Eliza did a nice job of avoiding pronouns in the piece, but it would have been better if she had used the correct pronouns (he, him, his) and the correct name: Andrew Long Chu.
Dude is a man, no matter how many drugs he takes and surgeries he has.
And we are under no obligation to respect his misappropriation of a woman's name.
Give "her" both barrels .... 😉🙂 Haven't read the rest at Unherd yet, but you seem to be off to a good start on that score.
But that "change your sex" -- which "she" has apparently made the crux of "her" argument, and of WPATH's -- is what transwoman Helen Highwater once called the "vicious lie", and outright fraud, at the heart of the whole transgender movement. Which another pair of Helens, Dale and Joyce, once called a "civilization threatening/ending" one.
The writings of this person clearly demonstrate the severe underlying mental imbalances commonly found in many trans identifying people. Like an alcoholic or substance abuser misery likes company and encouraging or collaborating with others somehow alleviates their distress.Perhaps not as extreme as portrayed in "The Silence of the Lambs" Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill) one is left to wonder at the seemingly strange compulsion to want others to suffer. I am a former trans identified male and am writing a strong warning to the danger of affirming a false gender identity. I speak from lived experience and the consequences of my actions (sex reassignment).I found inner peace at being myself in congruence with biology and truth.
There's a part of me that wants to send my crossdressing ex-husband a copy of that one. He's 69, been pretending to be me, the mother of our 2 grown sons, and promoted the concept that we all pass by lots of people who "pass" as the opposite sex every day, having no idea. Perhaps the long Long Chu blathering will peak someone. Please, God!
I haven't read the article, but does it ask for these "body changes" to be covered by insurance and Medicaid? And, if so, how do we distinguish these particular "body changes" from breast implants (for females), rhinoplasties (not to feminize male noses, but just for preferred nose shapes), Brazilian butt lifts (not to feminize or masculinize the butt, but just to enhance it), face lifts (again, not to feminize or masculinize), Botox, and on and on? If it does ask for this, what is the justification for covering purely cosmetic preferences? Does Chu rely on the "Gender Identity" theory, where anything that aligns with an undefined, undefinable amorphous notion in someone's head must be provided to that person?
And does the article also ask that these teens be able to get tattoos, piercings, etc., w/o parental consent? If not, why not? This would have to be because those things don't bring the body into alignment with a "Gender Identity" of sorts. Right?
If Chu is not relying on a Gender Identity, Is the idea that even teens should have full bodily autonomy, and that this includes the ability to change the body's appearance, to lop off parts and add fake parts, and to alter the chemical composition of the body, regardless of the consequences to the teen's health, just because, well, they want it? And, along with this, is the idea that society must facilitate every preference a teen has about the appearance of their body because to do otherwise would be cruel?
Let's hope the airing of Andrew Long Chu's deranged ideas cause the Overton Window to move in reverse for once in the direction of sanity and reasonableness.
Apart from simply owning the TERFs, could New York magazine have had any legitimate motive for publishing Andrew's piece of trash?
Is Chu a based undercover agent out to discredit the trans lobby? Is there anything outrageous or absurd enough to compel them to reconsider their position?
Chu follows Masha Gessen in dismissing regret over missing body parts as just another part of life's vicissitudes. The oddest thing about the article is its timing. As Freddie DeBoer notes this isn't exactly the cultural moment for this essay. A corner may not have been turned but I don't think we're at the Chu stage of performative rhetorical exercises either.
I saw that this article had been linked at Metafilter, and sighed, because in Metafilter's terms I am a heretic on this particular issue and so I usually keep my mouth shut, not wanting to get thrown off the site. [Link is here: https://www.metafilter.com/202868/Political-demands-at-the-level-of-biology-itself] But during the discussion which followed, there was a demonstration, in miniature, of the -- I can't think of a better word-- histrionics which follow so often whenever transwomen assert themselves in public, that I wanted to... point at it, somehow.
