Happy clappy castration time
Scottish NHS hypes the joys of being a eunuch.
Eunuch should be recognised as a formal gender identity, according to documents published by the Scottish NHS.
The National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland (NGICNS) shared the claims from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) that “eunuch-identified people” were the “least visible” trans group and would benefit from “gender affirming medical care”.
The paper was deleted on Wednesday night and the Scottish Government issued an apology, claiming it had been published by mistake.
Gender-affirming medical care for eunuchs is castration, so that’s what they’re suggesting.
Eunuchs “generally desire to have their testicles surgically removed or rendered non-functional”, the document states.
It adds that eunuchs should be offered “surgical intervention” if there is a risk that withholding treatment could lead to them attempting to carry out a medical procedure themselves.
The paper also provided a direct link to a website which includes graphic and sexually explicit fictional descriptions of child eunuchs.
All very healthy and useful I’m sure.
Other organisations to endorse eunuch as a gender identity are the Royal College of Nursing, which cited it as an “alternative” alongside terms such as “boygirl”, “girlboy” or “gender queer”.
…
David Parker, lead clinician at the NGICNS and a WPATH member, this week called on MSPs to back proposed SNP reforms which would make it far easier for trans people to change their legal sex to male or female.
He told a Holyrood committee scrutinising the plans that trans and non-binary people were “the experts in their own experience” and should be “recognised as their authentic selves”.
That’s a shockingly ignorant and stupid thing for a medical person to say. People are not [necessarily or invariably] experts in their own experience. On the contrary: we’re subject to all kinds of distortions when trying to understand ourselves. There are shelves and shelves of books on the subject. A fantasy self is not an “authentic” self just because someone claims it – it remains a fantasy. It may be useful or consoling in some way if kept in bounds, but it’s not “authentic” in the sense of being the truth and something other people are required to endorse.
Susan Buchanan, the director of National Specialist Services Division Scotland, apologised for the documents being uploaded in error and said her organisation would now commence a full investigation into the incident.
Well, make sure not to castrate it.
I smell Sokal… But they make it so easy…
How about just let them “identify” as eunuchs?
Since the article explicitly said that you can be a eunuch even before castration (which is news to me):
Does this mean that all the eunuchs in China, Greece, Rome, etc., who were forcibly castrated, weren’t really eunuchs, because they didn’t desire it? It’s all about desire and “identity”?
It shouldn’t be hard to find out who tried to insert these ideas into the document. Whoever it was should be fired. Perhaps this was somebody’s trial balloon, reeled in and walked back as soon as there was pushback. Had there not been, it would have stayed in place and become normalized as policy. I’m guessing that much of the genderist agenda that’s been introduced into various institutions and organizations has followed a similar path. Push, push, push, then wait to see what happens. Push: put TiMs in women’s prisons. Push: stop recording the sex of offenders. Push: let men who claim to be women compete against women. Push: erase the word “woman” from use in communications aimed specifically at women. If there are complaints, apologize and claim it was a “mistake.” If there is little or no resistance, (or resistance that can be dismissed and ignored), it stays put. Once established as the standard, resist reversals of policy once opposition arises (especially if it is only from women.) Rinse. Repeat.
None of these were “mistakes.” The only “mistake” was getting caught.Somebody, somewhere, thought these were all good policy ideas. Someone had to suggest them; others had to say “yes.” Then there’s implementation and enforcement. That’s not an accidental process. These things take time and effort and deliberation (even if the initial circle of decision makers is small.) They don’t happen by themselves, without guidance and planning. It’s as likely as “accidentally” building a cathedral.
If you’re around like-minded people, you might not know just how aberrant the ideas you’re batting around might look to the unwashed and unitiated masses. Not everyone is going to find the contents of your id as enternaining as you do. The usual tools of discussion, consultation, and debate are a necessary reality check that, ideally, should rein in stupid or dangerous ideas. The fact that these tools were not used in establishing the above noted “inclusive” policies that feminists are now trying to roll back, is all too obvious.
Not Bruce:
Incisive, as always.
There seem to be quite a few eunuchs in the Scottish NHS, and not of the kind who served the Turkish Empire so ably.
lol
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Happy clappy castration […]
It appears that there will be a chapter on “eunuchs” in the next revision (version 8) of the WPATH Standards of Care. This is new. From the list of contributors:
I apologise for the messed up formatting. This is the second time this has happened, and I can’t work out why.
I think it’s to do with copying from a pdf. I generally get random unwanted line breaks when I try to do that. The first time may have been just a forgotten close-quote.
A lot of computer geeks like UNIX!