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

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..........