Submitted by elimial t3_11i9heq in philosophy
Comments
The_Vegan_Chef t1_jayaiu0 wrote
I just find it amusing that the author of the piece claims to have read The Parallax View at 13, as if it was an intro into philosophy book.
The polemic aspect of Žižek cannot be taken for granted. Being offended by something he writes is irrelevant because it is the wrong reaction.
It's a thought experiment not an attack. The main point of the article, keep in mind an opinion piece for a magazine, seems to be perspective narrowing and it's social consequences. Defacto statements which are more focused on the emotional state of being rather than established findings. He creates his own fixed explanation of Woke , deals with the superego injunction, peoples responses and uses of it, and finds that the reactionary Woke that he describes is a blanket for right wing and non progressive left wing acceptance.
I only watched half of the de Medeiros video because he got caught up in his own ouroboros seems to have missed the fact his explanation and problems with the article are similar in form to the article itself without the polemic attributes.
chiefmors t1_jayh25d wrote
I think it's pretty obvious that this just happened to be a subject that the author wasn't willing to read in the same mood and spirit they read other Žižek pieces. Or possibly that it's all fun and games reading Žižek playfully and in good faith when he agrees with you, but fuck that when doesn't.
I don't agree with the Žižek's article in question, but I also don't agree with much that Žižek writes, so it's amusing to read from a sycophant that \ Žižek lost the plot because in a single essay he disagrees with them.
Yet another reminder that everyone is willing to be intellectual and openminded until you disagree with them about something they've made integral to their self-worth, and in our era that's increasingly the political tribe you belong to. Žižek can be more progressive than 95% of the population, but if he disavows one of the progressive doctrines then he's still reprobate in that group's view.
chiefmors t1_jayera6 wrote
I find it telling that the author just decides Žižek has 'lost the plot' on the grounds of a single essay he wrote because it doesn't agree with her politics.
I hardly agree with anything Žižek writes, but in that freeing situation I also wouldn't decide to cut him off or denigrate his intellect just because in one area of debate he goes the other direction than I do.
This just seems like so much virtue signaling and not actual philosophy. Sure, I think anybody in the Marxist camp has 'lost the plot' but it's pointless and lazy to spend time trying to cast them as defunct relics and much more interesting to read, engage, and debate their ideas without implying they belong in the dustbin for the audacity of not agreeing with me.
elimial OP t1_jayoiuu wrote
> I find it telling that the author just decides Žižek has 'lost the plot' on the grounds of a single essay he wrote because it doesn't agree with her politics.
I didn't get that from her article. Specifically she found it to be "boring, unoriginal, dishonest, and lazy." The argument that Žižek is making seems lost in the piece, or at least not well laid out. This may be his style in general, and maybe there is some hidden insight somewhere. But it seems mostly akin to McWhorter's work that he sights. Unoriginal at best, harmful at worst.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazn0bg wrote
>Specifically she found it to be "boring, unoriginal, dishonest, and lazy."
That's just name calling, not actually engaging with his arguments.
The whole article just felt like someone who got angry and emotional and hence just nit picked, and used name calling as a response rather than rationally engaging with what Zizek said.
Also the term transphobic is just going to lose all meaning with the way it's just thrown about so loosely without good reason.
paxxx17 t1_jay3tn5 wrote
Reading this reminded me of reading critiques of Spinoza and Voltaire by their contemporaries
The_Vegan_Chef t1_jayazki wrote
That's funny.
apuma t1_jc1y2rg wrote
Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with how Spinoza's writings were received in his times.
paxxx17 t1_jc3n17l wrote
People were a priori against the conclusions of his arguments so they couldn't bring themselves to understand his arguments, but nevertheless they criticized the arguments, mostly missing the point
EstablishmentRude493 t1_jb0ptu1 wrote
Paragraph one:
She engages in pleasure.
​
Paragraph two:
She engages in pleasure.
Then:
>Žižek’s philosophy can be characterized as orthodox, almost traditionalist, for his love of Hegel, Lacan (and to a lesser extent Freud), and of course Marx.
It can also be characterized as unorthodox and challenging to certain readings of Hegel, Lacan, Freud and Marx. It can also be argued that he uses Freud substantially and does ot just "love him to a lesser extent". Another questions is; when is a love for Butler, Foucault or Frank B. Wilderson III orthodoxy? In twenty years? Fifty? A hundred? Or do we need certain historical conditions for that to become orthodoxy?
Also:
>His persona in the public consciousness, on the other hand, one which I would contend is deliberately cultivated, is that of a Diogenean provocateur, an iconoclast but not a self-serious one.
He is serious, but she thinks of him as a cynic.
Is he a clown as long as it is for "our side"? A true jester has to jest at everything.
She then glosses over the need to give a clear definition of what she deems good introductions to his thinking (and therefore of course, what not!). No argument is given. Opinions and gutfeelings.
​
Paragraph three:
She engages in pleasure. Then she signals to the master-signifier (for pleasure):
>(...) there is a sense of bitterness within the piece that seems difficult to square with his usual tone. This is to say nothing of the content of his argument, which is my primary concern.
"Something is not quiet right with this Zizek. I can not tell what it is, but surely godfather/the big Other will notice." Again, there is no argument for the bitterness, no structure. Just "somehow" he is bitter. She does this to supplement her "primary concern", because the "primary concern" is not enough, it needs an (unspoken) "secondary concern".
​
Paragraph four:
Her thesis starts of with:
>Žižek is not engaging in some semiotic analysis of the arguments surrounding the recent political controversy around trans rights in Scotland, nor is he truly linking them to much else.
But he does. Just not towards her preferred ideological stance. It is what she takes later offense on as transphobic. He plays with the ideas sleep/wake/woke, he plays with the taboo topic of "the woman with the penis", he plays with pronounce. He quotes McWhorter on contradicting statements to and imagined from the big Other.
Her claim that he does not link it too much else, I want to refute here. Identity politics, partisan politics in UK and US, academia as a public sphere vs. a private sphere, universality, the assumptions we have about "what we all are" and "what is" are complexe questions/problems.
She again invokes the big Other:
> Žižek has fallen for the panic surrounding trans healthcare that has seemed to infect the entirety of liberal intelligentsia in the past decade.
Which sets her apart from the panic. She implies that she is outside of this panic, on the "good side of history".