The self-aggrandizement, the self-flattery, the strutting around over how their genitals are better than natural ones, that they are "shapeshifters and magicians and superheroes", who have "power that cis people never will. Power that frightens you. Challenges you. We have the ability to fundamentally change who we are." It makes me gag. And reassures me, again, that whoever the new transwomen are, they sure as hell haven't stopped acting like men. (I have changed who I am a number of times during the years of my life, and I would venture to say it's a human quality that is available to anyone, not just at the end of a pill bottle.) The abrupt and offended deleting of their profiles in protest of the ignorance of "cis people", the flouncing away. Over the last few years I've seen this happen over and over again on Mefi, while the mods bend over backwards, thanklessly, to placate them.
Nowhere in this discussion is it possible to raise the urgent questions that I want to. Puberty blockers are not benign. We know this. Disrupting a child's endocrine system so drastically cannot be harmless, and indeed it is not: medical services, such as the NHS, have chosen to stop prescribing them given the lack of any evidence that they are helpful. Adult transwomen often seem to be fantasizing backwards about how great their lives would be now if they hadn't had to go through male puberty; but let's look at the most famous case of this protocol, shall we? And here we run smack into Jazz Jennings, who, as a result of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is UNABLE TO ORGASM. She has NO sexual feelings. She likely never will, and I consider that such a horrific violation of her human rights that I really don't have words for it. I am sure she had no idea what she was consenting to when she started taking those drugs; but as she grows older, and her peers and friends reach adulthood, and she begins to realize what has been stolen from her (imagine the sexless life which those who push puberty blockers somehow think acceptable) she may have a very rough road ahead. It breaks my heart, you know.
Of course, it needs to be said that it’s not possible to change sex. Chu’s fundamental premise is completely absurd.
Why would New York magazine publish this?
Eliza did a nice job of avoiding pronouns in the piece, but it would have been better if she had used the correct pronouns (he, him, his) and the correct name: Andrew Long Chu.
Dude is a man, no matter how many drugs he takes and surgeries he has.
And we are under no obligation to respect his misappropriation of a woman's name.
"strawmxn" lol
"Let anyone change their sex."
Give "her" both barrels .... 😉🙂 Haven't read the rest at Unherd yet, but you seem to be off to a good start on that score.
But that "change your sex" -- which "she" has apparently made the crux of "her" argument, and of WPATH's -- is what transwoman Helen Highwater once called the "vicious lie", and outright fraud, at the heart of the whole transgender movement. Which another pair of Helens, Dale and Joyce, once called a "civilization threatening/ending" one.
I can’t bring myself to give New York magazine the click. Maybe it’s wrong to want to avoid reading this insanity?
Thanks, again, Eliza, for doing the reading and engaging in the arguments. I’m cheering you from the sidelines.
The writings of this person clearly demonstrate the severe underlying mental imbalances commonly found in many trans identifying people. Like an alcoholic or substance abuser misery likes company and encouraging or collaborating with others somehow alleviates their distress.Perhaps not as extreme as portrayed in "The Silence of the Lambs" Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill) one is left to wonder at the seemingly strange compulsion to want others to suffer. I am a former trans identified male and am writing a strong warning to the danger of affirming a false gender identity. I speak from lived experience and the consequences of my actions (sex reassignment).I found inner peace at being myself in congruence with biology and truth.
There's a part of me that wants to send my crossdressing ex-husband a copy of that one. He's 69, been pretending to be me, the mother of our 2 grown sons, and promoted the concept that we all pass by lots of people who "pass" as the opposite sex every day, having no idea. Perhaps the long Long Chu blathering will peak someone. Please, God!
I haven't read the article, but does it ask for these "body changes" to be covered by insurance and Medicaid? And, if so, how do we distinguish these particular "body changes" from breast implants (for females), rhinoplasties (not to feminize male noses, but just for preferred nose shapes), Brazilian butt lifts (not to feminize or masculinize the butt, but just to enhance it), face lifts (again, not to feminize or masculinize), Botox, and on and on? If it does ask for this, what is the justification for covering purely cosmetic preferences? Does Chu rely on the "Gender Identity" theory, where anything that aligns with an undefined, undefinable amorphous notion in someone's head must be provided to that person?
