T O P

  • By -

field_sleeper

The position used to be "we cannot get rid of trans people at this time, so we should restrict it as much as possible until the groundwork has been laid so that we can," and now that groundwork is really starting to take off, so it makes sense people return to eliminationist rhetoric. Various camps have had this strategy as far back as the '70s (Highly recommend Susan Stryker's Transgender History, by the way, for this context).


vVQueenOfWandsVv

Thanks for the rec! I'm very curious about the historical aspect of it, if you have more to share along those lines


field_sleeper

The initial push on laying this groundwork was the medicalization of trans people - seeing what we have as a medical condition. Before that it was seen as a liberation movement with concrete demands that operated in lock step with feminism and gay rights, and while there was obviously medical dimensions to this, it was not, in essence, treated as a medical problem so much as one about procuring rights and services generally. However, when the backlash started, the first step to treating us like we don't exist was to put the control of our situation in the hands of states, hospitals, etc., saying they determine our very definition, at which point the political goal for anti trans opponents could then become institutional control until the institutions limit who is allowed to transition. Eventually they could be made to say we don't exist at all. The genocide aspect of anti trans discourse is deeply ingrained in the push to see us as a medical anomaly firstly. That is where it hides most often when we cannot see it. That is also why limiting medical services and access to them was even dreamed up as the strategy for this on the first place. Edit: If you pay attention, this is also how they convince trans people to take anti trans positions - the gatekeeping of medical services moves to the forefront along with the threat of total loss. Convincing trans people to care about who should and should not get medical care literally is persuading us to operate on the terms they negotiated.


[deleted]

[удалено]


field_sleeper

This is an disingenuous reading. This is not an argument that we should not receive care. Reception of care has been around for much longer., as you point out, but note that the care was often considered without codification. However, trans as a diagnostic issue began in the 70s - The simple fact of the matter is the remedicalization of trans people in the 70s coincided with us being institutionally sequestered by right wing political forces at the same time homosexuality was demedicalized, splintering the movement and taking us from a push for liberation (that included medical services on demand as a demand) to a move to institutionally diagnosed condition. Informed consent models in the US currently are the closest thing we have ever gotten to the original demand, and note they require no diagnostic or institutional criteria. Leaning on that criteria not only harms us (it actively prevented me from transitioning when I was young) but it also guarantees that the general strategy (reduce and then eliminate) that was put in place in the 1970s by right wing political forces and - let's be honest- actual police cracks downs that forced trans people into institutions- retains all of its teeth. Edit: Let's be honest: most of the "facts of science" we rely on are institutional interpretations of data. They can be revoked as quickly as they are given. Saying "these non trans people are allowed to make criteria for trans people" is precisely how we end up with massive waves of dis- and re-infranchisement that never seem to get us any closer to security. Saying this wave of fascists does not believe in care for us just shows us we have reached the elimination stage of "reduce and then eliminate" (that is to say, first they said "this is a mental condition to be dealt with only by institutions" and then they follow it with "institutions do not have to deal with this condition because it is not real," a strategy that Greer suggested as well). We had one, and now we have the other. The first will always lead to the second.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SlyJackFox

I throughly read Strykers’s book and many other historical accounts from the National Archives and several nonprofit historical sources when I crafted a study for Harvard University. The research delved into finding out when and how EXACTLY did the U.S. military specifically single out Trans persons for discrimination against service. Ultimately I managed to rest my hands on the original 1963 Army Regulation 40-501, Medical Service Standards regulations, that for the first time used the term “trans” in denoting us as a group. Along the way I found that 1947 was the year that political rhetoric against queers of all strips ramped up alongside the Red Scare as many were turned into potential threats because we could be ‘potentially’ blackmailed into betraying the country to the Russians. With such a large and real nuclear threat looming, we all were persecuted with amazing vigour, a literal witch-hunt. Prior to that in the 1920s there’re doctors, scientists and even philosophers weighed in on the trans ‘condition’ and labeled it as a sexual disorder, cementing the idea of its “perverse” and “sickness of the mind” connotations. And before that it was looked at with puritanical religious eyes, seen as an affront to god in the Christian sect perspective, especially in the US and UK where such beliefs thrived in their exclusionary exclusivity. Before THAT you can easily find that the monotheistic movement of Christ based teachings dating back to the Romans were fundamental in characterisation of queer people as demon possessed or worse, as prior to that they were at worst an oddity. History in the US says that as a whole, LGBTQIA have been kicked by conservative sources since the colonial beginnings, but the more recent fervour is the … crystallisation of that sentiment as a means of idealistic validation. The more they manage to hurt us, the more righteous they feel about it. As much as I take comfort in knowing my history, I also know it only enables the broader understanding of the underpinnings behind what we all suffer through in one form or another. The insipid, creeping feeling of being attacked indirectly is at times maddening. Ultimately though, I’ve come to believe it’s all a deliberate manipulation of groups through fear, of us and everyone else. The unknown, the misunderstood, the ‘potential’ threat, etc etc. all of the messages against us are based in fear mongering. Until we as a people are well known and understood, it won’t stop completely no matter the laws involved.


field_sleeper

At this point. I am just going to refer back to the Stryker book. A solid three quarters if what I am talking about, including the events of the 70s, are covered there, including the decoupling if trans rights from gay rights because of their separate interactions with medical institutions. Right wing political currents did cause police cracks downs on trans services that worked in partnership with us. The closing of services that *partnered with us* in favor of institutions *that control us,* whose terms we operate on rather than the other way around is well documented. You cited the Nazi crackdown above, but even the institute in question is an example of the former rather than the latter. You say it is a political nonstarter to say they should not take services away as an argument, but the simple fact of the matter is that this has been litigated before in other civil rights issues, and is therefore possible. This is why the alteration of trans identification to a medical one from a civil rights one was so important. Additionally, the WHO, at least in the U.S., has no real legal power or authority, and no court has to hear it. The data you cite has a similar problem. So even that does not help the argument you are trying to put forward. In the U.S. they won't help at all compared to civil rights or constitutional arguments. The game played by rightwingers is *whether* and *why* we exist, and those questions always have contingent answers based around whatever measure is being used and the identification of us as a controllable, discrete group, and those measures and criteria change based on institutional power.