​
Paragraph five and six:
She quotes Zizek, then she makes a claim about facts, that are still disputed. I want to clearly critizise the claim that there is a definite answer to the long-term medical consequences of puberty-blockers on children and youth. There is no definitive conclusion for either "side" (for or against). It is possible that the medical approaches to medical transitioning are inherently flawed (and therefore different methodes need to be researched).
As far as I can see Zizeks article does not claim that cross-sex hormones were given to people under 16.
Here she makes an ideological backed claim for which she provides no proof. She does not even give proof for her own side. "It is all very obvious if one can read" is her implied message.
EstablishmentRude493 t1_jb0r5hc wrote
Paragraph seven:
I want to argue that she refuses to engage with Zizeks Lacanian premises and rationalizes this with Zizeks use of the "wrong" language. (Over-)simply put, in the Lacanian structure of sexuation there exists no "cis", already "man" and "woman" are "strickenout", they are constituted by their failing to be what the symbolic order superposes. ("Be a man!"-"What is a man?"-"Someone who succeeds!"-"Put I always fail!"-"Be more a man").
Why does she take this system not into consideration?
For Zizek there is no woman (but the imagenary symbol of "the woman"), no man (but the imagernary symbol of "the man") but a complexe interaction for the subject trying to accord (ent-sprechen) to these signifiers.
Also Zizek does go through to three in his original article, he does not stop at "woman with penis in woman prison", but goes through to "self-identified woman in male prison" (and one can imagine the impass of the situation if you think about prison-queerness, prison-rape, etc.). His conclusion, I want to argue is, that THERE is the problem. How do you treat trans-people? How do you treat gender that is supposedly divorced from sex but still needs sex to inform its genderexpression? How do you deal with the contradictions of social transitioning and medical transitioning?
Paragraph eight:
An example of ideology.
Zizek is just "shilling" for another compact article.
Is this in any way refuting or reframing or analyzing or critical examining the phenomenon of an established anti-racist (a black!) professor getting booted out of a voluntary and supposed participative seminar? Zizek, supplementing his examinations and ideas about ideology with observations of socialist and stalinist propaganda, structures and mechanisms, has an inherent interest in a situation where the always present censorship in capitalist-democracy (and in any democracy) becomes visible. This is a situation where academic discourse in a certain context became verboten.
Wokeness is a secular religion, which is not big news. Christian fundamentalism claimed the same about atheism.
And there is a point to be made, especially in our times, when the experts rise to be the rules, that the believe in science is something different from the concrete application of scientific methods. We do have an empirical crisis in a lot of the sciences. Yet "the people" still put faith that the experts while in the end find the TRUTH (which interestingly has a part in the contradictions surrounding trans-medical-care). Even Nietzsche has pointed towards this. For him god was already dead. It was not, that he had just died or we were just in the process of killing him.
​
>However, this brush with making a reasonable point is short lived, and Žižek quickly sets this aside and positions himself as the arbiter of those whose oppression entitles them to talk about it: 'Those who appropriate the role of the leaders of the revolt are precisely not the brutalized victims of the racist oppression. The woke are a relatively privileged minority of a minority allowed to participate in a top quality workshop of an elite university.'
Let me be the arbiter of who has no right to be an arbiter. Again, the critical examination of the historical figure of Joseph Stalin (or Mao Zedong for that matter) can function as a tool for the critical examination of those who strangely flourish in a system they describe at absolutely closed and put up against them. The provocative and polemic question to people profiting in the context of DEI is: Then why are you getting so rich?
​
>Perhaps, if one were in the mood to entertain this thought, there could be an interesting argument about who leads movements and what social privileges might get them to such positions, but this is not Žižek’s point. He is instead interested only in bemoaning the results of one particular class at one particular school, implicitly suggesting that this happens a lot and in a lot of places, and that maybe this whole racial justice thing has gone too far.
The first line is exactly Zizeks point. But to not get caught up in her own contradictions she has to refer to "one particular class at one particular school" as a signifier that this can not be important. But the special (das Besondere in Hegels thought) is just as important as the general (das Allgemeine in Hegels thought). They are linked, not exclusively excluding each other.
Then she uses a strawman argument (while later refering herself to strawman argumentations):
>(...) and that maybe this whole racial justice thing has gone too far.
I want to argue, Zizek calls for "not far enough" instead of "too far", as the white man is as much a phantasma as the black.
Interestingly to not is what she omits here; Zizek makes references to Maryam Namazie and John McWhorter, which Melanie Zelle does not engage with at all in her commentary of his article.
​
Paragraph nine, ten and eleven:
"Finally (...) Žižek introduces psychoanalysis." Note here the subtile implication. The text we just read before was not psychoanalysis. She engages in more pleasure, Zizek is always saying the same, etc. etc.
Then she uses the example Zizek gives for one instance of superego. But instead of reading it in any psychoanalytical or psychoanalytically informed mode of critique, Zizek should "calm down". (This is to me the best joke in the whole text, I have to admit. I wished she made more jokes.)
Why does Zizek uses the image of the flight attendant? Because the symbols that get put together (stichted up) in the symbol "the flight-attendant" are relevant to the function of the superego. The servile attituted a person working as a flight-attendant has, is related to sexuation (the servant is a person you can "have" but not too much!). Note the outfit that has evolved. It is a uniform, yet it can be an fetishistic object (I know it is just a uniform, but ...). And it is not a power-uniform, but a servant-uniform. Flight-attendants are there to give you comfort (commodity), not to controll you (they do not check your ticket for example). So you are just faced with the fact that something in you (your phallus, that which you can not control) reacts to this. For example you get an erection by looking at the flight attendant, even though you know you are not supposed to (verboten, good people do not do this). But the superego bribes me to deny my immediate pleasure with pleasure. Pleasure (Jouissance) means to be, to feel me by being fragmented, split, ever turning forward, never reaching what I want to reach (Todes-/Trieb, death-/drive).
In addition I want to dispute that Rushdie has received "nothing but hagiographies (...) in the press" To this day there exist experts, scholars and politicans that deem Rushdies"Satanic Verses" a massive provocation to muslims, not only in Iran. Some clues In addition to this; the phenomenon of certain press outlets (as nobody can read all of them, including myself) championing Rushdie on the basis of free speech could be an instance of an inverse in identity politics.
