divingrightintowork

divingrightintowork · 2020-10-26T00:15:05+00:00

Hi all! I started a sister saidit for "These are not our crimes," it's to log reports of crimes by "Women," / "females," that are... very much not either. Ideally crimes that don't divulge the actual sex of the person at all (by which I mean lie and call them a woman) though I'm generally happy with whatever people feel appropriate.

Please come check it out / submit some news, etc! It seems like an important thing to track.

https://saidit.net/s/TheseAreNotOurCrimes/

divingrightintowork · 2020-08-13T15:11:13+00:00

Huh this is a whole.... hole.....

Original article - http://valleywag.gawker.com/twitter-engineer-dana-mccallum-pled-guilty-to-two-misde-1643207780

MTF Violently rapes wife after getting served divorce papers

Now-ex wife says some.... interesting things that kind of erase / ignore biology?

http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2014/10/16/its-not-about-her-ex-a-trans-partners-story/

My case is not about the genitals of my wife. Her chromosomal structure and genital configuration and that she was assigned male at birth have got NOTHING TO DO with the sexual violation of my body. Why does it matter if she used her penis or even has one? WHO CARES?? You want so badly to create the “all men/penises are evil” platform, that you can’t see the anguish your comments cause me, the victim, and other victims of sexual abuse.

The CRIME here was not her gender configuration. What if she had XX chromosomes or a vagina? What if she had used a carrot? A bamboo plant? A fist, a dildo, or ANY OTHER BODY PART OR OBJECT? The CRIME was the sexual violation of my body by someone I loved, who was under the influence of alcohol. THAT should be the focus of this conversation, not the instrument used.

divingrightintowork · 2020-08-03T14:07:26+00:00

Well this seems like a really big deal - A longitudinal study of 2,679 people reporting gender dysphoria in Sweden found that cross-sex surgical procedures resulted in no observable benefits to those who only took hormones or did nothing (if I read this correctly).

The article originally claimed to see an 8% decrease in seeking mental health services / support, therefore making the claim SRS could impart a benefit to people with GD - this was of course seized upon as support that cross sex procedures imparted a benefit but upon reanalysis the evidence just isn't there.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this but this seems to stand against just about any argument I've heard for cross-sex medical procedures as a treatment for gender dysphoria. People in Sweden appreciate national health care footing the bill for cross sex procedures, wide social and familial support, legal protections, and just about every other thing that is blamed for distress trans people experience. Yet when provided with all of those things they still experience marked distress and don't show any observable improvements across a longitudinal and large sample size. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

Also imagine if the same flaws were found in an article that was critical of current trans-orthodoxy? Much less flawed (in fact unflawed) studies, along with their researchers, have been pilloried for even daring to question the efficacy of gender affirmation orthodoxy, given it is not a zero-harm approach, why is that?

Original article here - correction here -

"After the article “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study” by Richard Bränström, Ph.D., and John E. Pachankis, Ph.D. (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080), was published online on October 4, 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, some letters containing questions on the statistical methodology employed in the study led the Journal to seek statistical consultations. The results of these consultations were presented to the study authors, who concurred with many of the points raised. Upon request, the authors reanalyzed the data to compare outcomes between individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments and those diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not. While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups, the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison. Given that the study used neither a prospective cohort design nor a randomized controlled trial design, the conclusion that “the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and lower use of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them” is too strong. Finally, although the percentage of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments during the follow-up period is correctly reported in Table 3 (37.9%), the text incorrectly refers to this percentage as 48%. A corrected article will be posted on August 1, along with a postpublication discussion captured in the Letters to the Editor section."

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

divingrightintowork · 2020-11-29T15:25:57+00:00

You can read the timeline of the fights here - https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/chronology-events-kimberly-nixon-vs-vancouver-rape-relief-society

This is a nice synopsis of events here: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/

And for legal geeks - here is the final court document in which he lost, and was told to repay VRRS, which he never did. https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/sites/default/files/imce/BC%20Supreme%20Court%20Reasons%20for%20Judgement%20Nixon%20v%20rape%20relief.doc

Here the judge discusses how Nixon was suing to be validated - ] Groucho Marx once famously observed on resigning from a club, that he did not want to be a member of any club that would accept someone like him as a member. The club’s acceptance and his resignation were matters of his self-esteem that is, his subjective sense of dignity or self worth, just as Ms. Nixon’s departure from BWSS no doubt was for her.

