Thanks to everyone who has been commenting. I've been taking it all in and mulling it. Here's my thought on a reality-based term for "gender-affirming care":
Criteria: Needs to be "sex" not "gender and also not "sex-change"; cannot be "care", needs to be value-neutral (When our terms are descriptive and value-neutral, people whose ears aren't 100% jammed shut can receive them better. Obviously we have value-laden feelings about the subject, which we convey in the context of a larger statement, not ny the term itself.)
This phrase does not include psychological treatments, which could be part of "gender-affirming care". Which begs the question of whether the new Act intends to include bannign coverage of therapy relating to gender dysphoria??
"If you know of a reality-based phrase for 'gender-affirming care', or if there are other muddled/confused words and phrases that really get your goat, please share in the comments."
Well, I refuse to use the term "gender-affirming care" because it's mutilation.
So that's the word I use.
I also refuse to use "trans-identifying." If it's a man, I say man; if it's a woman, I say woman. These sad, deluded people can "identify" however they like. They're still either male or female.
Yes, it made me uncomfortable to use the phrase, even with quotations.
I hear you on the mutilation term... I just am holding out for a term that can be more neutral, especially for referring to procedures adults elect to have, so that it doesn't make normies immediately close off their ears,
I like "trans-identifying" because it is descriptive of the fact that the person believes themselves to be not their own sex. I think the term implies there is a delusion to it -- they identify that way, but that doesn't make it so.
I'm not really a fan of term. I think that people can be "non-conforming" in whichever way they like -- George Sand dressed "like a man", and people in general dress androgynously all the time and always have.
I think it's human nature to establish and represent social norms of femininity and masculinity, but that doesn't mean everyone has to abide by them.
I do, however, roll my eyes at men who are clearly men and dress in women's clothes (unless they're doing a drag performance), such as Eddie Izzard, who looks just plain ridiculous in his lipstick and eye makeup and dresses. Apparently he thinks he has a "gendered" soul, but I think he's just indulging a fetish.
Kudos for all this and Cody Taymore's writing on the sympathetic nervous system's "fawn" response variation. I'm convinced this is what holds a lot of women hostage as "gender allies" (and cruelly manipulates family- and partners-of) -- and once PDs get a whiff of it they'll smash that button at every opportunity. Partner it with femsoc and it's a potent mechanism of coercive control.
Oh, that's totally a thing. I read Jo Freeman's classic piece on trashing a good while ago, it's very real. And awful.
It wouldn't be a very clean divide (nothing's that simple and there's always overlap), but if we put two columns on a piece of paper, one labeled "fawning" and the other labeled "trashing," and sorted out some classic TRA activity by women, I'd predict something like this:
Fawning -- otherwise mentally healthy women enmeshed in a toxic dynamic or subject to coercive control (unwilling parents and family-of, younger women captured by the pressures of their school or social networks, women under pressure from HR or corporate culture)
Trashing -- women with a fair amount of personality disordered issues of their own who exploit opportunity as "allies" at the expense of others (especially other women), manipulative parents and family-of who are the primary exploiters or attention-benefactors of "transing" (Munch-by-proxy), and sometimes (sadly) women so in thrall to, for instance, academic departments and traditions of philosophical discourse that they adopt "allied" stances to preserve and advance their careers. (Ditto the credentialed who consider themselves "real" feminists and trash grassroots activists outside academe -- KJK has suffered this.)
Thank you! Yes, the "fawn" response is an interesting concept - makes so much sense to add. Remember when it was only "fight or flight"? So much more nuanced with "freeze" and now "fawn" added. And yes, I also think it is a lot of what drives women's compliance as "gender allies". Certainly for the women who quietly tag along.
It's a very helpful concept, isn't it? Thinking just in terms of the nervous system, I've definitely seen fight/flight/freeze responses in other animals (poor skinks that just collapsed into a limp freeze response after a dog "discovered" them -- fortunately they revived after we spirited them away and applied a little cool water). 🦎 I wasn't sure about fawning at first, but then I realized it might be a mammal thing -- it's a response you definitely see in rescue dogs. After that, I noticed I could see it more clearly in human interactions, especially with women.
Thank you very much for this publication! It is a great time and brain saver to have all these stories in one compact weekly package. I also enjoy the Parting Shot section. As for an alternative expression for "gender-affirming care" - how about "sex-denying harm"? I wish I could recall who to credit for this term, but sadly I cannot. ChatGPT can't find it either. But it's a good one!
How about “gender ideology-based [medical/psychosocial] interventions”?
