Choose carefully
Via Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans History Month UK on Facebook:
Message from LGBT History Month:
Julie Bindel
Schools OUT UK wishes to make a statement concerning the proposed appearance of Julie Bindel at The Working Class Movement Library in Manchester on the 4th of February, which is promoted on the LGBT History Month Calendar.
It’s not a “proposed” appearance, by the way – it’s a scheduled appearance. It’s on the calendar.
As the creators of LGBT History Month and the owners of the website and associated social media, we wish to make clear that the only events for which we are responsible are OUTing the Past: The National LGBT History Festivals taking place in fifteen venues around the country throughout the month of February. These are run locally and we provide much of the wherewithal, rather than taking responsibility for their overall management. We have no responsibility for the organisation of any other events during the month, whether or not they are promoted on our calendar; including this one.
That said, we recognise that this event is on our calendar and we have the editorial power to remove it. We have chosen not to and we wish to explain why.
Let’s consider Julie Bindel herself. As the blurb in the calendar says, “Julie has been active in the global campaign to end violence towards women and children since 1979, and has written extensively on topics such as rape, domestic violence, prostitution and trafficking”. This is hardly stuff that should cause objections. We gather she will be discussing what it was like to be a working class feminist lesbian in the 1970s, about which, as a middle class gay teenager in the 70s, I for one would like to know more. Her views are valuable and need to be heard. She made the comments that questioned the existence of trans women in 2004 and has said she would phrase things differently now. But when the event went up on the calendar we were bombarded with demands that it be removed and threats to ‘withdraw support’ from LGBT History Month. Now a protest is being organised and petitions have been presented on social media to ban her from the event and to attempt to remove funding from the Working Class Museum; as if shutting down the only museum of its kind in the country would be to anyone’s benefit. The struggle for equality is everyone’s struggle and the working classes need more visibility; not less.
Emphasis added. Julie herself is more concerned about that than she is about the attempt to shut her down.
There’s no denying that Julie Bindel will say things people don’t want to hear and that she will upset people. I was disappointed at an article she wrote challenging medical intervention to forestall puberty in trans children; especially as the organ that published it was that enemy of equality and human rights The Daily Mail. She has a right to speak just as we have a right to challenge what she says. That is the nature of debate and it allows us to make change happen in society.
Lots of people will say things we don’t want to hear, every day and everywhere. It’s a good idea to learn to choose one’s battles carefully. It’s a good idea to learn to distinguish between real enemies and phantom ones. It’s a good idea to have a sense of proportion.
Christ on a bike in a pancake hat. I didn’t even know it was controversial, let alone an apartheid-worthy banning offence, to consider puberty blockers dubious.
You’re taking away a child’s eventual choice to be independent of lifelong dependence on hormone drugs and all their side-effects.
But it’s the people who want to keep the kid’s options open who are the monsters.
I guess it’s good I heard about that. I would never have guessed.
What has happened to the world when a pretty reasonable statement in favor of letting (a controversial someone) speak seems like a cause for celebration?
Someone’s not being totally unreasonable about something! Callooh Callay!
In my opinion, anything that makes a purely elective medical decision (i.e., one that is not required to literally save their life or health) for a minor child should be put in the dubious category. There may be times when those sorts of decisions are necessary and appropriate, but that determination should be made carefully and with a lot of thought.
as if shutting down the only museum of its kind in the country would be to anyone’s benefit
The Tories might consider it beneficial.
@iknklast #3 – so… it sounds like just the sort of thing we should be having public discussions about? To figure out what the important things to think about are, and why, for each individual instance of the decision.
Karellen – yes, I think we should be having public discussions about such things.
Okay, this confuses me. Every source I’ve been able to find indicates that puberty blockers function like a ‘pause’ button. A teen who is on them, who ultimately decides that they are not trans, just goes off the drugs, puberty restarts, and they continue on their way without any dependence upon any drugs.
However, if the teen does decide (as a minority of them do), once they are old enough, that they wish to go through full transition, the whole process is much easier because of the lack of developed secondary sex traits.
So I fail to see how the puberty blockers are the option that ‘takes away a child’s eventual choice”.
