Dear friends,

I stumbled on this.

This is really not something I want te be associated with !

For most of us the castration thing is purely fantasy, for a few of us the real thing.

For these folks the archives are a huge source of knowledge, including and esp what not to do.

Imposing mutilation to others, let alone children, clearly is and has never been a part of this forum.

https://youtu.be/mS-1UrWCsQ4?feature=shared

Take care,

Vesal.

This has gone round the houses so many times.

I posted ages ago that people working through their stuff (projecting themselves into their childhoods, regrets, counterfactual histories, etc) is healthy. No different in the issue of reflecting on one's own sex development than, say, wondering if you chose the right school or subject options, and the impact on your life. However because society has decided that the protection of children means restricting those themes, it runs totally against the current to publish expressions of these thoughts and reflections. It does not really matter if they are not intended to be harmful --- people say they cannot tell the difference, and as someone who hasn't read any of them because I don't want to be exposed to such reflections, I am led to expect that people who don't like that kind of literature who nevertheless seek it out are likely to be on the warpath anyway, and so it just gives ammunition to haters of the community. It is also entirely possible that there are pieces of literature connected to intentions towards abuse, amongst ones defended by saying they are people working through their own feelings looking back.

In violent literature the sense of who is meant to be inhabited by the reader inserting themselves into a story is not always clear, and in any case does not really answer the fact that violence is brought to the reader's attention.

As regards the UK, it is clear that any literature connected to sex that features a minor in any way whatsoever is politically discrediting to any community or activity interest group. On this ground alone, I have commented in the past that it be better if the Archive were purged of all such content when it finds it. The arguments against my suggestion/request for this de-platforming have essentially been free speech and 'people are working through their own pasts'.

I have a serious set of problems with WPATH, which I will briefly explain, as they bring to bear on all this:

One problem is the medicalisation of identities and embodiments. Keeping dysphoria a diagnosis because medical actions require 'a problem' puts people's lives on the back foot, as they are subjected to arbitrary authoritarian power, and thus suffer loss of agency. It is no accident that GB News went in hard with the arm amputation example, as they require shock and lack of comprehension/sympathy to get people to accept a philosophy in which the state rather than individuals controls what can and cannot be done to bodies. This goes back to a legal concept of 'mayhem', being a crime of depriving the state of a worker or a breeder or cannon-fodder... a situation in which the person themselves is merely a commodity lacking agency.

Another problem is that the WPATH's attitude towards the social construction of 'Eunuch' is rooted in a cloud of rejection of masculinity rather than the historic sense of the word, which notes detesticulation. This was clearly required to match the social construction of 'dyphoria' as a basis for legitimacy (the medicalisation point). This concept of innate social identity demands proof that it is innate via evidence in cases of all ages, including minors. For this reason, there is perhaps some irony that whatever ethics board cleared peer reviewed papers about literature with minor-protagonist themes likely thought what they were doing in bringing these writings forward was helpful to the cause of determining Eunuch trans realities to be a non-trivial medical, diagnosable condition.

As I have said before, my personal preference would be/would have been to establish these by asking questions of adults in a professional tone: e.g., "magusuk89, you report your first torsion was when you were 9, so can you recall your attitudes to testicular loss at that time?" Or, "magusuk89, you have now had a bilateral orchidectomy and report pain relief and satisfaction with the outcome. Do you feel your feelings may have been different in other stages of your life?"

My suspicion is that the kind of authoritarians who make medicalisation the norm value evidence they think is 'native' or 'candid' over interviews where they might claim political posturing or sophistry.

In any case, that looks like what has happened, and it has repeatedly given an empty goal to people who (as we can see in that news video) take great delight in sensationalising and demonising people with diverse bodies and life experiences.

Part of their sensationalisation is a focus on fetish... but in my experience of the kink, fetish and BDSM scene generally, most of most people's deep interests have to do with a negotiation with the world in which they are valued/valuable, and in which they can have fun. Seeing one's own experiences, strengths, traumas, preferences or deficiencies in erotica gives people access to enjoyment and belonging... and minorities' needs are different from those of the majority. In other words, it was predictable that majoritarian authoritarians finding the fantasies and reflections of minority/marginalised Others would never end well.