​
Paragraph twelve, thirteen and fourteen:
This is a false equivalent I think. Zizeks provocation of Peterson can be taken more at face-value. Zizek does not ask him as a liberal, but as a communist. Zizek says "If there are such strong mega-marxists, where can I find them (to join)?" The implication is, that there exists no movement in the form Peterson describes. Identity politics has a big consensus in the democratic party and in the republican party and stands in relation to the partisan-style of policing now common in the US (and for a while, at that). Being for "the oppressed" is the "game of the day". The ideological move is just to put in the supposed relevant substance into the signifier (the downtrodden fallen-from-grace just-run-of-the-mill small-business-owner vs. the eternal damned black surrounded by enemies and stuck in the gutter). One can observe this in the Russian-Ukrainian war aswell.
And yes, I agree with Zizek, that there are questions of power that are fought over in instances like the one at Telluride. These fights do not happen in a vacuum, they happen in a world where public discourse is gone and replaced by private discourse, which are non-political (glad to give further arguments if people are interested), kapital flourishes and worker-conditions (no matter, gender, sex, perversions, ethnicity) continue to decline.
EstablishmentRude493 t1_jb0u90w wrote
Paragraph fifteen:
Lacans reading of Freuds description of the dream of the father, contains the syllogism Melanie Zeller is looking for:
Awakening is realizing/confronting. In sleep there is a (traumatic) realization/confrontation. Sleep is awakening (inverted: Awaken is sleeping).
So Zizeks concluding statement is; the superego structure of ideology (in this case, wokeness/conservative identity politics) not only keeps us from confronting the traumatic truth (of oppression) but also traps us in not ending it. In the above example the son can not burn to death in the dream, really burn so close to the father that he can not recoil, since it is "in" him, the dream is closer than reality. The father wakes up before it happens. So we are trapped not fully realizing/working through the absolute senselessness of oppressing each other.
Zeller states that this is a deception to hide the true reactionary position of the piece. If I champion her position here, she is right in that this can be possible. This can even be defended with one of Zizeks refutation of the cynical position to "stitch up" internal (in)consistencies: "I tell you I am a reactionary and I act like a reactionary, but let me not fool you ... I am a reactionary!" But does Zizek tell us he is a reactionary? On the contrary he insists that he is a communist, albeit he has stated that as he got older he became more "conservative". It has to be examined though, conservative in relation to whom and to what ends/towards what. If we take Zizeks insistens on a communist position (a materialistic approach outside the liberal framework of individual rights as the ideal to strife towards) seriously the above quote becomes:
"I tell you I am a communist and I act like a reactionary, but let me not fool you ... I am a -" what is he then? A reactionary communist? Something else entirely? Jordan Peterson/Hitler?
​
Paragraph sixteen:
Zeller identifies Zizeks desire to be oppositional "misplaced". She continues that Zizek creates an Other that haunts him ("Wokes"). Her one argument for this is, that Zizek follows the recurring line of gendercriticals/trans-exclusionaries from "The Transsexual Empire", in that medical procedures for people to transition is in the interest of capital, because they make money with the pharmacy. The counterpoint I want to make is that medicine in our world is actually always to some degree informed by capital. So is any kind of trans-humanist operation (pacemakers, anti-depressants, operations involving screws, heart-transplants, to give a few examples). Since going back to any mythological "whole" is as much an ideological phantasma as the notion that medicine = good (and the notion medicine = evil), is there an alternative to critical examination of the methods of the medical care? Zizek does not say "puberty-blockers are an example of woke capitalism", but "the use of puberty blockers" (in this concrete instance). If we critically inspect a text like "The Transsexual Empire" we also have to critical inspect a text like "The Transsexual Empire Strikes Back" in that there is a point to be made that the completely-changeable subject is a capitalist dream(sleep).
The article Zizek wrote does not mention medical procedures for adults to transition, but puberty blockers for children and youth, which are not based on conclusive research. If any critical inquiry into medical research and pratices is refuted as propagandistic, then the word "malpratice" is, in fact, not applicable anymore. What do we use instead? What concept do we use?
We also do not know, conclusively, if all medical procedures are life-saving to trans-people. Cross-Evaluation is furthermore hindered by capital, which is, in a certain way, censorship. If you do not get money for your research, if universities are privatized further and further and political gains get involved (were always present), how do you research a thing? I agree with Zeller, that there is a real material conflict over the body. Where we differ is: a) there is a material conflict for all bodies (biopolitics), which includes trans-people, and b) we have to carefully analyze what this entails. For example, is it the same as being free from exploitation ("I want a space where I do not have to sell you my body/labor/potential to survive" or "I do not want to fight this war for your interests") or a right I can claim ("I want you, society, fellow humans, to help me get cured from this sickness" or "I want the right to get poison to kill myself") Both examples are interlinked, are they the same though? When we think about the climate catastrophy, yes they are. This another reason why we have to critically engage with the concepts of transhumanism (and by that the category transgender and therefore of course the categories gender and sex)
​
Paragraph seventeen:
Zeller quotes Zizek and frames the quote as "transphobia wraped in the thin venner of his particular philosophical process":
>“There is nothing ‘abnormal’ in sexual confusion: What we call ‘sexual maturation’ is a long, complex, and mostly unconscious process. It is full of violent tensions and reversals—not a process of discovering what one really is in the depth of one’s psyche.”
Actually the full quote is:
>One should take a step even further in this criticism and question the very basic claim that arriving at sexual identity is a matter of mature free choice. There is nothing “abnormal” in sexual confusion: What we call “sexual maturation” is a long, complex, and mostly unconscious process. It is full of violent tensions and reversals—not a process of discovering what one really is in the depth of one’s psyche.
This is a Lacanian premise. If the claim is that Lacanians sexuation is transphobic (or sexist), it has to be backed up by contrapoints to refute the assumptions, observations and reasonings in Lacans proposed systems (and the people that developed these systems further). Interestingly both readings of Lacan are possible, broadly spoken. Also at a certain point Zizeks reading of Lacan can be read as queer, but arriving via a different route. Since gender is itself inconsistent (not even my biological organs are represented in the symbolic order, not their failings, not their not-all), no one truly is "a man" or "a woman". This is in contrast to Butler, who argues that there is a "true" being/self (the subject which the narratives/discourses do not represent fully) under the narratives put onto it. For Zizek there is no "true" self (the subject is constituted by that which it is not), it is inconsistencies all the way down.