Or “transgender-related [] interventions”?
I agree with Lisa that any such medical interventions amount to mutilation (strict, or more broadly including chemical castration, loss of sex drive, etc.).
But I also think that it’s both too narrow & too “cruel” to be justifiable to “normies” as an accurate, materialistic description.
(Sorry Lisa!)
Another option might be “iatrogenic gender-related interventions”, since AFAICT the evidence shows that no such medical or psychosocial interventions actually reduce harm, and in fact cause harm to these individuals.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
Thank you very much, Michelle, that is high praise. And yes, there is good news... it is still a quagmire, but more and more people are speaking up and breaking the spell.
When will we have “sex confirming” care as in “whatta guy” or “whatta gal” repeated by large crowds of professional confirmatricians in selected venues near your home.
instead of "gender affirming" we can say sex trait modification.
I'm a sarcastic TERF, so I say a-pharm-ation, emphasis on the Big Pharma fuckery required to mangle a body into compliance with gendurrfeelz LIEdentity.
How about "puberty-blocking/opposite-sex hormones and cosmetic surgeries for mental distress." It doesn't include social interventions but gets at the heart of it (because through social interventions begin the cascade, they are reversible).
Thanks to everyone who has been commenting. I've been taking it all in and mulling it. Here's my thought on a reality-based term for "gender-affirming care":
Criteria: Needs to be "sex" not "gender and also not "sex-change"; cannot be "care", needs to be value-neutral (When our terms are descriptive and value-neutral, people whose ears aren't 100% jammed shut can receive them better. Obviously we have value-laden feelings about the subject, which we convey in the context of a larger statement, not ny the term itself.)
What about: Sex-trait modifications/modifiers
This phrase does not include psychological treatments, which could be part of "gender-affirming care". Which begs the question of whether the new Act intends to include bannign coverage of therapy relating to gender dysphoria??
"If you know of a reality-based phrase for 'gender-affirming care', or if there are other muddled/confused words and phrases that really get your goat, please share in the comments."
Well, I refuse to use the term "gender-affirming care" because it's mutilation.
So that's the word I use.
I also refuse to use "trans-identifying." If it's a man, I say man; if it's a woman, I say woman. These sad, deluded people can "identify" however they like. They're still either male or female.
Yes, it made me uncomfortable to use the phrase, even with quotations.
I hear you on the mutilation term... I just am holding out for a term that can be more neutral, especially for referring to procedures adults elect to have, so that it doesn't make normies immediately close off their ears,
I like "trans-identifying" because it is descriptive of the fact that the person believes themselves to be not their own sex. I think the term implies there is a delusion to it -- they identify that way, but that doesn't make it so.
What about "gender disguising surgery?" Gender obscuring surgery? Gender damaging surgery? Malpractice gender surgery? Gender denial surgery? Gender stunting surgery?
Substitute sex for gender. I.e
"Sex disguising surgery" or "malpractice sex surgery"?
yep, i agree sex is the more correct term than gender for these things. :)
I love “malpractice gender surgery”!
Yes, definitely: "Gender-care," Leave out the "affirming" claim.
Well, it’s not even care. It’s the opposite of care. So I still wouldn’t use that term. Plus, “gender” is baloney unless we’re talking linguistics.
lisa, do you think gender makes sense when referring to social norms of femininity and masculinity?
I'm not really a fan of term. I think that people can be "non-conforming" in whichever way they like -- George Sand dressed "like a man", and people in general dress androgynously all the time and always have.
I think it's human nature to establish and represent social norms of femininity and masculinity, but that doesn't mean everyone has to abide by them.
I do, however, roll my eyes at men who are clearly men and dress in women's clothes (unless they're doing a drag performance), such as Eddie Izzard, who looks just plain ridiculous in his lipstick and eye makeup and dresses. Apparently he thinks he has a "gendered" soul, but I think he's just indulging a fetish.
instead of identity, I say LIEdentity, LIEdentifying, etc.
Kudos for all this and Cody Taymore's writing on the sympathetic nervous system's "fawn" response variation. I'm convinced this is what holds a lot of women hostage as "gender allies" (and cruelly manipulates family- and partners-of) -- and once PDs get a whiff of it they'll smash that button at every opportunity. Partner it with femsoc and it's a potent mechanism of coercive control.
Check out this biting-as-always rebuttal to the idea that women are simply "fawning" from the fearless Kellie-Jay:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-162912944
Oh, that's totally a thing. I read Jo Freeman's classic piece on trashing a good while ago, it's very real. And awful.
