An image of apparently perfect
James Kirkup at the Spectator says it’s a difficult time to be a girl:
In 2019, the Lancet published research showing girls’ rates of self-harm had tripled since 2000. Other studies show girls are much more likely to be depressed or anxious than boys.
I would hate to be a girl in this climate. Porn, “sex work,” giant testosterone-filled “girls” taking all the good parts – no thank you.
On the surface things look pretty encouraging.
They’re more likely than boys to go to university. They have better economic prospects than any generation of females that went before them. Empowered female role models are more visible than ever before, in culture, sport, media, science, business, even politics.
Yet at the same time, girls are growing up in the digital age, where images of what women and girls can (or perhaps should, depending on your view) be are everywhere. From the earliest age, many of those images are strongly sex-based, assigning roles and characteristics to girls because they are girls. You can tell a story here that starts with pink unicorns for toddlers and ends with Instagram and YouTube influencers who can make millions selling an image of apparently perfect, glossy femininity.
Not to mention an image of apparently perfect glossy fucakbility.
Across western societies, the last decade or so has seen a sharp rise in the number of girls presenting with gender-related conditions, sometimes receiving treatment from gender clinics.
Or not so much treatment as “treatment” – interventions that can’t be fully reversed if the girl changes her mind a year or two down the road.
The use of such treatments is controversial and contested. As a result, NHS England in 2019 launched an independent review of those treatments for children and young people, a review later expanded to take in the services that deal with children and gender, mainly GIDS. That independent review is led by Hilary Cass, a retired consultant and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
An interim report came out this week.
To me, the truly disturbing message that emerges from the interim report is confirmation of just how little is known about the female-born children who are now most of the gender-clinic caseload, and about their treatment and its consequences.
And that is because most of the patchy evidence base on gender issues and treatment is based on people who were born male. And to state a fact that shouldn’t need to be stated, male humans and female humans are different, physically and developmentally. The interim report notes:
Much of the existing literature about natural history and treatment outcomes for gender dysphoria in childhood is based on a case-mix of predominantly birth-registered males presenting in early childhood. There is much less data on the more recent case-mix of predominantly birth-registered females presenting in early teens, particularly in relation to treatment and outcomes.
What could go wrong?
This might be of interest to others here. I first heard of Holly Lawford-Smith back before she was banned on Twitter for no good reason, and I found her to be worth reading. She has a book out now that I just ordered and here’s where you can find out more about that:
https://hollylawford-smith.org
I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to be a girl in today’s society, even just in the USA. Which is not to say that I haven’t tried, and it’s a useful exercise to attempt: I just go about my day with an eye towards what I see and hear and imagine what sorts of messages young women might be getting from them, and the concomitant social pressures. The first few times I attempted that–trying to be constantly conscious of the billboards and radio advertisements and product packaging, etc., around me–it was utterly depressing.
I’ve just got back from the supermarket. While I was there something struck my eye. ‘His and hers gift cards – because when you can’t be bothered to impose your taste on others you can still do your duty and impose gender. After all what sort of monster want’s to make the marketer’s jobs harder than they are.
Yes, think of the marketers while you stick it to the man.
I was watching “Robin Hood, Men in Tights. ” One scene that was spoofed was from “The Godfather.” It was the speech by Luca Brasi on Connie’s wedding day, hoping that his first grandchild be male. The value of males over females is so deeply embedded that it has always been hard to be a girl. Very few societies allow them to be inheritors, more often they are traded like animals for a dowery.
Now they are given the false message that empowerment includes being sexy and that’s where their value is. Boss by day, temptress by night!
The message that Coppola intended to convey was that Brasi was afraid of the Don. The message that came through is that girls don’t matter.
Unless they are getting empowered by their Only Fans, of course.