Interestingly the part Zeller put up, can be spun the other way. Since there is nothing "abnormal" in sexual confusion, trans-people are not "sick", they do not need to be "cured" (from what?), This does not mean that it is not possible to use transhumanist means to help them in their particular "abnormality" (as we are all abnormal, cis, trans, genderfluid, etc. does not matter). It also can be read as challenging the famous line that trans-woman from the "Transsexual Empire" by Raymond, that being transgender is "reducing" the "real female form". There is no real female form for Zizek (but a structure of the symbolic woman). None of us are what we think we are.
It also can be used to champion any stance against any form of conversion therapy for anyone. There is no true self and there is no free choice in this. (Trans)people do not choose to have a gender, as much as (Cis)people don't choose to have gender.
But if we now commit to the idea that children and youth can completely freely autonoumsly decide a medical transition, even if it is the beginning of one (which can have irreversible effects, like any operation), we greatly diminish the space of exploration and play in puberty (a terrible time). We also ideologically circle around the necessary responsibility of the parent, while the institutions circle the responsibility back onto the parent.
"I am not sure to help my child be its authentic self!"
"You have to be very careful and not surpress the childs authentic self. The child knows best."
"My child accuses me that I did not protect it, because it did not know what its authentic self was!"
"We told you to be careful."
​
Last paragraphs:
Ultimately Zeller concludes that it is just the protectionist impulse of the old and/or eternal afraid. This is a false eternal. There is no inherent "rightness" or "goodness" in being "new", aswell as now inherent "goodness" in that, which was (there is no turning back in history). At some point fascism was the new thing. At some point putting observable "abnormal" people in overcrowded prison-adjacent institutions was the new thing. At some point heroin as a medicine was the new thing. But we have to go through with it. At some point Marx was the new thing. At some point human rights was the new thing. At some point anti-bacterial medication was the new thing. At some point even the human itself was the new thing.
The end gets, of course, ideologically filled in. "Sad day for all of us.". With pleasure she points out that the old man is aware of his own, onsetting, impotence. If our imagined father was only as potent as we hoped. Now sadly we see him naked, in the mud, a human, just as us. I propose: Either we kill him or we sit down with him. Doing both at the same time will prolong what should be ended.
tl/dr: I engage in the pleasure to observe Melanie Zeller in engaging in pleasure.
elimial OP t1_jb11gdj wrote
I appreciate the time you took with this, there are some interesting points you’ve made, and some places I disagree with.
I do have a question though, referring to this part:
> This is in contrast to Butler, who argues that there is a “true” being/self (the subject which the narratives/discourses do not represent fully) under the narratives put onto it.
Can you elaborate or point me to a reading here? My understanding of Butler’s work is of their application of speech act theory onto gender. I don’t recall this idea of “true” self being something Butler has discussed, but that could just be my ignorance.
EstablishmentRude493 t1_jb1k7zb wrote
I'm interested what you disagree on!
You are right to question this part as it is a blindspot and weakly argued by me.
From my understand, and I have to admit, that I have read far more from Zizek than from Butler, so please be highly critical, Butler positions (in accordance with Hegel) that the process of becoming a subject means to be in contrast or accordance, with that what is found "outside" oneself, narratives, social norms, culture, political rule. The subject is subjugated. But out of this subjugation emerges resistance. The symbolic order is performed and in the performance subversive potential can be found. Symbols can be over and/or under played, like hyperfemininity (which in turn can also be under-masculinity in a dialectical relation) in drag for example. One aspect of the relationship between the subject and subjugation is desire. A certain desire is demanded from me by the symbolic order ("You are a woman so you have to desire men") but something may not meet up with this demand ("I am a woman but I desire woman. What am I then? What even is a woman?"). I want to argue that the "true self" enters through "the back" in their (Butlers) view on the subject. If the (resisting) subject becomes as it constitutes itself in relation to narratives/power/symbols by an excess, is this excess the true self? Is the performativity the true self? The subversion? A space opens up where the subject that is aware of their subjugation can only exist in relation to their subjugation. This "true self" is that which constantly challenges in subversive performative acts. The act of subverting has become the more authentic.
Note that my critique on Butler was derived with Zizek in mind, who at the end uses Lacans "Real" as an idea that there exists a point of non-sense. Butler challenges Zizeks use of the Real as ahistorical, while Zizek sees in relation to Lacans Real the possibility to act (oversimplified).
But I encourage to read Butler themselves on this, from what I know it can be found in "Subjects of Desire", "Gender Trouble", Contingency, Hegemony, Universality" and "Giving an Account of Oneself"
willowtr332020 t1_jaxkzne wrote
Never been a big Zizek fan.
It doesn't surprise me that an intellectual would make sloppy arguments and fall for the same old pitfalls in arguments as many before on an issue which is so nuanced and tricky to navigate.
LManX t1_jaxfwdm wrote
I also found this critique by YouTube philosophy educator Julian de Medeiros on the article in question to be valuable.
elimial OP t1_jaxg8en wrote
Appreciate it, I’ll have a watch
edit: just finished, was really good. I think the author of what I posted and Julian de Medeiros are on the same page.
corpus-luteum t1_jazbepy wrote
I'm not sure of this guys integrity when he starts by bemoaning the use of the term 'trans lobby'. If he read the full article with an open mind I don't see how he can complain about the term.
I'm not sur what his complaint is. Does he think it evokes images of congress as some elaborate drag show? The article is clearly referencing the invested interests of the corporations offering the treatments to vulnerable people. And lobbyng to make their expensive treatments as mandatory and commonplace as breakfast.
And I'm sorry but being proud of being 'woke' is, to me, like being proud you thought you were a chicken, and behaved appropriately, because a hypnotist told you , when you woke you would believe you were a chicken. Hypnotism is the only place in which the term woke means anything practical.
So wake up. Don't wait to be woke.
atlwellwell t1_jaz27qs wrote
Zizek inspired you??
heyomgsareda t1_jaykuej wrote
People just think he's smart because he spits every 10 seconds
indiewriting t1_jaz1s1n wrote
I think maybe where the author gets stuck is probably here,
>More troubling is his use of essentializing language and further histrionics to try to inflame the reader (the phrase “penis-having rapist in prison with captive women” comes to mind). His insistence on misgendering Bryson, first simply as ‘he’ and then more troublingly as ‘it,’ suggests that Žižek sees respecting trans identity as something discretionary and contingent on good behavior. Žižek is, in this article and to put it lightly, transphobic.