It wouldn't be a very clean divide (nothing's that simple and there's always overlap), but if we put two columns on a piece of paper, one labeled "fawning" and the other labeled "trashing," and sorted out some classic TRA activity by women, I'd predict something like this:
Fawning -- otherwise mentally healthy women enmeshed in a toxic dynamic or subject to coercive control (unwilling parents and family-of, younger women captured by the pressures of their school or social networks, women under pressure from HR or corporate culture)
Trashing -- women with a fair amount of personality disordered issues of their own who exploit opportunity as "allies" at the expense of others (especially other women), manipulative parents and family-of who are the primary exploiters or attention-benefactors of "transing" (Munch-by-proxy), and sometimes (sadly) women so in thrall to, for instance, academic departments and traditions of philosophical discourse that they adopt "allied" stances to preserve and advance their careers. (Ditto the credentialed who consider themselves "real" feminists and trash grassroots activists outside academe -- KJK has suffered this.)
💯
Thank you! Yes, the "fawn" response is an interesting concept - makes so much sense to add. Remember when it was only "fight or flight"? So much more nuanced with "freeze" and now "fawn" added. And yes, I also think it is a lot of what drives women's compliance as "gender allies". Certainly for the women who quietly tag along.
It's a very helpful concept, isn't it? Thinking just in terms of the nervous system, I've definitely seen fight/flight/freeze responses in other animals (poor skinks that just collapsed into a limp freeze response after a dog "discovered" them -- fortunately they revived after we spirited them away and applied a little cool water). 🦎 I wasn't sure about fawning at first, but then I realized it might be a mammal thing -- it's a response you definitely see in rescue dogs. After that, I noticed I could see it more clearly in human interactions, especially with women.
Thank you very much for this publication! It is a great time and brain saver to have all these stories in one compact weekly package. I also enjoy the Parting Shot section. As for an alternative expression for "gender-affirming care" - how about "sex-denying harm"? I wish I could recall who to credit for this term, but sadly I cannot. ChatGPT can't find it either. But it's a good one!
thank you very much, Toni :)
sex-denying harm is an awesome phrase. ultimately, i'm looking for a term that is as value-neutral as possible. i'm going to take a crack at it below.
Nice: "Medical transition"
Clinical: "Double-mastectomy", "Induced Endocrine Disorder"
Naughty: "Physician-assisted self-mutilation", "Intentional Hormone Overdose"
yes, yes and yes :)
the clinical is best when describing certain procedures.
i'm going to take a crack at a more general term, below.
How about “gender ideology-based [medical/psychosocial] interventions”?
Or “transgender-related [] interventions”?
I agree with Lisa that any such medical interventions amount to mutilation (strict, or more broadly including chemical castration, loss of sex drive, etc.).
But I also think that it’s both too narrow & too “cruel” to be justifiable to “normies” as an accurate, materialistic description.
(Sorry Lisa!)
Another option might be “iatrogenic gender-related interventions”, since AFAICT the evidence shows that no such medical or psychosocial interventions actually reduce harm, and in fact cause harm to these individuals.
"Gender-related interventions"is getting close to the mark! And now please excuse me while I go look up "iatrogenic' :)
"Iatrogenesis is the causation of a disease, a harmful complication, or other ill effect by any medical activity..."
Sounding good!
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
There's some good news in here. Even if its just action being taken. Your coverage is excellent btw. It reminds me a bit of Diana Shaw's Women Are Human blog which I sorely miss.
Thank you very much, Michelle, that is high praise. And yes, there is good news... it is still a quagmire, but more and more people are speaking up and breaking the spell.
https://www.womenarehuman.com/why-i-left/
the WomenAreHuman site was down for a while, but was back recently.
How about “trans-affirming mutilation”?
nice !
Check out this rebuttal on the idea that women are simply trauma fawning from Kellie-Jay:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-162912944
When will we have “sex confirming” care as in “whatta guy” or “whatta gal” repeated by large crowds of professional confirmatricians in selected venues near your home.
All I ask.
instead of "gender affirming" we can say sex trait modification.
I'm a sarcastic TERF, so I say a-pharm-ation, emphasis on the Big Pharma fuckery required to mangle a body into compliance with gendurrfeelz LIEdentity.
'Gender Affirming Care" is Elephantoplasty:
https://youtu.be/SnDm3HaCQeg
How about "puberty-blocking/opposite-sex hormones and cosmetic surgeries for mental distress." It doesn't include social interventions but gets at the heart of it (because through social interventions begin the cascade, they are reversible).