Oxfam has issued a stupid resentful blamey OFFICIAL STATEMENT that says it’s transphobia’s fault.

One: there are no LGBTQIA+ communities. Those are different, sometimes competing things, and they can’t all be mashed into “communities” together.

Two, define transphobia.

But three, we know how you’ll define it, because of that vicious caricature of JKR. You mean feminists defending the rights of women and continuing to know that men are men even if they call themselves trans. You’re saying you want to stop women being feminists and defending our ability to enjoy our rights. You want men who claim to be trans to have the ability and the “right” to cancel our rights in favor of their rights, or rather their pseudo-rights.

You say you made a mistake but fail to admit what the mistake was. It was that grotesque disgusting Der Stürmer-level cartoon of three monstrous people, one of whom was quite obviously Rowling. You’re the Julius Streicher of trans propaganda; I’m surprised you’re so minimalist about trying to walk that back.

As for “no intention to portray any particular person or people” – well that’s just an obvious lie, isn’t it. You just said this is about “transphobia” so the intention was certainly to portray people you consider “transphobic.” A sneery cartoon of some generic “Jewish people” doesn’t become Not Anti-Semitic because the cartoonist says they’re no one in particular (but especially not when at least one of the generic people is instantly recognizable).

It’s nice of you to support our right to hold our philosophical beliefs, but it doesn’t do us much good if you don’t support our right to utter them.

And in conclusion – never mind our “sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics” – what about our sex? Do you support our right to have our sex respected? Since you took great care not to say so, I’ll assume that you don’t.

Have regained the use of speech somewhat. May still be slightly truncated and explosive.

The oh so clever Indy headline writer calls feminist women terrible people.

The propagandist who created the image goes for the gut.

The Indy scribbler, Ian O’Dell, pours on the verbal acid.

“Gender critical” activists – some of whom proudly brand themselves a ‘terf’ (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in their Twitter bios – are now upset at the anti-poverty organisation Oxfam for an LGBT+ Pride advert painting ‘terfs’ as evil people.

Misogynist activists – some of whom purport to be journalists – have no qualms about displaying their own glaring throbbing misogyny.

[I]t was an illustration displayed as they spoke of “hate groups” which has caused Oxfam to be subject to a social media pile-on – an illustration which saw three people with red eyes and angry faces towering over six figures in the colours of the rainbow.

Red eyes and distorted twisted evil faces.

The central character, a white woman with short brown hair, is seen wearing an orange badge on her which says ‘terf’ – and those opposed to trans rights are saying the image “demonises” older women.

Notice what the “reporter” carefully doesn’t say – the “white woman with short brown hair” is JK Rowling.

The war on women drags on and on and on.

Speechless.

Oh come ON.

She actually says that – the damn fool in the clip.

“The misconception that lesbian means a woman who loves other women um and actually the definition is non-men who are attracted to and love other non-men.”

Is the definition of gay man non-non men who are attracted to and love other non-non men?

Second question: has it been officially ruled that the word “woman” is now 100% taboo?

“Throughout history there have always been gender-nonconforming lesbians? um and it’s interesting to see nowadays that there are folks who kind of try to gatekeep that identity? and only include folks who identify as women um and that’s not what being lesbian is all about, there are trans men who identified as lesbian for many many years and still feel comfurble in that communinny and that idenniny – there are non-binary folks of all kinds who identify as lesbians, there’s just, there’s like a zillion different ways to be a lesbian? ann if that word is comfurble for you then nobody can they can’t gatekeep it from you.”

Suddenly she mashes her hands together.

“I am non-binary transmasculine and I am a lesbian.”

The stupid the stupid the stupid. We’re drowning in it.

More hilarity.

…as in not not wot wot as in not not not not…

Actual gynecologist. And woman.

[Updating to say sorry, the tweet with the question to which the answer is yes was deleted by the tweeter. It was a pair of images of Dylan Mulvaney parodying girlyhood and the question “Is this a woman?”]

I have to wonder what part of her training as a gynecologist tells her Dylan Mulvaney is a woman.

Not fake? An inverted penis is not a fake vagina? Inverted penises are perfectly functional as vaginas? Really?

Replies (and now quote-tweets) are many, scathing, graphic, enraged, and hilarious.