The portion where Zizek has made such statements, it didn't allow them to look past that 'dishonesty' as they call it and so preferred to highlight those misgivings rather than attempt to build their own narrative, to clarify how this relates to policy, and how it'd be better than what Zizek is suggesting. The latter was a tougher task so it's always easier to shoot down the argument anyway.
I partly agree with the charge that this was a lazy attempt and maybe even a disarray of random thoughts that were all trying to fit in. The article could have been more condensed because I actually think it's the reverse; Zizek glossed over multiple examples in a half-hearted manner with the assumption that the reader will have known them, but actually just a couple of those references would have sufficed to make his point, and he has done it quite well, especially the ending. It's strikingly resemblant to a few Upanishadic teachings on dreams.
What the author sees as troubling is actually from what I could understand is Zizek's way of highlighting the dubious ways of Isla during the case. What should have been purely about the atrocity committed by a human, the focus shifted towards identity and respect and the author prefers to cater to this. So Zizek's harshness is more about bringing to light this aspect and given that the shameful act was indeed committed, for a moment one could look past the gender play here and recognize the need for a proper judgement aside of personal preferences that evolved during the case.
This is not a case of Zizek being unclear at least, the article is simply the realization on the part of the author, that Zizek is much more crazier than I ever thought, and that disturbs my personal view of what I thought Zizek had been implying all this time. So the author's anger is justified really, but misdirected. Their anger is on themself actually.
The issue I understand though was Scotland's handling of it and the new policy that came up,
>The case sparked a change in policy in Scotland so that "any newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner will initially be placed in an establishment commensurate with their birth gender.
But nevertheless, it is evidently clear as to what Zizek is focusing on and that does not necessarily point to disrespecting trans identity as such. Of course Isla couldn't have controlled the period of transition, but then it'd also be naive for someone to not consider the possibility that this did indeed help Isla's case to somehow bring in the 'woke' culture to her rescue to try and lessen the impact on her tarnished image. Perhaps they were hoping that'd it would influence the sentence as well. Like the author wishes to hop on without clarifying what her policy stance is.
Anyway, as an Indian I could relate highly with some of Zizek's points here given that there is a need to discuss caste based discrimination in Indian circles and whenever attempts are made to present objective data and re-look history without the colonial lens, tensions flare up and people resort to my way or highway and prioritize feelings over actually finding ways to focus on understanding commonalities and all of Zizek's examples were spot-on, especially activist Maryam's incident which is brushed off as insignificant. Almost something exactly similar happened in the Hijab case in the last 2 years - how religious organizations sprung to defend the choice of women apparently, when it is indoctrination at best with little to no choice for a girl child in Islam, so very applicable unlike what the author says, but in a different context.
>The black woke elite is fully aware it won’t achieve its declared goal of diminishing black oppression—and it doesn’t even want that. What they really want is what they are achieving: a position of moral authority from which they may terrorize all others, without effectively changing social relations of domination.
This is to the point. Some of the oppressed communities in India too rightly protest about this but many events off late have indeed confirmed that they are aligning with literally anybody eg., Khalistanis and other separatists to sort of literally avenge the past and also falsely glorify the atrocities committed to further trigger the masses rather than focus on resolving what can be done now with pragmatic understandings and dialogue over honest acceptance of what actually transpired. But historians who have been proven to be literally wrong through primary sources are still used as weapons to hurl, furthering casteist notions when actually it began to solve them.
Anyway this deviated, but news is that Zizek is well and kicking, maybe a little more insensitive than usual, which is not uncommon, and yet still makes some great points.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_jazemnp wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_jb0co3j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jb6ht0p wrote
[deleted]
corpus-luteum t1_jazaopg wrote
The page is blocked for Phishing. So I can't read it. But I have read Zizek's article and fail to see how anybody can say he's lost the plot.
I suspect the truth is more that, the plot Zizek is reading, is not the plot that is currently on offer.
[deleted] t1_jax8kx3 wrote
[deleted]
PooPartySoraka t1_jax9bhe wrote
are you.. replying to the op as tho they wrote the article they are posting?
elimial OP t1_jawzdoa wrote
I thought this was a good response to Žižek's recent commentary. I was pretty disappointed with his lack of a well developed argument.
Jess3200 t1_jax8ouz wrote
>Puberty blockers were administered to almost all children sent for assessment at Tavistock
This is so patently false, the rest of his commentary is brought into question.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jaxdn0b wrote
>This is so patently false, the rest of his commentary is brought into question.
I'm not sure you can blame him, it's what all the articles about Tavistock were saying, and it doesn't seem like they have retracted or corrected it.
I mean it sounds crazy, but isn't that why the Tavistock clinic was closed down?
​
>Puberty blockers were given to almost all children sent for assessment by Tavistock clinic
>
>
>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/20/puberty-blockers-given-almost-children-sent-assessment-tavistock/
innocuousEclair t1_jaxpfr1 wrote
No, and I wouldn't be too eager to trust the British press on anything involving transgender people.
ghostxxhile t1_jaznuiw wrote
innocuousEclair t1_jazz077 wrote
Yes, even the Guardian. It was so bad there that at one point the Guardian in America said something.
ghostxxhile t1_jazzpyf wrote
The issue isn’t with Trans rights, it’s about private clinic contracted by the NHS handed out hormone treatment to children without thorough examination from the view of a senior consultant whose heads of Trust tried to silence. If there practice was so morally sound they would have allowed transparency in the report and wouldn’t have tried to shut him down.
This about consent of the child, not being pushed by doctors bankrolled by a public sector contract or pushy parents and be careful and being sure.
The somehow idea that this is against trans rights lack nuance. It isn’t a case of denying treatment, it’s about being damn sure that there isn’t any other underlying mental health issues that maybe spurring the dysphoria like autism, depression or other such things.
innocuousEclair t1_jb00e7r wrote
Stranger, I'm quite sure you aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm talking about bias in the British press. Getting some facts right while spinning them to paint transness in a negative light is still anti-trans. The problem with trans healthcare in the UK is not that too many kids were getting drugs, but that so few trans youth were being seen compared to the number of referrals. The wait lists for first assessments are astronomically high.
ghostxxhile t1_jb00vye wrote
Yes I have no doubt there are various publications presenting the closure of the Tavistock clinic as a means to promote anti-trans idealogy however the point in question, from what I understand is where the closure of Tavistock just and whether it’s practice was sound.
