Catchup

[rozk]

I deliberately didn't post on Tuesday, because Julie Bindel attended the screening of Regretters, the Swedish documentary in which two detransitioners interview each other,and the panel afterwards, which I was on. I think it likely that she will post a piece at some point which we are going to have to rebut, especially if she misrepresents anything Christina and I said, so all I will say is that 1. it was very moving 2. the way that they interviewed each other meant that no-one was putting words into their mouths and 3. it was terribly intelligent programming to couple it with the short Latecomers which made the point that some people regret not transitioning when young and leaving it to a time when their adult commitments are time-expired.

As Christina said, everyone has their journey...

On Wednesday, I did my reading at Middlesex University, and it went well, in spite of having to go on immediately after Moazzam Begg talking about being shipped off to Guantanamo. I did the Keats/Alien poem first simply because it is so intense and that worked - I did some Heine, some Sappho, Stonewall, a chunk of the novel and ended with Theroigne de Mericourt because that does seem to be a good showstopping finale...

The thirty or so people there seem to have loved me.

I'm tired now - so I will post tomorrow about the programmes of shorts and the film about trans in Iran...

Comments

Regretters

[(Anonymous)]

Dear Anonymous

I have always said I believe in the right to self-determination. Of course I respond to transwomen as women to them and also in writing. This is basic curtesy. I have problems with the diagnosis and the medical profession. Also with the law. I totally uphold and respect the right of transwomen to define as 'she' etc.

Best, Julie

Re: Regretters

[auntysarah.livejournal.com]

I have problems with the diagnosis

This betrays a (possibly deliberate?) fundamental misunderstanding about how medical transition is typically entered into, at least in this society. You paint a picture that involves us being sent, unsuspecting, to a doctor who "diagnoses" us with GID and proceeds to "treat" us with hormones and surgery.

In reality, the vast majority of us end up meeting these doctors because we seek them out. Some of them may see themselves as gatekeepers, others as facilitators, but we generally see them as people who have stuff we need. While some of us may approach medical professionals because we're troubled by our gender identity and unsure about what to do, a great many of us approach them because we know exactly what we want to do, and they offer one particular route towards getting it.

Abolish "the diagnosis" and the medical model, and we'll find other ways to get what we want, involving Internet pharmacies and less than entirely scrupulous surgeons, and people will die as a result.

You absolutely cannot, and will never argue or legislate us out of existence. You may think that's what you're doing, saving us from ourselves and/or the evils of the medical community, but from our point of view if you are ultimately successful, all you will have achieved is to make our lives more desperate, miserable and dangerous. We'll still do this, because all too often the only alternative is death.

Re: Regretters

[(Anonymous)]

You proffer it (merely?) as a basic courtesy of respect to self-determination. That's .. um.. nice of you. Yet I'm sure it was a courtesy you withheld from Christine Burns 18 months ago when she pressed you on this.

The distinction being that when you use it conversationally or in print you are simply being polite in calling us women. However, from that the presumption you are happy that we develop is that you share this view. Yet when Christine asked her more direct question; "Do you consider me to be a woman ?", your prevarication suggests that, instead, you consider this view to be conceit & self-deception. You shouldn't be surprised if we develop a view that you are disingenuous at best and sometimes downright dishonest.

You are perhaps too enamored of the cleverness of your words to recognize the power that they have. These deceptions hurt us and we think that you know that and you don't care.

I am glad that Claudia feels respected by you. But when you call her woman, I wonder the extent to which you really believe that.

Re: Regretters

[(Anonymous)]

I have problems with the diagnosis and the medical profession.

Perhaps you'd like to articulate your problems further? As a member of the medical profession who understands and interprets the diagnosis, I'd like to know why it's problematic to you. I attended the Manchester meeting so I know that members of the audience postulated research and anecdotal evidence to you, Julie. I'd like you to extend the favour to me.

There is a wealth of research suggesting a biological basis for transsexualism, especially male-to-female transsexualism. In Manchester, members of the audience asked whether you were familiar with that research and, as I recall, you fudged the answer. You said you weren't convinced but you didn't engage with the evidence itself; you didn't tell us why you weren't convinced. Now is your opportunity to avoid fudging and give us a clear response: Julie, upon what research do you base your particular viewpoint? Those of us in the scientific community would love to know. References, please.

If you have particular problems with the medical profession, I, as a member of the medical profession, would be interested to hear about them. Again, I'd be interested in accessing the evidence upon which you base your claim that the medical profession in this area is problematic. Please frame your objections clearly and back them up with evidence. I look forward to hearing from you.

Dr Stuart Lorimer

Re: Regretters

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this Stuart.

I have a problem with privileged, arrogant, opinionated journalists, but I don't spout these views through the columns of a national newspaper or in public meetings. As a research historian I am constantly asked for my evidence and for my references and am constantly subject to peer review as I'm sure you are yourself.

Academic discourse, while it is often forthright, generally retains a modicum of dignity and respect for the opinions of others. Ms Bindel seems to lack these.

Of course, journalists can spout any garbage they choose and assume they won't be challenged on it..........