27 Comments

The way everything is being twisted and moulded to validate people who quite clearly should be watched carefully and disallowed from access to children and the vulnerable is quite extraordinary. You'd think it was deliberate...

Expand full comment
Nov 13Liked by Rebecca Says No

Ex UK GP here. Staggering that the medical profession is actively paving the road to the genital & other mutilation of children (Trans). The gender rewrite of mental illness is a sneaky & insidious legitimisation of physical, sexual and psychological child abuse and it's happening in plain sight...

Expand full comment
Nov 13Liked by Rebecca Says No

Thank you for this one. Explained really well ♥️

Expand full comment

Amazing to me that they even include "those who do harm to others." Who might those others be? Why the wives. I collect the only data in the world on us, and indeed, the harm is extreme. There's coercive control and ritual manipulation, outright rape, battery strangulation. The shrinks appear to be unable to recognize one of the sources of these ritualistic acts, the violent fetish pornography and sissy hypno porn. Perhaps its because they don't even talk to the wives/ex-wives and these men don't tell the truth until they're incarcerated. For the data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwZUV72oDbQ&t=43s

Expand full comment
Nov 13·edited Nov 13

Thx for sharing the link. Viewed. Noted. Subscribed. Male UK GP (retired). It is a cult. The alleged, underlying "science" is perverse and incoherent. It's more of a mind virus that encourages vulnerable individuals into self-mutilating, delusional madness. Dudes should stay in their lane. That included female "dudes". Gender is an absurd and harmful social construct. I would be interested to learn how many biological females are driving this, at societal levels, as opposed to biological males = bad actors actively facilitating and complicit. I suspect this type of misguided, or purposeful facilitation of deviance is mainly a male phenomenon but I don't know. Aggression certainly is though imo. Male Trans advocates have form here? Whatever. Cf. Pro-ana encourages young girls to starve themselves to death? Only difference being that in the latter case it is mainly female on female, coercive mind control? Both of the two sexes have issues to deal with? Regardless: any medic doing this should be struck off, charged with criminal intent and jailed.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Dr. Young! We retired teachers and doctors have so much to offer! Thanks for subbing! I think I am saving children and I would love any comments on my channel. I'm about to do something on the fact that we trans widows, so many of us, had the experience of being told we need to learn a new way to make love. With a dildo. Pretending to be a man. Literally, a trans widow in my data hurt her C-section scar when she went along with this! A man is a man and don't pretend he's not stronger than you. The PhD "sexologists" are the ones to blame, and I name Dr. Ray Blanchard as one of the worst, his famous quote, on Graham Linehan's channel, The Mess We're In, "Oh, the wives don't like it." As well I pointed out to Blanchard that one of his case studies evaporated (Call Me Sam Youtube channel, was Maya for 25 years) when Sam detransitioned. I think Blanchard got me banned from X. Even now.

Expand full comment
Nov 17Liked by Rebecca Says No

Amen to all that you say here.

I wonder what might have happened had you posted this pre-retirement, whilst still working as a GP.

Expand full comment

IDK. Given wrongthink & cancel culture I bet I would have been up in front of the GMC and struck off after having my collar felt by the Po's for non-crime "hatespeech" aka truth speaking. Trans is absurd and born of the ceaseless cultural subversion of western values and thought by social constructionism and other post-modern donkey bollox. It is giving me sartresquian nausea...

Expand full comment
Nov 17·edited Nov 17Liked by Rebecca Says No

I think you're very probably right about what would have happened. (Here's a current example of such a situation from Canada: https://substack.com/home/post/p-151360504)

Obviously I don't know when you retired - it may have been before 'gender' started being aggressively marketed as a concept and identity - but I'm interested to know whether you ever came across what is called 'gender dysphoria' in the course of your work; and if so, what your approach, and that of the profession at large, was in any such instance. (I appreciate, however, that you may prefer not to go into that here).

Expand full comment
Nov 18·edited Nov 18

Rtd 2018. The local NHS told us not to challenge anyone requesting gender reassignment but to refer them on to a tertiary centre in Nottingham (Gender Identity Clinic) for some state sanctioned genital mutilation. I was happy to pass the ball down the line to the winger. A stroll down the uncanny valley with these patients was best avoided as far as I was concerned. As for 'gender dysphoria' my heart would sink & I would openly acknowledge the uncertainty of medicine and life, and advise them to accept that doctors do not know all the answers, especially to questions like "am I in the wrong body?" Then I'd perform my best gallic shrug and stop speaking... As for Canada! The country has gone completely mad. Trudeau is a total bell-end and that is my considered opinion, your Honour.

Expand full comment

I appreciate your reply, thanks. A difficult position for GPs with intellectual curiosity and ethics to be put in.

My friend refers to Canada as “Clown Central” …. nuff said.