It’s a tragedy that Trans kids face these waiting lists but so is every other sector, including those with cancer, so it’s fundamentally how poor the NHS is being run that is the main problem.
innocuousEclair t1_jb05fww wrote
Its practice wasn't sound. There is no sound public healthcare option for trans people, let alone trans youth, in the UK.
ghostxxhile t1_jb0pxqf wrote
What is sound healthcare for trans youth then?
innocuousEclair t1_jb0rd5b wrote
ghostxxhile t1_jb0rfem wrote
thanks
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazuwzq wrote
Isn't this just what the right do, pretend any news they don't like is fake news?
innocuousEclair t1_jazxmm2 wrote
Feel free to dig into the issue and I'm sure you'll agree. There's nothing pretend about the anti-trans bias in the British press.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazy2dp wrote
When they say stuff like the following, that sounds fairly unbiased and objective.
>The NHS gender identity service’s own data shows that 96 per cent of children
Also it's strange to treat all major press including far left media as having an anti-trans bias.
The words anti-trans and transphobic are just thrown around soo much that they have lost all meaning. So when you say that all British media are anti-trans, I have no idea if they actually are anti-trans or if they used some facts you don't like.
innocuousEclair t1_jazysy8 wrote
When I say there's an anti-trans bias in the British press, I don't mean they're using "facts I don't like", I mean that the British press is well-known by the trans community for sensationalizing, fear-mongering, and spinning stories to paint trans people in a negative light.
EstablishmentRude493 t1_jb0xoax wrote
Is your argument that other journalistic outlets reported on the supposed anti-transness of the british press?
e/ for clarity, I do not mean to imply that there is NO anti-trans bias. But I want to get a concrete engagement on the subject as a evidence/clue, not a corporate created algorithm.
innocuousEclair t1_jb0yd2o wrote
I am showing that it was bad enough that a media outlet's American branch felt it necessary to point out. I don't need any media company to report on anti-trans bias in the British press, I can read and see it for myself. If you can't see it after doing some reading for yourself, then you and I are not operating with a shared definition of what it means to have an anti-trans bias. There's nothing supposed about it. It's there in black and white.
Jess3200 t1_jaxl2x1 wrote
Not blaming, but holding to account. He is a very intelligent man, capable of doing his research. Not reading a mainstream media article critically is a tad suspicious of a man renowned for being critical...
The Tavistock was closed down for, essentially, being oversubscribed. The interim report goes into more nuanced detail, of course.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazkxb5 wrote
>The Tavistock was closed down for, essentially, being oversubscribed. The interim report goes into more nuanced detail, of course.
That's just seems like a misleading retelling of history.
If it was solely just closed for being oversubscribed, wouldn't it make sense to wait until the replacement centres were set up first.
Let's look as statement from Cass who is writing the report.
​
>Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has been told to shut the clinic by spring after it was criticised in an independent review.
>
>Dr Hilary Cass, said the Tavistock clinic needed to be transformed.
>
>She said the current model of care was leaving young people "at considerable risk" of poor mental health and distress, and having one clinic was not "a safe or viable long-term option".
>
>Dr Cass's report said there was a lack of understanding about why the type of patients the clinic was seeing was changing, with more female to male patients and more autistic children. Dr Cass also highlighted inconclusive evidence to back some of the clinical decision making.
>
>But in 2020, questions about the service were raised after it was rated "inadequate" by inspectors,
>
>In an interim report earlier this year, Dr Cass said:
>
>The service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists
>
>It was not keeping "routine and consistent" data on its patients
>
>Health staff felt under pressure to adopt an "unquestioning affirmative approach"
>
>Once patients are identified as having gender-related distress, other healthcare issues they had, such as being neurodivergent, "can sometimes be overlooked"
>
>She then suggested introducing local hubs, writing that the current provider model "is not a safe or viable long-term option".
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62335665
Jess3200 t1_jb09vpc wrote
Odd. I provided a direct link to the actual report, yet you seem to be quoting from a BBC news piece here...and after I named how suspicious it was the Zizek did the very same.
The actual report spells out the concerns re: how overwhelmed the service was, how frustrated many young people accessing the service were with this and how certain professionals within the service felt their voices weren't being heard. It's clear that the first of these is the most important in the service not being able to meet demand and expectation.
I'd encourage everyone to read the report for themselves.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jb0bt7q wrote
>Odd. I provided a direct link to the actual report, yet you seem to be quoting from a BBC news piece here...and after I named how suspicious it was the Zizek did the very same.
If the article is quoting directly from the person who wrote the report or from the report itself I don't see the issue.
Anyway here is a similar quote directly from the report you linked.
​
>Primary and secondary care staff
>
>have told us that they feel under pressure
>
>to adopt an unquestioning affirmative
>
>approach and that this is at odds with the
>
>standard process of clinical assessment
>
>and diagnosis that they have been trained
>
>to undertake in all other clinical encounters
>
>https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/
​
>I'd encourage everyone to read the report for themselves.
Sure, if people believe the BBC is lying they can also do something similar and look up those points from the report itself.
Edit: The interim report clearly mentions failings. Anyone who actually reads it should be in no doubt that Tavistock was shut down partially for it's failings rather than solely because it was oversubscribed.
Jess3200 t1_jb0dksl wrote
They should also recognise that it's failings were largely due to it being oversubscribed. No service can work efficiently when overwhelmed.
ghostxxhile t1_jazo0n1 wrote
>Among these concerns were the fact that children attending GIDS often seemed to be rehearsed and sometimes did not share their parents’ sense of urgency; that senior staff spoke of “straightforward cases” in terms of children who were to be put on puberty blockers (no case of gender dysphoria, notes Bell, can be said to be straightforward); that some were recommended for treatment after just two appointments and seen only infrequently thereafter; some felt that GIDS employed too many inexperienced (and inexpensive) psychologists; that clinicians who’d spoken of homophobia in the unit were told they had “personal issues”. One told Bell that a child as young as eight had been referred to an endocrinologist for treatment. “I could not go on like this… I could not live with myself given the poor treatment the children were obtaining,” said another.
This is from Dr Bell, one of the senior consultants at Tavistock in an Guardian interview
Jess3200 t1_jb09vs6 wrote
As with the other person who commented, I find it a little odd that you would choose to reference a mainstream media piece rather than the actual report - that I shared a direct link to...
The Guardian also has a bit of a reputation for transphobia and Dr Bell is a dubious source, as he employs a psychoanalytic viewpoint - which is quite, to put it mildly, out of date.
