Cutters Beware

[Tante Wippen (imported)]

For those of you thinking of becoming a cutter and/or using the services of a cutter should be aware of an on going UK trial of a cohort of cutters plus their leader. For further details click on this link:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 06166.html

Or just enter "eunuch maker" into the Google search engine for numerous other reports about this trial.

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Yeah. This gained a lot of really nasty coverage when the arrests were made. It is disappointing folk were remanded at the Magistrates'. The whole reason for this tragedy is denial of care by UK doctors, which I comment about frequently enough. I have lobbied peers, MPs etc. If you want to help, that is how.

[manc-wannabe (imported)]

As a U.K. nullo who had to fly 12 hours to get any kind of medical treatment this makes me doubly mad. Firstly, the people involved were insanely reckless, stupid and greedy. Making money off peoples medical needs was awful. But secondly, I’m livid at the absolutely backwards state of U.K. eunuch / non binary medical care. It just doesn’t exist. And now the media and government will use this to drive things even more backwards. I don’t see any chance of the U.K. adopting WPATH 8 whilst the current lot are in charge or even if/when Labour take over. Personally, I had to fly to the other side of the world and spend £10k to get the treatment I needed; other people aren’t as fortunate as me to be able to afford that. Sorry, rant over.

Magus - many thanks for all the work you’re doing on this. Please PM me if there is anything I can do to help or support.

[Paolo]

We often referred to this lot as "The Site Which Must Not Be Named."

As this is a news story, I'll leave the thread here - for now.

However...

If anyone reading this is/was associated with this site/people, DON'T talk about it on here.

I don't even want to see any mentions, or anything like: "Yeah, I knew these people."

The Eunuch Archive is/was in NO way affiliated with this lot. This is not to say that some Members here were, or weren't. What our Members here do online when not viewing EA is not our concern or business. We're not Facebook, after all. Let's just not mention it here.

Thank you.

[fhunter]

Okay, that explains aggressive idiots (or idiot) in chat room two days ago.

[kristoff]

Okay, that explains aggressive idiots (or idiot) in chat room two days ago.

Ban or boot him. We don't need that kind of stuff here. We've invested well over 20 years and a great deal of effort to attain the progress we have made. We don't need anyone threatening that progress.

[fhunter]

Ban or boot him. We don't need that kind of stuff here. We've invested well over 20 years and a great deal of effort to attain the progress we have made. We don't need anyone threatening that progress.

Already.

If they get back... they will be dealt with extreme prejudice.

[Losethem (imported)]

Putting my moderator hat on for this comment.

I am fine with this being discussed so long as the comments in support of people are like what Magusuk89 or Manc-Wannabe are saying in support of getting SOC 8 adopted by the medical community in the UK. Comments in support of the "site which shall not be named" beyond those in linked articles about the trial will not be tolerated here.

I agree with the assessments this was happening through that site in the UK because the medical establishment there refused to help people. It still doesn't make performing unlicensed surgeries on people acceptable, and that was a significant portion of what was happening through that site. We've had the same issues here in the US, but the medical community by and large has finally stepped up, even in the face of significant opposition here in the US where I live, from certain political forces which shall not be named, we don't want this to be a political thread, after all.

So again, I'd like to see this thread stay, but let's please keep the topic narrowly focused on the trial itself, and keep mentions of the "site which shall not be named" to a minimum or not at all, please. Should it get out of hand, the thread will be closed.

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Putting my moderator hat on for this comment.

I am fine with this being discussed so long as the comments in support of people are like what Magusuk89 or Manc-Wannabe are saying in support of getting SOC 8 adopted by the medical community in the UK. Comments in support of the "site which shall not be named" beyond those in linked articles about the trial will not be tolerated here.

I agree with the assessments this was happening through that site in the UK because the medical establishment there refused to help people. It still doesn't make performing unlicensed surgeries on people acceptable, and that was a significant portion of what was happening through that site. We've had the same issues here in the US, but the medical community by and large has finally stepped up, even in the face of significant opposition here in the US where I live, from certain political forces which shall not be named, we don't want this to be a political thread, after all.

So again, I'd like to see this thread stay, but let's please keep the topic narrowly focused on the trial itself, and keep mentions of the "site which shall not be named" to a minimum or not at all, please. Should it get out of hand, the thread will be closed.

Absolutely.

Clarifying my comment above, my stance is that campaigning must be directed towards adoption of tolerant and celebratory clinical standards, towards which WPATH SoC represents a profound leap. My emotions around this case and its coverage are centred on the public relations impact of this on the process of reform in this area within a democracy. The news is relevant because our minority community in the UK ought to be aware of a likely increase in majority prejudice --- but argue from first principles, and frame work you do around the goal, which is safe and officially licensed healthcare.

Wrt my comment around it being disappointing people were remanded, this is because bail is usual in the UK, so this unusual outcome adds to a general monstering of the issue, which contributes to the unhelpfulness of the accused people's alleged actions in general (presenting people's unmet medical needs in a poor light wrt public sympathy).

On a point of strategy, because this is sub judice, if you lobby Parliament directly, do not even mention that a trial is ongoing, and if asked about it by a parliamentarian, my advice would be to stall for time till you can re-state our core hopes for policy change (and feign forgetfulness regarding their earlier trial-relevant question).

[WheelyCurious]

Assuming any truth to the allegations as described in the article (I tend to have doubts about most media...) it would seem like being a cutter isn't all that profitable as an income stream either....

A total of nine men appeared in courts in central London and Wales on Wednesday over the alleged six-year plot, which is said to have brought in some £200,000 in income

That works out to GBP 33K / year for the site... Not sure about UK standards, but in the US that is in the "minum wage" level income if one person got it all. No info about how the take was split, but assuming it was an even split, each of the nine got about GBP 3.7K / year, which hardly seems like enough to get very excited about, let alone justify the risks of the likely jail sentences they are facing....

I also notice that while the article mostly talked about the surgeries, but there was a mention also of making and distributing "an indecent image of a child" - what are the odds that the court is more bothered by the kiddy porn than the surgery, even if the paper was more interested in talking about the more unusual surgeries? No idea....

I do agree w/ Magus that it seems like a bad thing for getting good progress towards SOC 8, and hope it comes to a speedy resolution that gets the news people off the case....

WheelyCurious