Expand full comment
Nov 13·edited Nov 15Liked by Rebecca Says No

Rebecca this is brilliant - thank you. It seems such a sleight of hand (many sleights of hand) and the capturing of language as you say. I've kept asking myself but how, how did they get away with this. We have been left with no words to describe or explain anything and it all became disputed and endlessly argued over. It's incredibly hard to talk to, debate or argue with anyone who refuses to accept a basis on which to have that interaction - there is no logic, there are no rules. Even those who are confused or doubt, or have been confused need to return to first principles again and again. To break it down as you have we can see how it was done. We then look to authorities to get to some agreed place we can work from.

I have wanted those within health professions and institutions to address how their own terms and structures are open to debate, then have been corrupted and what seems like the mysterious black box of psychiatry and wider mental health. Medics use the most arcane language and will choose bizarre terms to confuse those around them, when much simpler and more obvious terms are available. It is bad practice and the sign of someone whose desire to bolster their own ego is greater than their desire to communicate with and help their patient. I've been scrabbling with how the mutation of terms happened - and how they seem to flex with fashions (like hysteria). You explain it here. I now have it clearer in my mind - how this does look like it was a very deliberate move to change it from a fetish, a paraphilia to a disorder. I don't believe it happened by accident - that is barely conceivable. I knew some people sat in rooms and submitted views over DSM iterations (like WPATH) but it seems almost whimsical and open to lobbyists. How did these terms get tweaked and why. It went from 'transsexualism' to a 'disorder' to a 'dysphoria'. This uncertainty or false certainty frequently still comes up in healthcare as things being 'organic' or 'non-organic' and if a test can't find something or a diagnostic process goes awry it seems very easy to leap to it being a 'non-organic' and psych 'cause' which seems a cover for 'we don't know' and in to the realms of 'belief'. I would have hoped that the brain being more understandable would lead to less mystery and more facts, more knowledge, less mystical guessing.

This particular part really stood out: "By downgrading the requirements for these sexual behaviours to be considered problematic, the American Psychiatric Association has implied (intentionally or not) that the element of taboo should be removed from them. This is clearly detrimental to society and encourages the idea that elements of these sexual behaviours are just normal variations and should be socially acceptable." So 'we' removed the taboo, so 'it' became just another neutral, standard, clinical thing to be 'treated', like a common cold or asthma. Some inherited condition you're born with. So it, this 'gender dysphoria' can be as randomly applied to a 4 year old girl as to a sex-offending 17 year old male, to a repeatedly convicted sex-offending murderous 60 year old man. All the same. All the same, blameless, neutral, random 'dysphoria'. The nature of these behaviours as a choice, a decision or deliberate and conscious choice to fulfil a sexual need or perversion has been totally removed. That fits well with the Judith Butler move that all boundaries are wrong, all should be removed. We are all 'normal', but no one is 'normal', that seems like an offensive term now in all contexts - we are all special. All 'norms', 'expectations' and even 'standards' are wrong and open to debate. The proponents have never been able to justify how this manifests the 'same' in young children and old men without resorting to 'gender souls' and having the words to describe 'what you always knew' from childhood, being preverbal. And back again to age being meaningless and sex with children as it's 'just' another colonial/fascist/? enforced barrier we should break down.

And the emphasis from distress to self versus distress to others was altered and reversed. So a sex-offending man in a male prison, with a long history of abusive behaviours and danger to 'others' can demand fetish play accoutrements and surgery to fit his self-identified transvestic fetish - now just a standard neutral medical issue the poor man suffers from that a psychiatrist has given him a nice label for - and he is transferred to a women's prison so he can live out his fetish as his 'right'. And the harm to the women and children and everyone vulnerable he preys on again is dismissed as not relevant or doesn't even feature at all in this new classification. It's his self-distress that is primary. And anyone who doesn't submit or agree to this is actively causing distress to him with his desperate clinical condition which demands all his demands must be met. So everyone without his fetish must be drawn into his fetish to alleviate his suffering. We must all go along with his delusion. These men can never be told 'no' by anyone now - they have a DSM label so there.

Blanchard doesn't come out of this looking good. AGP as a term doesn't seem as mentioned so much - I am suspicious of this entire 'field' and all the quasi scientific terms to describe men's perversions.

Expand full comment
Nov 14Liked by Rebecca Says No

This is so important, yet msm is still largely parroting the line that the science is established on all of this transgenderism. When you actually look at it closely, nothing could be further from the truth.

Expand full comment

Great piece, thanks, Rebecca.

My image of the DSM is something written in a café in New York by a group of activists and then miraculously taken up by the world!

Have cross posted

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/chitty-chitty-bang-bang

Dusty

Expand full comment

So the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (whose very name unequivocally confesses their sinister quackery) has had a disturbing influence on what passes for mainstream psychology i.e. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which is apparently “the key resource used to classify mental disorders in the US”.

Well, going by what I’ve been seeing over recent years, the question, “whether mental health professionals should still be relying upon the definitions that WPATH contributed” has already been decided. A dodgy pseudo-scientific project is ceaselessly pushed through all the channels and has a catastrophic effect. But by the time opposition rises and all is called into doubt, the new sorcery has taken root and will be presupposed for some time to come.