As with my other response, I encourage everyone to read the actual report.
ghostxxhile t1_jb0oor8 wrote
There is nothing strange about the comment. It’s in a response to yours and another’s stating that children weren’t given testosterone which they were. Secondly, the point was also made that no mainstream media could be trusted, which I agree wholeheartedly on the most part but even a progressive and inclusive newspaper reported on the topic and hosted Bell.
The Guardian is the most progressive newspaper in the UK and are very inclusive of trans people and rights. This is household knowledge.
Why would a senior consultant choose to make a report which loose him his job? He had nothing to gain and everything to loose.
Thirdly, if psychoanalysis is should not be used to assess the mental status of patient then what over method should be used? Firstly, he raised concerns of that other staff confided in him and secondly he says that a majority of the children coming in had autism, depression etc and that those should be explored first before prescribing hormonal treatment that can change someone’s life forever. If you have ever seen the accounts of young of those who have detransitioned it’s just as tragic to hear the accounts of those who are transitioning and facing all kinds of problems. I find it strange to discredit this viewpoint when it seeks to do the least amount of harm as possible.
He has also worked at the clinic for over 20 years as a senior consultant. If he was out of date then why was he in such a high position of judgement and why did staff feel they could confide in him for his expertise?
We have to also remember that the clinic is a private clinic contracted by the NHS. Before their contract they had 80 cases a year and then increased to over a thousand which increased their income.You can understand why the heads of the Trust were so concerned with Dr Bell launching a investigation and why they were so eager to shut Bell down. At the end of the day, their are institution out to make money, and to discredit their practice would potentially loose them that money.
Jess3200 t1_jb1guz1 wrote
There's plenty strange, especially as I have not suggested no child was prescribed testosterone whilst under the care of the Tavistock - this is something you have imagined.
The Guardian may be progressive, but most 'gender critical' individuals identify as left-wing - transphobia isn't limited to the right of politics. The Guardian is in no way "very inclusive" of trans folk^(1)^(,)^(2)^(,)^(3)^(,)^(4).
Plenty of people choose their principles over their employment. That doesn't always mean their principles are valid...just ask any 'Christian' baker who gave up their business instead of putting two little men on top of a cake.
The method that should be employed is something that requires development (as outlined in the report). From personal experience working with trans-identified young people, I would argue a systemic and existential approach can work well to support exploration in this cohort. I also think we need to be very careful not to fall into ableism by assuming autism must be explored. I think it's necessary to include it in any formulation, but it in no way should single an individual out for 'special measures'. As for depression existing in someone with gender dysphoria - come on, that's part of the diagnosis.
Detranistioners do deserve compassion and support, but it's important to always remember that regret rates for this particular cohort are very small. More research is needed, but denying appropriate care to gender dysphoric children because some may regret this is about as fair as denying someone in agony pain meds because some people are scamming to get free drugs.
Some staff spoke to Dr Bell - the majority seem not to have agreed with him.
I admit there may be some political motivation on the part of the NHS to downplay dissent. However, if we're allowing for that we also have to allow for political motivation in the likes of Dr Bell in wanting to shut down a clinic at odds with his personal ideology.
ghostxxhile t1_jb1k8i3 wrote
Your original comment was in reply to another that says ‘all children were administered testosterone blockers’ and then was followed by other comments stating that no child was given blockers, which may be an honest mistake on my part in that you were replying to the ‘all children’ part of that statement.
You have cited four articles out of many, many pages of pro-trans articles on their website. Hardly enough to describe a the most progressive newspaper transphobic. In fact, it’s quite ridiculous.
Your example is silly. We’re talking about health practitioners who have chosen to purposefully work in a gender dysphoria clinic who are concerned about the methods and practice of the institution applied to children. Is honestly fair to say their concern is out of ideology or malice?
There is no falling into ableism because that isn’t the point. The point is that majority of the patients were young girls who had signs of autism. Now the question MUST be asked, what is the connection with young girls with autism who claim they have gender dysphoria? You cannot ignore that correlation.
A small percent yes however that small percent may never be able to recover back the functions of their birth gender like being able to have a child. Should we really be practising a utilitarian approach to this or should we should try to reduce as much harm as possible? In case of the latter is it not sensible and more consensual and informed to allow these children to make their own decision once they become a consenting adult? This of course does not mean we do affirm the gender they identify but rather halt all life-changing drugs and treatment until they can make a decision as an adult. Many of those who detransition, if you watch their testimonial, blame the adults in their life for pushing them to take these treatments and we simply should allow these children to have face the horror that they will never recover just because we favour the majority.
Again, the majority does mean that the consensus is right nor truthful and we do not know if those staff were scared to loose their job considering the backlash Bell received.
I personally buy Bell having a political ideology against the clinic considering he’s worked there for 20 years and as I said has everything to loose. His main concern was that the clinic became less about care and more about handing treatment to those who came in without proper and thorough evaluation.
Jess3200 t1_jb1qvlg wrote
I did not say the Guardian was transphobic, only that it has a reputation for being so. You keep taking my tempered statements and making them absolute - I wonder why that might be. Doing so once may be a mistake, but repeatedly doing so…
My example isn’t silly. He was a governor of the entire Tavistock service, and not specifically the gender identity clinic - thus, it is perfectly reasonable to posit that he worked in such a position due to his interest in psychoanalysis and not gender identity. He may therefore be motivated by outdated notions of gender development and personal ideology. Again, this is the sort of nuance lost in Zizek and in responses I have received here.
The point is that the majority of patients being see by the Tavistock do not have autism. Their own data indicates that around 15% have a diagnosis of autism, whilst international data indicate between 10% and 25% of young people presenting at gender clinics have autism. This is far higher than the rate in cisgender populations (and would benefit from further research), but still far from being the majority. There’s also no indication that the majority, if any, of these autistic individuals are to be found in the adolescent girls seeking support - they might be, or they might be equally spread out amongst all the young people presenting at the clinic, or only in the boys seeking input. We simply don’t know. Your assumption here again is exactly what I was calling out Zizek for…
As for doing no harm - why is it always about doing no harm to the 3%-5% who might regret and never to the 95%-97% who won’t? There is harm in transitioning when this is not right for you and there is harm in being denied early transition when this is right for you. A ban on all transition related medical intervention for children and adolescents can cause real harm to those who will grow up to live as trans individuals - why no concern for them? Do we need to continue to develop our ability to identify who might fall into each group - absolutely. That doesn’t mean we ban all treatment for young people, however. That approach involves doing as much, if not more, harm than the alternative.
ghostxxhile t1_jb1utgb wrote
Differentiate between having a reputation of being x and is x? The two are very comparable and a more accurate way of phrasing would have been that the Guardian has published a few articles that have been deemed transphobic.
