation.
Kind of reminds me of the reverse, of the deaf communities fight against hearing implants for deaf children.
Would it be child abuse to not let your child express his liberated spirit... by going to school nude? Would it be child abuse to not let your child express his inner self if that inner self was a mass-murderer?
Parents of children suffering from homosexuality are negligent if they don't attempt to get the child psychological help.
Homosexuality and transsexuality cannot be changed by psychotherapy. They are genetic conditions, controlled and predetermined by unchangeable biological factors. Talking to a counselor isn't going to change a person's biology, and quite often LGBT children are not provided with genuine, helpful therapy, but rather are subjected to inhumane techniques known as conversion therapy, which has actually been incredibly harmful to the children who are forced to endure it. So much so that several states are seriously considering outlawing conversion therapy entirely.
Now of course trans* kids and their parents should certainly seek the help of professional psychologists, but that help should be aimed at assisting the child in figuring out which way they want to go, and not trying to "fix" them or coerce them into taking any one particular path, and certainly not with the intention of forcing them to conform to some misguided and faulty notion that only heteronormative behavior is acceptable, because THAT would be the real child abuse.
Here, watch this:
http://katiecouric.com/videos/exclusive-...
Do you seriously not understand the effects of puberty blockers and cross gender sex hormones on the development, not only physically, but also within the brain of a teen ager and the selective expression of genes.? For someone criticizing someone else's understanding, you've got a little way to go yourself.
Please see this post:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/27...
>>"I'm well aware of the physical changes that these medications have on a person's body. The whole point of taking them in the first place is to induce such physical changes."<<
So you're saying it's OK to begin the physical and neuro-physical changes in the child at 10 or 12 until age 18 or so giving "plenty of time for the kids to work out(sic) who they want to be." Starting the changes in a 10 to 12 year old, chemically, before (s)he's had time to 'work out who they want to be' without informed consent (which a 10 to 12 year old can't possible give) sounds pretty abusive to me.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/d1...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/d3...
http://www.transadvocate.com/family-of-c...
Asking any true believer whether or not their pet deviance is "normal" will result in the same result.
I'm special, I am normal, because I've found people who think like me who say I'm normal.
Good grief. What a waste of electrons.
It's the hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which doesn't begin until around age 14 or so, that actually induces the changes. If the child hasn't grown out of the whole transgender thing by then, they're not ever going to, and prohibiting transition would be cruel.
And yes, I have watched the lesson. Why do you ask?
And that isn't chemical treatment affecting the normal physical and mental development?
>>"It's the hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which doesn't begin until around age 14 or so, that actually induces the changes. If the child hasn't grown out of the whole transgender thing by then, they're not ever going to, and prohibiting transition would be cruel."<<
It still begs the point, how do you justify the induced changes before the age of self determination of 18?
>>"And yes, I have watched the lesson. Why do you ask?"<<
Because you keep trying to go back to genetic causes. The only causes identified to date are errors in the sex hormone triggers pre-natal. Genetic conditions that last through out several generations implies inheritability. I don't buy that.
"Radical Right groups", in this context, is an oxymoron. The Right groups want things to remain as they have for thousands of years. Rightly or wrongly, that's not "radical", it's "reactionary".
Secondly, the quoted statement is right on the money. It is insane, and a violation of the Hippocratic oath in my opinion, to mutilate someone's body to match what his/her mind thinks, rather than helping him to get his mind right.
This is a total rejection of objectivism. As I understand it, Objectivism declares that there is a real, objective world, measurable and testable. Modifying the body to match the 'feelings' is contrary to this.
You can't have it both ways. You want to modify your body, go for it. But, don't require other people to accept your delusions. Be grateful that other people tolerate them.
And you clearly don't understand the scientific aspects of this issue. Every single medical association in the United States, Canada, and most of Europe disagrees with your stance. Transsexuality is absolutely based on biological factors which are scientifically measurable and testable. It not based purely on feelings.
Here's a quote from a professor of Human Sexual Behavior at Stanford University:
"Another region of the brain that shows a sex difference in its average size, don't even worry about the name of this, it's called the bed nucleus of the stria-terminalis. It's where the amygdala beings to send its projection into the hypothalamus. Another one of those gender differences, there's one type of neuron in there with a certain type of neurotransmitter, where very, very reliably it is about twice the size in males than in females. Sufficiently so that even in human brains you could very confidently determine the sex of somebody by seeing the number of these neurons. [...] It's just another one of those differences, a dimorphism in a region of the brain, a really, really reliable one. And this was a study done by some superb neuroanatomists looking at transsexuals. And what they showed was very interesting, which was very, very reliably, and a very powerful effect, what you would see in their large sample size of transsexuals' brains postmortem was people would have this part of the brain the size not of their sex they were born with, but rather of the sex they insisted they always actually were."
You can watch the video of the actual class here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jO...
Now the above video is an hour and forty minutes long, so I don't expect you to watch the entire thing, but you should at least watch the parts where he talks about homosexuality and transsexuality, which are at the following time-points in the video:
Homosexuality:
1:13:27 - 1:24:40
Transsexuality:
1:24:40 - 1:29:45
There's also a paper on the topic which you should read:
Intersexes in Humans: An Introductory Exploration, by Duane E. Jeffery:
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conten...
The real, objective, scientific evidence, which is measurable and testable, does not support your argument, Hiraghm. It refutes it.
You wouldn't say that it's a violation of a restaurant owner's property rights for a health inspector to come in and inspect the resauraunt, now would you?