[161] However, Rape Relief’s exclusion of Ms. Nixon from its club-like sisterhood cannot be equated with legislated exclusion from entitlement to public benefits (as occurred in Martin) in terms of its objective impact on human dignity. It attracted publicity and took on political significance outside the private relationship between Rape Relief and Ms. Nixon, only because Ms. Nixon chose to initiate a complaint under the Code.

This man is considered a "hero" by many TRAs.

Lastly - someone should really update the wikipedia page with a gist of what the judge said about how Nixon was just leveraging the government to validate his identity (but make sure to 'respect' his pronouns). Probably due some other updates too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_case

divingrightintowork · 2021-05-08T23:22:45+00:00

Ok trans folks, I got a question for you...

Why is gender identity different than religion? Or at least, with regards to social protocols around how you respect religious people's identities and beliefs when they're not around, vs when they are?

Like sure, 'use people's preferred pronouns' when gender people are around seems similar to not saying "jesus fucking christ," when your Christian friends are around (though I'm skeptical most people have that level of respect for their Christian friends, probably the opposite).

That said, when they're not around, who cares. How is it any different to talk about Ellen Page as Ellen Page if she's not in the same room as you, any more than it is to say "Jesus Fucking Christ," when my Christian mom isn't around? Why (and how!) does the former seem to 'hurt' and disrespect the gender person, but the former does not hurt or disrespect the religion person?

There are many other instances this applies to, but for now I'm happy to keep it to religious identity as it seems like a great dupe for gender identity - it is immaterial, unprovable, both parties often believe that "Everyone has a gender/religious soul. some people just haven't realized it yet," requires articles of faith, adherence to the ideologies can be measured by certain rituals and lifestyles, though one can "be" a gender/religious person without partaking in any of these songs and dances... they simply need to tell them they are X... and they are X.

Anyway, color me curious and ty! (I do realize not all trans people are gender ideology identitarians)

divingrightintowork · 2020-08-03T14:10:30+00:00

Well this seems like a really big deal - A longitudinal study of 2,679 people reporting gender dysphoria in Sweden found that cross-sex surgical procedures resulted in no observable benefits to those who only took hormones or did nothing (if I read this correctly).

The article originally claimed to see an 8% decrease in seeking mental health services / support, therefore making the claim SRS could impart a benefit to people with GD - this was of course seized upon as support that cross sex procedures imparted a benefit but upon reanalysis the evidence just isn't there.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this but this seems to stand against just about any argument I've heard for cross-sex medical procedures as a treatment for gender dysphoria. People in Sweden appreciate national health care footing the bill for cross sex procedures, wide social and familial support, legal protections, and just about every other thing that is blamed for distress trans people experience. Yet when provided with all of those things they still experience marked distress and don't show any observable improvements across a longitudinal and large sample size. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

Also imagine if the same flaws were found in an article that was critical of current trans-orthodoxy? Much less flawed (in fact unflawed) studies, along with their researchers, have been pilloried for even daring to question the efficacy of gender affirmation orthodoxy, given it is not a zero-harm approach, why is that?

Original article here - correction here -

"After the article “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study” by Richard Bränström, Ph.D., and John E. Pachankis, Ph.D. (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080), was published online on October 4, 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, some letters containing questions on the statistical methodology employed in the study led the Journal to seek statistical consultations. The results of these consultations were presented to the study authors, who concurred with many of the points raised. Upon request, the authors reanalyzed the data to compare outcomes between individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments and those diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not. While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups, the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison. Given that the study used neither a prospective cohort design nor a randomized controlled trial design, the conclusion that “the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and lower use of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them” is too strong. Finally, although the percentage of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments during the follow-up period is correctly reported in Table 3 (37.9%), the text incorrectly refers to this percentage as 48%. A corrected article will be posted on August 1, along with a postpublication discussion captured in the Letters to the Editor section."

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

divingrightintowork · 2020-09-07T18:34:03+00:00

It seems like a one way street, doing something that is unintuitive and arguably inviolation of personal beliefs..

So - how do you reciprocate this energy or even violation of values, what do you do in exchange / consideration for people like myself that don't believe one can misgender, because they don't believe in gender identity, but will still do this nicety as a courtesy for you - what courtesy are you doing for us?

Imagine if I were a Christian in a Muslim country, and always had to say Asalam Aleyku as a greeting, even though that was in violation of my faith. Do you generally think this is how the world should operate and that this is ok? Because this is sort of what it feels like - except it's not even like that - it's like being an athiest and having to kotow to an extremist cult or describe how beautiful the clothing of the naked emperor is.