The autonomous disembodied self
Leor Sapir wrote a few months ago:
That most children desist from cross-sex identification does not necessarily mean that they will no longer experience any distress associated with their bodies; rather, it means that even if such distress lingers, it will not prevent them from becoming reasonably well-adjusted and living a good life. The notion that no human should ever have to experience any discomfort associated with male or female embodiment, including during the turbulent period of puberty, is the utopian promise fueling much of the gender transition industry. There has been a growing movement among gender activists to frame puberty as something that the autonomous, disembodied, self should have a “right” to choose. “Neither puberty suppression nor allowing puberty to occur is a neutral act,” writes the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in the seventh version of its Standards of Care.
Mind-body dualism all over again. The soul reborn. “This body isn’t precious unique Moi, it’s a husk occupied by that magical spiritual being. It’s everyone’s right to shape their own husk until it fits the magical spiritual being better.”
It’s easy to see how this is fueled in part by the increasing amount of time we spend online. Young people growing up are so focused on their digital lives, they’re beginning to find their actual bodies frightening and alien. Or if not quite frightening and alien, at least inconvenient and wrong.
“Neither puberty suppression nor allowing puberty to occur is a neutral act” – a naked lie. One is medical intervention, the other is doing nothing.
“Neither [insert natural, autonomous bodily function or process] suppression nor allowing [insert same natural, autonomous bodily function or process] to occur is a neutral act”
This sounds like an argument a defense attorney might use for a client accused of causing death during “breath play.”
It’s such an interesting idea, isn’t it, that not medically intervening in puberty is a form of intervening in puberty.
Neither leg amputation nor allowing a leg to remain is a neutral act.
Neither beheading nor allowing a head to remain is a neutral act.
Bald is not a hair color. Atheism is not a religion. Non-intervention is not sn intervention.
What I take them to mean regarding the claim of “neutral act” is something like: a person has cancer. Treating the cancer (and dealing with the potentially horrible effects of the treatment), versus not treating the cancer (and dealing with the potentially horrible effects of the disease), is a decision that needs to be made. One must choose a path and face the consequences; neither path is neutral.
So they find it terrible to force someone, by withholding blockers, to go through normal puberty. Because puberty is a disease that ravages the body, so a conscious choice must be made to go through with it or not.
Of course this is bonkers, but I think it’s bonkers in a “puberty is a disease” sense, rather than “non-intervention is intervention” sense.
This is just another instance of a rhetorical ploy popular with trans activists: reversal.
Remember, up until three minutes ago, puberty suppression was being sold as neutral. We were told it was perfectly safe and entirely reversible. It simply gave a child “time to explore their gender identity” and decide whether to transition.
Then a bunch of pesky, terfy critics pointed out that none of the above was true. There are serious side effects. And–this is important–children put on puberty blockers almost invariably go on to cross-sex hormones, in stark contrast to those who aren’t.
Blockers serve to affirm a dysphoric child’s trans “identity.” And blockers prevent the maturing process that would likely lead to resolution of the dysphoria. The critics pointed out that puberty suppression is NOT a neutral act.
This poses a problem for those who wish to believe that being “trans” is an innate, non-pathological state of being. They must always and everywhere frame transness as perfectly normal and unremarkable. Neither can they admit the possibility that they’ve been causing iatrogenic harm.
So. Let ten year old Emily who identifies as Jayden choose. Choice is good! We’re just providing options. Neither option is neutral.
[…] yes. Artymorty was just talking about the growing up online aspect this […]