Expand full comment
Nov 14Liked by Rebecca Says No

Sinister quackery, that describes it in a nutshell

Expand full comment

An interesting read. I've thought for a while now that the subject of being trans or having gender dysphoria is more an issue of self identity. Yet it seems to have been lumped in with matters of sexual desire. The fact there's such a push for change to be made to embrace the stranger parts of the trans movement it's weakening the stance on other issues as is demonstrated in the choice to use softer language when reviewing other issues. It really does need to be viewed with a different lens without outside interference from biased groups.

Expand full comment

There is, for many people identifying as 'trans', a significant element of sexual desire behind the preference for cross-dressing or seeking body modifications that will enable one to pretend that one is of the opposite sex. See the paraphilia known as autogynephilia, and look at the pages of reduxx.com, for instance.

Expand full comment
Nov 14·edited Nov 14Liked by Rebecca Says No

Just to add another layer of confusion here in how the gender identity rewrite has happened and how it flows out through society. Some terms were invented, a few new fields of healthcare created, then a whole area of new legislation to protect those newly designed labels with vital 'rights' and 'protections'.

I'm looking at how this manifests in our daily lives. It feels a bit risky to query any of this but there are now 'non-crime hate incidents' (NCHI) in the UK. In the latest round of puzzlement about the police coming (maybe) to have a word to check people's thinking I spotted this in a summary of what a NCHI is. I am still confused about what one is and no explanations make much sense. Cross dressers are mentioned. Is that a clinical term? A psychiatric term? Mental health? A legal term? Who makes the diagnosis? Do you get paediatric cross dressers? Can you be all at once, or one at a time, or 'self-identify' as such at the same time? How would another person 'perceive' that? I used to think I knew what it meant, but now if I wear trousers does that make me a 'cross dresser' or is it only adult men squeezed into panto schoolgirl outfits with suspenders and a porno look hoping to be looked at? And/or is that a 'mental health disorder'?

"What is a non-crime hate incident?

The College of Policing states that it is any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on:

- A person’s race or perceived race, including any racial group or ethnic background including countries within the UK, and gypsy and traveller groups;

- A person’s religion or perceived religion, including any religious group including those who have no faith in a theology;

- A person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation;

- A person’s disability or perceived disability including physical disability, learning disability and mental health or developmental disorders;

- A person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender, including people who are transsexual, transgender, cross dressers and those who hold a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004."

It's an include the kitchen sink list that vaguely cover some of the protections in the Equality Act 2010 with some major and glaringly obvious omissions (sex or age anyone?) but it's that last cobbled together list of terms I genuinely feel mean something and nothing. What are the terms based on? DSM-5? ICD-11? College of Policing? What source? Each new official list of 'genders' and 'identities' adds a new madey uppey one every time I check back like some endlessly shapeshifting murk. Seemingly deliberately to destabilise the ground we all stand on. This patently poorly drafted and enacted bit of law mixes up someone looking at someone a bit funny or mocking or disagreeing with someone online as an 'incident', with real and dangerous incidents of hate. But both and neither are still not crimes under NCHI reporting. That you may not even know has been recorded against you.

Expand full comment
author

I believe that Non-Crime Hate Incidents are influenced/advised on by the British Society of Criminology Hate Crime Network made up of academics based in various universities throughout the country (who as far as I’ve seen base their PhDs and publications on total nonsense where ‘hate’ means whatever they want it to mean). It’s very Orwellian and it is definitely something that journalists should be looking into…

https://www.britsoccrim.org/networks/hate-crime-network/#:~:text=The%20BSC%20Hate%20Crime%20Network,interest%20in%20researching%20hate%20crime.

Expand full comment

Thanks Rebecca. What a subset of a subset. Looking through that list of what academic institutions that 'network' are from is thoroughly depressing. In all of the cases and press reports going back to Miller I hadn't heard of them. I have worked somewhere where there were academic links to criminology, philosophy and wider criminal justice and have never heard of any of this lot. Off now to read about hippo violence and guide dog partnerships...????...I mean...WTA...F?

Expand full comment
author

They hosted a recent event about ‘Trans-Misogyny’, which in reality means ‘misogyny against men’. So that’s the kind of academics who are in the Hate Crime Network..

Expand full comment

Turning a mental health condition into a religious cult serves no one's best interests (well except those making huge profits off the distress of others): https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/religion-cult-whatever

Expand full comment

It seems like the professional are making g it up as they go along to make life easier for them and harder for their potential patients and families.

Expand full comment

Just sent the press office and organisers at Southbank a piece of my mind about this idiocy https://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/judith-butler-whos-afraid-of-gender/

Expand full comment

Thank you. But wow. Just wow. Those two in a room together still spouting total lies. The description of the event is a veritable bingo card of bizarre terms like 'right wing' that have many left wing women scratching their head. Neither of those women speak for me.

Expand full comment

Spot on! That is exactly what I said. Sarkar will be all sycophantic in front of an audience of gushing gullibles.

Expand full comment