Eunuchs in Scotland

[JesusA (imported)]

Does anyone here have access to the Telegraph. I could only read the headline and first line of this article without a subscription. If anyone can access it, please post a copy here for everyone to read. This one sounds very useful.

‘Eunuch’ should be a gender, according to Scottish NHS

Documents published on an NHS website share claims that 'eunuch-identified people' would benefit from 'gender affirming medical care'

By Daniel Sanderson, (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/d/d ... sanderson/)Scottish Correspondent 15 June 2022 • 9:35pm

Eunuch should be recognised as a formal gender identity, according to documents published by the Scottish NHS....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... ld-gender/

[Tante Wippen (imported)]

Hi Jesus, this may be of some interest: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ument.html

[magusuk89 (imported)]

E-mail I just sent to my contact in the UK House of Lords:

In the last couple of days a media storm has been whipped up, and folk are

frankly fearing for their lives. The fascistic hatred of the rightwing

press knows no bounds:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ument.html

A women's feminist organisation (anti-trans, gender critical, and likely

allied to nefarious groups like the Heritage Foundation) has cranked the

handle on stigmatising and sensationalising about the detesticulated

community, and is violently resisting men's reclaiming of the term

'eunuch'. No woman has stakeholdership in that.

The Daily Mail article, and the smaller Telegraph article it is based on,

have linked male/non-binary eunuch issues to the toxic debate about

women's spaces etc., which is disingenuous.

On the positive side, I am glad that it appears the Scottish NHS is taking

the new WPATH SoC v.8 seriously. It is a shame they jumped the gun before

it has been legally ratified/adopted, which is the technicality on which

the NHS in Scotland has had to issue something the press is construing as

an 'apology' -- which naturally contains a sense that something about the

new global regulations have been said to be discreditable in some way.

Anyway, in short I am appalled that men's voices are diluted by women's in

a matter of andrology / men's health, and that the community is fearful of

increased prejudice and possibly violent reprisals, as well as the police

crackdowns on desperate backstreet options (in the absense of abuse-free

NHS care) as we have already discussed.

Thank you for reading my cri de cœur this far -- As ever, should a

community voice me required to contribute to discussions on this topic, I

am at your disposal, as is my liaison with others in the mutual support

networks.

With my best regards,

[JesusA (imported)]

Excellent email. Beautifully written. Thank you.

[WheelyCurious]

The Daily Mail article looked an awful lot like the one that showed up here in the US and was the topic of a thread here a few weeks ago. It seemed to hit most of the same hot buttons, and be just as much crap.... Hopefully it won't get a lot more bad reaction than the US article seems to have produced. I think the letter Magus wrote was excellent, but seems like best to ignore it otherwise.

WheelyCurious

[magusuk89 (imported)]

The Daily Mail article looked an awful lot like the one that showed up here in the US and was the topic of a thread here a few weeks ago. It seemed to hit most of the same hot buttons, and be just as much crap.... Hopefully it won't get a lot more bad reaction than the US article seems to have produced. I think the letter Magus wrote was excellent, but seems like best to ignore it otherwise.

WheelyCurious

Thanks! :]

I think it is worth reiterating that apart from within this community forum, the letter I said was direct to a Privy Councillor. I agree that it is best to not build up an argument in front of the general public to such an extent that the haters get more fuel to push out hate... but please do join me in keeping up pressure politically through whatever channels and back channels you can.

We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. In the UK in particular, we do not have a stable constitution at all, and the rule of law / the law of recognition is acknowledged to be failing to an extent that is worrying UK allies as well as those of us within the country who are alert to these things. The government are intending to re-write every bit of rights legislation, so if there is not a decent, robust embassy from our community the UK could become an even more hostile place than it currently is.

Within the UK folk can only write to their Member of Parliament (it is not permitted to write to MPs of other constituencies), but can write to any member of the House of Lords. The Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords are potentially a good bet, as the Church of England's Authorised Bible is the King James version, where Matthew 19:12 is correctly translated as a specific beatitude for eunuchs, and consequently the Established Church is supportive of our community.

If folk outside the UK wish to help you can write to UK politicians expressing the way the UK is perceived by our allies in this matter; and also potentially encourage your diplomatic mission here to help make background noises by writing to your ambassador to the Court of St James.

Folk in the US will no doubt note that we in the UK inhabit a cultural/political system utterly alien to the political geography in the US -- one in many respects quite feudal. Something we share in common though is the threat the rightwing press poses to personal liberties and universal respect.

[BiBikerFL (imported)]

You had me until you went on about the far right and Heritage Foundation.

As a conservative and a eunuch follower, I have to agree with them. Just because you don’t like what a person says about eunuchs, doesn’t make them a hater as you put it.

We are one of two sexes. PERIOD. Argue all you want and go ahead and call me a hater, because I and most everyone on earth KNOW that the world is round and not flat. So is your and everyone else’s deviation from our sex reality and science.

It is what it is dude. (If that’s an acceptable pronoun) LOL

[magusuk89 (imported)]

You had me until you went on about the far right and Heritage Foundation.

As a conservative and a eunuch follower, I have to agree with them. Just because you don’t like what a person says about eunuchs, doesn’t make them a hater as you put it.

