Talking therapies

[Shaker]

That can be true of just about any condition.  A teenager with acute acne can be very depressed about it, but would be even more so if he/she had his/her condition aired for all to discuss.

Without their consent and against their will, yes, but that's not what we're discussing here is it?

[BashfulAnthony]

That can be true of just about any condition.  A teenager with acute acne can be very depressed about it, but would be even more so if he/she had his/her condition aired for all to discuss.

Without their consent and against their will, yes, but that's not what we're discussing here is it?

So, are all transgenders happy to be discussed in public?  If so, how do you know?

[Shaker]

So, are all transgenders happy to be discussed in public?  If so, how do you know?

No, but that's not what was stated either, was it? The ones who presumably are - Caitlyn Jenner and Kellie Maloney being the best known at the moment - are doing good for other trans people.

[BashfulAnthony]

So, are all transgenders happy to be discussed in public?  If so, how do you know?

No, but that's not what was stated either, was it? The ones who presumably are - Caitlyn Jenner and Kellie Maloney being the best known at the moment - are doing good for other trans people.

So you are privy to all of their opinions, are you?  There is an argument that highlighting their situation exposes them to ridicule and even to the danger of abuse, and worse, from our resident Neanderthals. 

[Shaker]

So you are privy to all of their opinions, are you?

Are you having even greater difficulties tonight with comprehension of what's actually been written than normal? I never mentioned anything about being privy to the opinions of all transgender people; I'm pointing to the fact that - to use the example of mental health as employed earlier by Hope - when high-profile people such as Stephen Fry, Alistair Campbell, Ruby Wax, Carrie Fisher and so forth speak out about a particular issue, it gets the issue into general circulation and can often embolden non-celebrity people - the average Joe in the street in other words - to discuss it, whether with friends and family or their doctor or all of the above. That's why we regularly have public health campaigns such as the relatively recent Be Clear On Cancer initiative. It gives issues such as these an airing and gets people talking.

There is an argument that highlighting their situation exposes them to ridicule and even to the danger of abuse, and worse, from our resident Neanderthals.

It's an argument I'd love to see you substantiate with evidence. It's the same feeble non-argument as often employed about kids with two parents of the same sex - ooooh no, bad thing, they might get bullied. Well the bullying stops when social attitudes change and you don't get that without having people in the vanguard of changing society for the better. With the possible exception of a very few very elderly racists still hiding out somewhere, you don't see people arguing against couples of different ethnic backgrounds having children in case the kids get bullied. We've moved on and got better than that.

[BashfulAnthony]

So you are privy to all of their opinions, are you?

Are you having even greater difficulties tonight with comprehension of what's actually been written than normal? I never mentioned anything about being privy to the opinions of all transgender people; I'm pointing to the fact that - to use the example of mental health as employed earlier by Hope - when high-profile people such as Stephen Fry, Alistair Campbell, Ruby Wax, Carrie Fisher and so forth speak out about a particular issue, it gets the issue into general circulation and can often embolden non-celebrity people - the average Joe in the street in other words - to discuss it, whether with friends and family or their doctor or all of the above. That's why we regularly have public health campaigns such as the relatively recent Be Clear On Cancer incentive. It gives issues such as these an airing and gets people talking.

There is an argument that highlighting their situation exposes them to ridicule and even to the danger of abuse, and worse, from our resident Neanderthals.

It's an argument I'd love to see you substantiate with evidence. It's the same feeble non-argument as often employed about kids with two parents of the same sex - ooooh no, bad thing, they might get bullied. Well the bullying stops when social attitudes change and you don't get that without having people in the vanguard of changing society for the better. With the possible exception of a very few very elderly racists still hiding out somewhere, you don't see people arguing against couples of different ethnic backgrounds having children in case the kids get bullied. We've moved on and got better than that.

You portray yourself as some kind of liberal-minded free thinking, friend of the oppressed.  You are a charlatan.  You also espouse the dissolute, war monger and acerbic, Mr. Nasty, Hitchens, and his like - which is the real you, as we all know. 