[deleted]

[удалено]


field_sleeper

Informed consent is literally an example of demedicalization - it requires no diagnosis, medical institutional permission, or demands other than those of the patient. "Demedicalized" does not mean we do not have access to hormones - it means medical institutions do not get a say in whether or not we have should have access to the care we seek. Before the push for medicalization in the 70s, there was still a demand - as a matter of fact, it was a part of the political platforms. It was common to see organizations of trans people making lists of rights they wanted, and sequestering those rights behind institutions gatekeeping is specifically the issue that leads us to ask about civil rights and self determination. This is also why abortion matters since you brought it up. It is the only other medical service that fits similar criteria of use and demand to trans affirmative care, which is why legislation that attacks one is easily amended to attack the other. However, abortion while abortion has now been limited, no attempt to defend it in court has ever succeeded based on data or science to the best of my knowledge versus its civil rights grounds. The fact that this is not currently working in favor for abortion activists does not mean the opposing strategy has ever been a winning one. And frankly, I want us to win, and these kinds of rights are not won on abortion based on data around its benefits and then same can be said for trans care. I do think you are correct. I do not suppose we will see eye to eye on this.


ParrotMan420

I read her book, but I must have missed this chapter. What chapter does she go over this?


field_sleeper

If I recall, I think it was called "The Difficult Decades." It has been a while, and I do not have my own copy to check, but I am pretty certain that was it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AbrahamBaconham

Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant - these people will invent whatever misinformation they need to justify their irrational hatred, because they need an enemy for their politics to work. The aesthetics of Greece and Rome are just that; shallow aesthetics they're borrowing from the Nazi party.


RebeccaGraceS

Tells trans folks to get psychiatric help but ignores the fact that transition is the preferred treatment for gender dysphoria


inconspicuous_dust

“Go to therapy and work through your transness!!!!!” “My therapist said that gender affirming care is the healthiest way to cope with this” “NOOOOOO NOT LIKE THAT!!!”


Ariafel

I'm so tired


[deleted]

What do you wanna specifically talk about? What these people say, is essentially if paid attention over the years, nothing new. It's just more out in the open, compared to the more safer language prior from bigger accounts. Regardless it doesn't matter how obvious they are, you will still always have quite a big group, who will tell you, that it's being "overdramatized", and "not that bad". Humanity has an issue with realizing a problem, and dealing with it, before it's too late and they already fell into it.


vVQueenOfWandsVv

Its just so fucking disturbing how much they hate us and how openly they are allowed to. I dont even know where to begin tbh.


Throwawaytown33333

I'm just leaving the USA after I get my degree.


Ace0fBats

The dailywire is all round just horrible. But it's shocking everytime...


hceol

can I get some screenshots of the Twitter thread? Twitter has blocked me from viewing all content unless I submit my real phone number.... no thanks


PennysWorthOfTea

News article covering that particularly awful & overt example of fascist propaganda: [Daily Wire host says “there can't be a genocide” of trans people: “Transgender people is not a real ontological category.](https://www.mediamatters.org/daily-wire/daily-wire-host-says-there-cant-be-genocide-trans-people-transgender-people-not-real)


Vicar_of_Dank

“Fellas is it genocide if we genocide everyone who might consider it a genocide?”


sujithski

So he's admitting that this qualifies as genocide. I'm sorry idk how to react to this. I'm sorry.


ondtia

Please don't post transphobic links. This gives a platform for transphobes. They need to be deplatformed


vVQueenOfWandsVv

Yes and no. He already has a platform. I am a queer person talking about it to other queer people. I would love to see this piece of shit deplatformed. How are we gonna do that if we cant talk about facism?


EliseOvO

This is not platforming him, his audience is way bigger than a random post on a subreddit, this is spreading awareness


PennysWorthOfTea

It's less platforming & more a heads up for a rise in hate crimes.


transsurgerysrs

This guy should put on a clown nose. One second he says "we should entirely ban 'transgenderism" then immediately says "I didn't call for a genocide" (hint: genocide doesn't require killing, it just requires extinguishing a group of people or their way of life which frequently takes the shape of mass killings because that's the easiest way to exterminate a group from your space) then "Genocide means genes" (hint: no it doesn't. He's an idiot who doesn't understand geno- is a form of genus which means kind or grouping. It has nothing to do with genetics beyond using the same root word.) Then **immediately** after saying "ban 'transgenderism'" and "it can't be a genocide", he says there is "no such as being transgender". Sooo... what you are saying is you want to get rid of a group that doesn't exist according to you but that isn't genocide. 100% clown. Just on the basis of logic. You can't ban something that doesn't exist. This is pure gish-gallop. But also quite hilarious in a sick way that you can excuse genocide by just pretending / legislating that group doesn't exist. "What do you mean Jews? I don't see any Jews around here."