I just hope that this situation does not result in persecutions in this country of genitally diverse people... but of course these are already happening.

Oh, yes, Ms. Gluck again. Give her a minute to find something else "shiny" and she'll go after that.

Talk about a dead horse...

magusuk89 (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 7:50 am Another problem is that the WPATH's attitude towards the social construction of 'Eunuch' is rooted in a cloud of rejection of masculinity rather than the historic sense of the word, which notes detesticulation. This was clearly required to match the social construction of 'dyphoria' as a basis for legitimacy (the medicalisation point). This concept of innate social identity demands proof that it is innate via evidence in cases of all ages, including minors. For this reason, there is perhaps some irony that whatever ethics board cleared peer reviewed papers about literature with minor-protagonist themes likely thought what they were doing in bringing these writings forward was helpful to the cause of determining Eunuch trans realities to be a non-trivial medical, diagnosable condition.

As I have said before, my personal preference would be/would have been to establish these by asking questions of adults in a professional tone: e.g., "magusuk89, you report your first torsion was when you were 9, so can you recall your attitudes to testicular loss at that time?" Or, "magusuk89, you have now had a bilateral orchidectomy and report pain relief and satisfaction with the outcome. Do you feel your feelings may have been different in other stages of your life?"

@magusuk89

And the horse you rode in on.

Rant on.

I guess we should go back to just letting back alley cutters do everything? Because it's clear to me you have ZERO knowledge of how difficult it was to get a legitimate path for this done in the first place. It was fought tooth and nail by people in YOUR country to stop it, and now that it's there you're whining.

I truly am sorry the medical world let you down with the pain your experienced. However, demonizing this process which exists isn't the way to go about getting the change required to get treatment for your specific condition. You're basically whining that because you couldn't get your treatment through legitimate practices means nobody else should be able to get treatment through the legitimate path they have.

Honestly, grow up.

Figuring out why the medical world is so hell-bent on saving a mans testicles when they're causing the kinds of issues you experienced, where for a female out go the girl parts when she complains of mere cramps, is the issue here, and the problem you should be working to resolve.

Fix that problem instead of whining that there's a path for people who legitimately fit into those definitions you dismiss.

End rant.

It is as soon as foundations are marked out that it is determined whether a building will be a house or a fortress. I don't doubt that the WPATH SoC are a house, and that that house keeps the rain out, but the truth of the matter is that now we are under siege, it all looks pretty frail.

You complain about the UK, but the UK was moving in a great direction back in 2010, with the Equality Act. All the backsliding here, and the creation of issues where previously there were none, has been proven to have come about as the result of cultural agitation and vast financing by anti-LGBT and anti family-planning interest groups in the US. Like in African Commonwealth nations (e.g. the recent legislation in Ghana), US cultural actors have found that other Anglophone countries are cheap to buy, and they are buying their proofs of concept in order to re-import draconian social policy regimes into the much more politically expensive US. I do not mention this to start a blame game, but instead to point out how the wider project the opposition is pursuing involves sinking poorer nations first, with a view to that movement gaining momentum to knock on your door next. From what I can see, they are already knocking.

You claim that it is easier for women to get hysterectomies, but in the context of the UK that is simply not true at the present time, and is outdated to, again, perhaps 2010. I am linked up with a lot of activists in the area of gynaecology and endometriosis, and they receive at least the same denials of care now, and abuse, as my brethren and I have. Indeed, medical misogyny means that the rates of women being put in bucket and bin diagnoses of things like MUPS ("medically explained Physical Symptoms"), Somatisation, or loose definitions of ME/CFS, are vastly higher than they are for men; and these diagnoses lead to refusal of diagnostics and basic care, let alone surgery.

You ask me to figure it out... but I have heard it from the doctors' own mouths --- that they get into urology to save fertility, not to remove it, and that they set great stock by figures that somebody has presented to them implying that infertility increases incidence of suicidality and exit from the workforce. They cannot conceive of eunuchry being in any wise healthy or productive towards GDP, because the representation required to establish that respect and positive economic valuation does not exist.