And does the article also ask that these teens be able to get tattoos, piercings, etc., w/o parental consent? If not, why not? This would have to be because those things don't bring the body into alignment with a "Gender Identity" of sorts. Right?
If Chu is not relying on a Gender Identity, Is the idea that even teens should have full bodily autonomy, and that this includes the ability to change the body's appearance, to lop off parts and add fake parts, and to alter the chemical composition of the body, regardless of the consequences to the teen's health, just because, well, they want it? And, along with this, is the idea that society must facilitate every preference a teen has about the appearance of their body because to do otherwise would be cruel?
The whole thing just sounds insane.
Let's hope the airing of Andrew Long Chu's deranged ideas cause the Overton Window to move in reverse for once in the direction of sanity and reasonableness.
Apart from simply owning the TERFs, could New York magazine have had any legitimate motive for publishing Andrew's piece of trash?
Great as always, and “bigoted miserliness” is a wonderful phrase!
Is Chu a based undercover agent out to discredit the trans lobby? Is there anything outrageous or absurd enough to compel them to reconsider their position?
It should be Andrew Long Chu, not Andrea. Andrew is a man. He stole a woman's name. Why allow him to do that without protest?
Chu follows Masha Gessen in dismissing regret over missing body parts as just another part of life's vicissitudes. The oddest thing about the article is its timing. As Freddie DeBoer notes this isn't exactly the cultural moment for this essay. A corner may not have been turned but I don't think we're at the Chu stage of performative rhetorical exercises either.
Oh well, I’ll brag my 🍿 to watch Chu’s much needed fall.
I saw that this article had been linked at Metafilter, and sighed, because in Metafilter's terms I am a heretic on this particular issue and so I usually keep my mouth shut, not wanting to get thrown off the site. [Link is here: https://www.metafilter.com/202868/Political-demands-at-the-level-of-biology-itself] But during the discussion which followed, there was a demonstration, in miniature, of the -- I can't think of a better word-- histrionics which follow so often whenever transwomen assert themselves in public, that I wanted to... point at it, somehow.
The self-aggrandizement, the self-flattery, the strutting around over how their genitals are better than natural ones, that they are "shapeshifters and magicians and superheroes", who have "power that cis people never will. Power that frightens you. Challenges you. We have the ability to fundamentally change who we are." It makes me gag. And reassures me, again, that whoever the new transwomen are, they sure as hell haven't stopped acting like men. (I have changed who I am a number of times during the years of my life, and I would venture to say it's a human quality that is available to anyone, not just at the end of a pill bottle.) The abrupt and offended deleting of their profiles in protest of the ignorance of "cis people", the flouncing away. Over the last few years I've seen this happen over and over again on Mefi, while the mods bend over backwards, thanklessly, to placate them.
Nowhere in this discussion is it possible to raise the urgent questions that I want to. Puberty blockers are not benign. We know this. Disrupting a child's endocrine system so drastically cannot be harmless, and indeed it is not: medical services, such as the NHS, have chosen to stop prescribing them given the lack of any evidence that they are helpful. Adult transwomen often seem to be fantasizing backwards about how great their lives would be now if they hadn't had to go through male puberty; but let's look at the most famous case of this protocol, shall we? And here we run smack into Jazz Jennings, who, as a result of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is UNABLE TO ORGASM. She has NO sexual feelings. She likely never will, and I consider that such a horrific violation of her human rights that I really don't have words for it. I am sure she had no idea what she was consenting to when she started taking those drugs; but as she grows older, and her peers and friends reach adulthood, and she begins to realize what has been stolen from her (imagine the sexless life which those who push puberty blockers somehow think acceptable) she may have a very rough road ahead. It breaks my heart, you know.