Your example of the Christian baker was silly. As to Bell, perhaps you are right but what type of person stays at a clinic for twenty-years whose practice he fundamentally disagrees with and then decided to launch a report at the end lf those twenty-years? Also, what is so wrong about requesting a report? Surely lack of nuance here is noting that the Trust did not want such report to be made at all which far more suspicious than Bell requesting one.
Sidenote: Bell is a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst
The fact that autism is more prevalent in gender dysphoria than cis-gender people is still warrants the question of why that phenomena is the case and to go back to the point you made previously, it’s not about ableism, it’s about properly assessing each INDIVIDUAL, and not a mean, to see if that child is indeed experiencing genuine gender dysphoria before being administered hormonal treatment.
I honestly do not understand why there is retaliation to the idea of being thorough with each patient and ruling out all possible factors before allowing treatment. It’s seems like common sense but somehow lacks nuance.
Why should it cause more harm if they are with an environment where people affirm their gender? Why do we push the narrative to be your preferred gender then you need xyz. If gender is fluid and doesn’t pertain to genitalia then why is it so essential to have hormonal treatment or operation? You cannot have the cake and eat it to. The answer to this is to of course address the dysphoria, to allow them to express their preferred gender, to have their environment and those around them to affirm their preferred gender and take much less hands on approach until they become an adult. A child can note vote at 16 yet we somehow allow them to make a life changing decision? We either deem children responsible at such an age or we do not.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jb0d8zx wrote
>The Guardian also has a bit of a reputation for transphobia
You know what, the word "transphobia" has completely loss all meaning with the way it's just basely thrown about.
It's like the boy who called wolf.
Jess3200 t1_jb0do4u wrote
Sure thing.
hiraeth555 t1_jax6s6n wrote
Seems to me like his only mistake is levelling reasoned criticism against the quite aggressive trans rights activists that seem to have a disproportionate amount of influence over policy...
PooPartySoraka t1_jax950u wrote
would you provide an example of the "disproportionate amount of influence over policy"?
Mysterious_Secrets t1_jaxdr15 wrote
You see, minorities are small groups, so anything set up to protect them in any way is "disproportionate". But seriously, it's actually the opposite. There are a ridiculous amount of anti trans bills coming out the last few years. We're the new wedge issue conservatives use to rally their base with hate.
PooPartySoraka t1_jaxgdv1 wrote
these mfers will type "you can't just say he's transphobic the word will lose all meaning" and then type "his only mistake is levelling reasoned criticism against the quite aggressive trans rights activists" like Bruh...
stay strong friend<3
dasus t1_jay3ejx wrote
I think the keyword in his sentence is "seem to have a.. "
hiraeth555 t1_jaxuhcv wrote
Well if you read about Tavistock you’ll see that children came to harm because of political pressure from trans activists.
I support trans rights unequivocally, but it is completely reasonable to challenge and scrutinise the process and systems in place around transitioning considering it’s long term effects.
PooPartySoraka t1_jaxx1wt wrote
sure, but that's not at all what you said in your original post. thanks for your reply
hiraeth555 t1_jay77om wrote
You don't think some of the policies of places like Tavistock are down to political pressure from activists?
PooPartySoraka t1_jayxon6 wrote
i dont think you have given me any evidence to back up your claim, is my point. you made a very specific statement and you have not provided any direct evidence to support that statement.
hiraeth555 t1_jazqat2 wrote
Well my evidence is that Tavistock has been reported as a “conveyor belt to puberty blockers” and high levels of encouragement for surgery, as well as basing these interventions on poor or no research.
My claim was that social and political pressure from trans activists has created an environment where decisions are made not on the best medical information and what is right for an individual, but instead, there is an idiological environment that encourages medical intervention.
Is that not exactly what has been reported?
There is a reluctance by people in this thread to acknowledge that one of the flagship NHS gender practices may be operating in a way that pushes children into hormone and surgery interventions- this is despite thorough investigation by the NHS regulator, independent journalists, and many patients and doctors coming forward.
It looks an awful lot like people have decided that any criticism or anything related to transgender issues or trans activism must be transphobia.
Evidence for you below, or check out any number of articles on Tavistock
https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-6a8796ea5d10
hiraeth555 t1_jb48i6m wrote
Didn’t fancy replying to my last response?
PooPartySoraka t1_jb4ygsf wrote
no it's a waste of my time. you couldn't provide even 1 example of what you claimed and that was immediately obvious. bye
hiraeth555 t1_jb50l05 wrote
Except I did and you stopped responding
PooPartySoraka t1_jb6xyaz wrote
i asked you to give me a specific example of what you called a disproportionate amount of influence over policy, and you asked me a question. you did not give me any example. if you can provide me an example to support your statement, we can continue the discussion. you have not done so. i'll respond when you do thanks
Beneficial-Hornet147 t1_jaxtiwp wrote
Saying trans rights activist have a disproportionate amount of Influence over policy while we are actively watching bills signed to limit their gender affirming care is laughably inaccurate. Are you trolling?
hiraeth555 t1_jaxuvxt wrote
What bills are you referring to?
I am not anti-trans, and think that people should have access to care and treatment if needed.
But it is undeniable that there are elements of ideology shaping the medical practice which I think should remain separate.
Beneficial-Hornet147 t1_jay5ufy wrote
There 378 anti trans bills being tracked across the country and please specify these ideologies that are infiltrating medical practice https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights
hiraeth555 t1_jay72jo wrote
Well I'm not an American for starters...
Why would I know what bills are going through in the USA?
1049-Gotho t1_jb6159v wrote
Sorry, are you under the impression that legislation in the UK is being dominated by trans rights activists? Given what's currently happening to the GRR in Scotland and that plans to ban conversion therapy don't include trans conversion therapy, how are you possibly claiming this?
Beneficial-Hornet147 t1_jayzhl4 wrote
Just say thank you for the new information
hiraeth555 t1_jb48rlz wrote
Such an American thing to say…
Beneficial-Hornet147 t1_jb4m2d8 wrote
Lol touché
bhtakti_hawas t1_jayusxr wrote
"Žižek Has Lost the Plot" and so on and so on...