Freemage #7,
A minority of children with gender dysphoria do grow up to be trans. However, it is not the case that a minority of children on puberty blockers grow up to be trans. On the contrary, going on puberty blockers almost always leads to transition. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646177. “No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression, and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment.” That’s “all.” Not “a minority.”
So I think concerns about taking away the child’s freedom of choice are well-founded.
In most of the US, a minor can’t get a tattoo without parental consent. But puberty blockers are OK?
Freemage @ 7 – that’s what I used to think puberty blockers were too, so they seemed like a good way to go – just giving the kid more time to figure things out (because who the hell even knows at age 12?). But I’ve gathered since that it’s not that simple: that the blockers do more than just Pause everything. If that’s true then it’s not so clearly a good way to go. I say I’ve “gathered” on purpose though: I haven’t researched it or anything.
I’m pretty sure we don’t actually know the long-term effects of puberty blockers on children. These drugs have been tested for other uses (mainly cancer treatment) and have been used short-term for precocious puberty, but AFAIK they have never been used on a large scale for several years on healthy adolescents.
Freemage, et. al.,
IANAF but apparently puberty have been used for years for children who start puberty abnormally early. They seem to be quite safe used on an 8 year old to delay puberty for a few years.
Their use on purportedly trans children is “off label.” These kids are older when they start taking the drugs, and the effects are potentially different. As yet there are no long term follow up studies. There are concerns about how the drugs may affect bone density, brain development, and psychosocial development.
That was supposed to be “IANAD,” as I am not a doctor. But I am not a farmer, either, so it’s all good.
Hrm. The full summary of that paper also indicates two key things:
1: That all those involved in the study were on blockers, and;
2: That all those taking the blockers also reported a significant decrease in various issues such as depression.
The key thing lacking, though, is a comparative study of children who were approved for puberty blockers but then did not take them. The counter-hypothesis to “puberty blockers make it more likely that the child will grow up trans” is twofold:
1: The system used to assign puberty blockers (at least, in that study) is so rigorous that they really already winnowed out the non-trans kids successfully.
2: The kid is more likely to grow up trans not because the drugs have stolen their free will, but because the drugs have lowered the hurdle for transition to a more palatable degree.
***********
I’m more persuaded by arguments that we just don’t know enough about the long-term effects to go to extensive use. That’s a sober and cautious rationale, not for abandoning the idea, but for doing intensive research.
That said, I’m also aware of how high the suicide and self-harm rate is among youths in this group. That’s an issue of medical ethics, not unlike the debate over how long to wait before allowing the terminally ill access to experimental drugs; you don’t want to toss out something toxic, but you also have very real bodies in very real graves.
Ophelia, for the record, my understanding of your overall position is, ‘It’s complicated, and we need a lot more open discussion and research.” If that’s largely accurate, I’m with you; but I also see no evidence that Bindel is anything but a denialist. That said, if I can laud Thomas Jefferson’s ideals of liberty despite his owning slaves, I sure as hell can laud Bindel’s accomplishments on behalf of feminism without having to agree with her views on trans issues.
Freemage, what do you mean by “a denialist”? I don’t know what that means in this context.
Every quote on the subject of transgenderism/transsexuality I’ve been able to find from her indicates that she doesn’t believe it exists as a distinct phenomenon at all. At most, she attributes all cases of it to a result of our sexist society–ie, if we were to truly create a non-sexist world, there would be no trans people at all. While I’d certainly agree that gender-enforcement makes transgender individuals suffer unnecessarily, and thereby creates a stronger backlash, I think she goes way, way too far in completely dismissing the idea.
And yet, I agree with you wholeheartedly that that one thing, even if I’m perfectly correct and she’s utterly wrong, would not be enough to diminish her accomplishments for feminism as a whole, and that she should be honored on that front, without any hesitation.
Thank you, that clarifies.
I think “denialist” is an odd word to use though, when the subject is so unsettled and constantly shifting.
Ophelia: I agree there’s a lot that’s unknown, but I think Bindel’s at the extreme edge of refusing to believe that there’s anything happening with trans people other than reacting to gender role enforcement. There’s too much weight on the other side to completely dismiss it as she does. In turn, I think that that extremism makes it difficult to extract much value from discussing this issue with her.
Ok, understood.