The Public Discourse September 2020:

The American Journal of Psychiatry has issued a major correction to a recent study. The Bränström study reanalysis demonstrated that neither “gender-affirming hormone treatment” nor “gender-affirming surgery” reduced the need of transgender-identifying people for mental health services. Fad medicine is bad medicine, and gender-anxious people deserve better.

And that’s all the more true when the “medicine” isn’t medicine at all. The only purpose of “gender-affirming hormone treatment” and “gender-affirming surgery” is, well, to affirm gender, and affirming gender is a mental/emotional/psychological thing, not a medical thing. Gender-affirming hormones and surgeries don’t treat an illness or heal an injury, they attempt to make people feel less unhappy in their bodies. If people don’t even feel less unhappy in their bodies after the hormones or surgeries maybe stop doing them? Seeing as how the side effects are pretty major?

A major correction has been issued by the American Journal of Psychiatry. The authors and editors of an October 2019 study, titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,” have retracted its primary conclusion. Letters to the editor by twelve authors, including ourselves, led to a reanalysis of the data and a corrected conclusion stating that in fact the data showed no improvement after surgical treatment.

So…surgical or pharmacological mutilation with no improvement. Fabulous.

Our co-author Dr. Paul McHugh ended sex reassignment surgeries at John Hopkins Medical School when a study from his department revealed that the mental and social health of patients undergoing sex reassignment surgery did not improve. He adds here that this paper, and even the correction, misdirects clinical thought in many ways. Most crucially it presumes an unproblematic future for these subjects, despite evidence that the psychological state of many will, after surgery, worsen with time. Our experience at Hopkins, when we first recognized that the psychological well-being of patients undergoing surgery did not improve, rested on relatively short-term assessments. The long-term Swedish study of Dhejne demonstrated that the serious fallouts including suicide emerged only after ten years. None of this clinical experience is reflected in this paper or its correction.

Or the news media coverage of the subject or the sloganeering of the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women, Stonewall…

Thanks to guest for the link.

Depends on how you look at it.

State laws restricting transition care for minors have surged over the past few months, as part of a Republican movement to regulate the lives of transgender youth.

But is there even such a thing as “transition care”? Trans ideology wants us to think so, of course, but trans ideology isn’t the same thing as medical knowledge. In other words “transition” isn’t really “care” – it’s a drastic intervention that may or may not help the patient psychologically. It should be a last resort, not a swiftly and eagerly performed tampering with a patient’s sex.

And it’s tendentious to call regulation of these interventions “regulating the lives of transgender youth.” Restricting drastic (and still experimental) attempts to make people resemble the sex they’re not is not the same as regulating lives. If all this does turn out to be a social contagion and a big mistake, the people who didn’t try to change their sex will be the very very lucky ones.

In a little over two years, Republican-led state legislatures have enacted restrictions on a host of L.G.B.T.Q.-related issues, including gender-affirming medical care, bathroom access, and sports participation for transgender children and teenagers.

None of that has anything to do with LGB. It’s all T.

This year alone, 16 states have enacted bans or significant new restrictions on some or all gender-affirming care for minors, most ending the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers.

Shock horror, but what if it turns out that cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers are bad for people and should not be offered as “care”? What if there’s no such thing as gender-affirming care but only mutilation and hormone-experimentation? What if for once the Republicans have it right and the Democrats are horribly destructively wrong?

Legislators who support the restrictions have said they are seeking to protect children from irreversible decisions.

And that’s not automatically or obviously evil.

Lawmakers this year have also passed a series of laws prohibiting transgender students from using the restroom that matches their gender identity.

In other words a series of laws keeping boys out of girls’ restrooms. It’s not just obvious that the freedom of boys to go into girls’ toilets is something to cheer on.

The Times moves on to the sports issue, and continues to shrug off the obvious harms to female people.

Republicans have called this issue “a battle for the very survival of women’s sports,” pointing to a debate at the most elite level of sports as well as at high schools and colleges. Critics say that these rules affect very small numbers of students and that the bills keep transgender children and adolescents from joining social activities.

That’s a lie though. Children and adolescents can join social activities according to their sex instead of their Magic Gender. Brushing off the unfairness to girls as “very small numbers” is beneath contempt.