The foundations of a fortress lie in the philosophical cleanness of the assertion of individual liberty and sovereignty over their body. The bombardment against that lies in ideas about interfering with military conscription (again, heard from the horse's mouth from a doctor in Addenbrookes, Cambridge) and worker productivity. Part of that worker productivity includes the birth rate (again, I have been told this is their thinking by urologists themselves). Our defence against that bombardment is that people who have optimised themselves according to the knowledge they alone possess as to their nature allows them to deliver the most value to shareholders(!) Alan Turing is on the £50 note because he pioneered developments in computing. As Francis Bacon set the tone of this foggy island, we always ask as a society "where are the fruits?" (that is to say, a thing is assessed by the value of the outputs it produces).

The superstructure of the fortress is in community visibility, and good relations with the majority. So my objection to the literature containing minors is that it shouts louder than the visibility of relatable and humanising community representatives. Do we have a poet laureate? A Hollywood star? A Nobel Prize winner? A prominent civil engineer? -- In a gobbet, do we have a Turing? And, failing that, do we have community events and cultural outputs that foster good relations and tolerance/celebration of who we are? And after that, have we garnered enough benign attention to afford to express internal diversity?

Talking about my positionality in this, yes my issues were physical-medical. Yet I was referred to a trans clinic here on account of my requirements being beyond the doxa of the urologists. One trans clinic here has a waiting list of 22 years. Ultimately we are in the same boat --- and assuredly we are in the same boat in the changing room of the gym as we are a monolith as far as the cisgender heterosexual testiculated majority is concerned. Sure, we have a lot of diversity dans ce pays-ci in the Archive, but offline people don't know us from Varys.

When I was a kid under Section 28 (a government measure that was essentially 'don't say gay' in schools and public services), a lot of parents were alarmed if their kids came out... but now that there are more positive interactions with gay folk, unsensationalised awareness of gay lives, and relatable and aspirational role models, this situation has remedied a lot.

It is a virtuous cycle: given liberty to choose, and patient power, people can become embodied --- and the more that this is the case, the more scope there is for the role-modelling and community relations work that reassures the nannying and control-freak medical world that it has no grounds for alarm. As for the demand to know 'why trans?', that needs to become as career-ending as the question 'why gay?' in public discourse. Doctors have no right or business knowing, and need to get back in their box.

I don't want to step my boundaries here, but I can't stop myself from wondering about the Admins' censorship priorities in those forums.

MOD: And we recommend you go down that road no further. If you can do a better job, please feel free to go do so. You're free to go find out just how wonderful a job being an admin of a site like this is. Bonus: we've been so harsh because much of the research for the standards of care was being conducted here and it was necessary to keep discussion on-topic. We've had so much fantasy bullshit being passed of as reality in here, it's not funny. You saw the attack this person who has an article linked attacking the site is doing, why would we create an environment to allow her suppositions and accusation be supported. We back off, things get out of hand, we clean it up, people like you bitch about censorship. Make up your friggin' minds already. If you want fantasy and conjecture, there are plenty of places to go get it, but this site is mostly centered on the reality of the subject.

I myself am a nullo, and my journey towards the decision consisted of asking questions and sharing ideas.

I've met so many nullos like myself, too many, who had their profiles banned from those forums,

all while seeking advice and aiming for the surgery in all seriousness.

MOD: This site has been around for over 20 years, yet the list of permanently banned people is around 20, averaging just under 1 per year on a database which over the years has had over 150,000 sign-ups. Of those 20 permanently banned, many are duplicates of a single banned person trying to work their way around that ban. We've had temporary "bans" over the years, but they eventually clear. Usually from a day to a week depending on the cause.

On the other hand, I see so many other posts and threads here that are clearly fetishistic, that some bored men wrote them just to pass time & get pleasure from the interactions.

People inventing stories about how they involuntarily lost their genitals due to a disease, men fantasizing about having a female surgeon remove their penis,

and others sharing insignificant questions about style rather than health and identity.

The penectomy category disappeared from here months ago, while being one of the crucial topics.

MOD: The penectomy forums disappeared not from purposeful deletion, and we have NO IDEA why they disappeared. That's not censorship, that's a database issue.

I'm not saying "let's ban fetishists".