We are one of two sexes. PERIOD. Argue all you want and go ahead and call me a hater, because I and most everyone on earth KNOW that the world is round and not flat. So is your and everyone else’s deviation from our sex reality and science.

It is what it is dude. (If that’s an acceptable pronoun) LOL

Dude. My dude. Oh poor misguided dudissimo...

These folks are trying to eliminate bodily autonomy altogether. My whole situation is I have testicular pathologies they refuse to treat because infertility offends people's fragile feelings. Where's the liberty and pursuit of happiness in that, I ask you? Sure, you seem dreadfully keen to anchor sex organs to gender or something -- some very tense concentration on the importance of these subjects. Whereas in the Bible, Galatians 3:28, we have: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus'. In other words, not sweating it. And that is not even mentioning Matthew 19:12. So what are you really conserving with your conservatism? The pro-natalism of Henry VIII of England? One of our greatest kings, Richard the Lionheart, was boyfriends with the king of France and didn't care about leaving heirs. That's an older authority than Henry VIII. Why the appeal to tradition, then, when tradition is abundantly in favour of diversity in these regards?

When we come down to brass tacks, the forces of evil out there right now are attempting to thwart people's access to safe medical care. That is ontologically a hateful move. So yes, I'll call them haters. I've no idea what your position on free-elective or medically-indicated access to orchidectomy is, so beyond your self-identification with the haters I have no evidence on which to describe you as a hater. I hope you would not prevent people's access to bodily autonomy.

Of course if you are economically conservative you might be worried about National Health Service costs or whatever. My dearest dudissimo, I had been consented for surgery by a private Harley Street urology consultant as medically requiring orchidectomy over two years ago... and paid £7500 of my own money for this, with a private HRT plan in place. But bigots in the hospital said no, and the clinic had to refund me. Why the 'no'? -- Ideology. Fascism. The fear of bodily diversity. Believe me, if objections are about the cash, I'll pay the cash. But right now I've been off sick since last year signed off by the doctor for unmanageable pain... so where is the sense in that?

[WheelyCurious]

Hoping this doesn't thread to far into the forbidden political arena, I believe there is a fuzzier line than just 'haters' and 'supporters'.... That one does not approve of a given group / viewpoint / belief system / etc. doesn't inherently make someone a 'hater', and there is a right for anyone to have an opinion, rational or not... Neither does publicly expressing that opinion and campaigning for others to join in it make one inherently a hater.... Much as I might disagree with the anti-folks, if we have a right to campaign in favor of our view, they have the right to campaign against it....

Where I draw the line is that physical coercion is NOT acceptable and does make one a 'hater' or worse...

That said, I am very much of the feeling that the government should not take sides in these sorts of questions by making laws limiting voluntary actions.... I'd love to repeal any laws against 'victimless crimes' and similar such as I feel that they will ALWAYS make things worse by driving the activities underground... Thus I very much agree that we need to preserve body autonomy... At the same time I can definitely see where BiBiker is coming from and often fall more on the conservative side of a lot of issues...

I used to be very active in the US Libertarian Party, to the point where I once was potentially one of the few people that could vote for the US President (remember, the average citizen does NOT vote for the President, they vote for a slate of members that go into the Electoral College, I was on the ballot to be an Elector)... I was VERY glad that our candidate in that cycle did NOT win, as I would not have been able to cast a vote for him, as he had been very supportive of bad laws like being one of the sponsors of the 'Defense of Marriage Act'...

WheelyCurious

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Hoping this doesn't thread to far into the forbidden political arena, I believe there is a fuzzier line than just 'haters' and 'supporters'.... That one does not approve of a given group / viewpoint / belief system / etc. doesn't inherently make someone a 'hater', and there is a right for anyone to have an opinion, rational or not... Neither does publicly expressing that opinion and campaigning for others to join in it make one inherently a hater.... Much as I might disagree with the anti-folks, if we have a right to campaign in favor of our view, they have the right to campaign against it....

Where I draw the line is that physical coercion is NOT acceptable and does make one a 'hater' or worse...

That said, I am very much of the feeling that the government should not take sides in these sorts of questions by making laws limiting voluntary actions.... I'd love to repeal any laws against 'victimless crimes' and similar such as I feel that they will ALWAYS make things worse by driving the activities underground... Thus I very much agree that we need to preserve body autonomy... At the same time I can definitely see where BiBiker is coming from and often fall more on the conservative side of a lot of issues...

I used to be very active in the US Libertarian Party, to the point where I once was potentially one of the few people that could vote for the US President (remember, the average citizen does NOT vote for the President, they vote for a slate of members that go into the Electoral College, I was on the ballot to be an Elector)... I was VERY glad that our candidate in that cycle did NOT win, as I would not have been able to cast a vote for him, as he had been very supportive of bad laws like being one of the sponsors of the 'Defense of Marriage Act'...

WheelyCurious

This is a thread about Scotland, and the UK, right?

I've been very careful about not mentioning parties, which is how in my country's custom something would be considered 'politics'. If I were being actively political you'd've heard things like 'DUP', 'SNP', 'Sinn Fein', 'Green Party', 'Liberal Democrats', 'Labour', 'Conservative and Unionist Party', 'Plaid Cymru' etc etc. So no, for the UK this thread is not political in that kind of sense if you agree to setting the terms of the discussion *about the UK* in a way that is appropriate to civic life *in the UK*.