I'm saying the opposite, if we're going to misjudge people's intentions,

and mistake serious wannabi's for fetishists, then let's loosen the grip on the censorship instead of ruin people's lives by deleting important milestones in their journey.

MOD: And we've generally not banned fetishists unless we warn them to label the fantasy as such and they persist in claiming it's reality to achieve an even better orgasmic high on their side of the screen.

I swear, I'm about about done with the lot of you. For all the help I've given you to be able to access legitimate resources that I had NO access to as I navigated this process, I'm simply getting tired of the constant bitching about what horrible people we are and the constantly being punched in the face. Y'all can go take care of it yourselves now, because with this kind of crap I'm over it. I'm DONE. You can all do the heavy lifting to make sure the SOC continues to exist. I've gotten to my destination, it's no longer my problem. Keep the care, if you can, because there are forces out there trying to take it away from you, and they'll succeed if you keep punching the face of the people who have been ensuring it is available.

Losethem,

I appreciate those forums and the importance of your project in creating progress.

But you're replying like people are complaining out of the blue, in an absurd sense of ingratitude.

Everything is fine. Just make sure that you don't mistakenly tread on the intelligent and good people of the community, or else, inevitably, you're going to create anger and frustration in them, that could've been prevented easily.

I've never came here to masturbate. I have zero kink for castration, yet somehow, you took my journey, my blog, my questions, and deleted them aggressively without giving me a chance to archive them or save them somewhere else.

You say you banned only 20, yet somehow I'm less than two years here and already heard 4 former members complain about having their profiles banned and deleted. A community that feels their interactions are limited feel less motivated to be active.

You don't owe us anything of course, but the opposite, we owe you for the great work and change you've made in the world.

But if you intend to do good, do good. please be cautious not to be too hasty in banning people.

BAN feels like a very harsh and ultimate punishment that should be reserved as a last resort for extreme cases.

Today I come to the forums and see very minimal action going on, compared to how it was a year or two ago. You talk a lot about how important it is to save this platform, yet somehow something happened and made this place less inclusive or diverse, less active.

There is a huge public health value in adult fantasy writing, to be frank. Seeing one's world reflected in erotica is all about being wanted, finding belonging and fellowship, and having fun in ways that relate. Here, but more in a couple of other places, I have seen non-vol detesticulated guys' lives saved by the power of castration erotica to offer them a world of identity work and exploration where before they saw no future or fellowship at all. It is like what the Paralympics do for folk with limb loss, or whatever. This site has always been a great place for that, and the moderation of the site is what makes that possible.

Some opinions:

1 - I think 90% of so-called "gender dysphoria" in children, specifically in boys, is the result of either liberal parents wanting to brag about how "enlightened" they are and "persuading" their children to go along with it, or parents, usually mothers, who wanted a girl and got a boy and are trying to "persuade" him that he really wants to be a girl--as witnessed by the plethora of "petticoat punishment" stories in certain other forums.

2 - Anytime someone brings up "doing it for the children," 90% of the time they are trying to ban books or otherwise trying to limit other people's civil rights to conform to their idea of morality. Since a desire to protect children is practically an instinct in most people, doing something "to protect our children" is a convenient shield to hide behind. On the other hand, most children like to pretend and experiment, sometimes engaging in what some call "cross-gender behavior." Generally speaking, this is a normal part of growing up and not a sign of "gender dysphoria." With "tomboys" the attitude is "Leave her alone; she'll grow out of it," and most of the time she does. But woe unto the boy in the opposite situation. I don't think there is a single word or phrase describing such a boy that doesn't ooze contempt--like "sissy." People used to say of such a boy, "he's gay" and try to spank the "gayness" out of him. Today, people of a certain mentality will say instead, "he's transgender" and try to find a doctor who will put on him on powerful drugs to feminize his body. In my opinion, both of these alternatives are wrong and society would do far better if they treated such a boy the way they do a tomboy--humor him with the expectation that he will grow out of it.

All right, it's open season

And that includes the other Admin's.

ALL OF YOU

This thread better not get deleted. I'll chime in on it later. If I come back and find it gone, there's gonna be HELL to pay!