[Hope]

In view of the way in which BA has sidetracked my Transgender thread (and thanks to Prof D for trying to get it back on track, I thought I'd start this thread where the issue of talking about conditions and illnesses in public can be helpful.  Perhaps the Mods could transfer the posts that BA put on the TG thread (and others associated with them to here as a way of kick-streting this thread.

[BashfulAnthony]

In view of the way in which BA has sidetracked my Transgender thread (and thanks to Prof D for trying to get it back on track, I thought I'd start this thread where the issue of talking about conditions and illnesses in public can be helpful.  Perhaps the Mods could transfer the posts that BA put on the TG thread (and others associated with them to here as a way of kick-streting this thread.

I don't think it was just down to me.  It takes at least two to side-track a thread.  My recent thread was side-tracked to the extent of 120 irrelevant posts.  That's life.  What's stopping you bringing it back on topic yourself?  And if it continues to be side-tracked, then maybe people just aren't interested.

[Outrider]

I think all this is a very personal thing.  Why do they have to air it all in public?

Because publicising the condition and the situation normalises it, and normalising it removes the stigma.

The media attention the issue is getting recently is because it's depicted/seen as 'strange' or 'odd' and therefore other people's lives are worthy of attention purely because they are being lived differently.

Once the stigma is removed, by exposure, then everyone can just accept that it happens and move on, leaving people to live the lives they want to live so long as they aren't interfering with anyone else's.

O.

[Shaker]

I don't think it was just down to me.

Yes, it pretty much was and always is.

It takes at least two to side-track a thread.

Doubtless; but when you make (deliberately?) provocative and asinine statements (i.e. that trans people shouldn't discuss trans issues in public) people are going to push back.

[Outrider]

Apologies, Hope, I'd not seen this thread before I posted in the previous one...

I think all this is a very personal thing.  Why do they have to air it all in public?

Because publicising the condition and the situation normalises it, and normalising it removes the stigma.

The media attention the issue is getting recently is because it's depicted/seen as 'strange' or 'odd' and therefore other people's lives are worthy of attention purely because they are being lived differently.

Once the stigma is removed, by exposure, then everyone can just accept that it happens and move on, leaving people to live the lives they want to live so long as they aren't interfering with anyone else's.

O.

[Hope]

I don't think it was just down to me.  It takes at least two to side-track a thread.  My recent thread was side-tracked to the extent of 120 irrelevant posts.  That's life.  What's stopping you bringing it back on topic yourself?  And if it continues to be side-tracked, then maybe people just aren't interested.

Before you derail this thread as well, BA, I'll just point out that I was busy for much of yesterday; as a result, I didn't have the opportunity to spend as much time here as some others.  Hence, I wasn't able to re-rail the previous thread until you and Shaker had had a good ding-dong between yourselves. 

[Gordon]

Moderator:

I will shortly add posts to this thread that have been moved from the Transgender thread: this is never ideal of course, and as far as possible these will be the posts about the public discussion of sensitive issues, and I'd hope that this thread won't get side-tracked into other matters.

Hope to add these posts within the next few minues.

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think it was just down to me.  It takes at least two to side-track a thread.  My recent thread was side-tracked to the extent of 120 irrelevant posts.  That's life.  What's stopping you bringing it back on topic yourself?  And if it continues to be side-tracked, then maybe people just aren't interested.

Before you derail this thread as well, BA, I'll just point out that I was busy for much of yesterday; as a result, I didn't have the opportunity to spend as much time here as some others.  Hence, I wasn't able to re-rail the previous thread until you and Shaker had had a good ding-dong between yourselves.

Try and understand:  I cannot commit the awful sin of derailing on my own.  It takes two, or more, so why single me out?  Answer that, please.

[Hope]

Try and understand:  I cannot commit the awful sin of derailing on my own.  It takes two, or more, so why single me out?  Answer that, please.

Final response on this issue, BA, before this gets any further derailed.  You initiated the derail and Shaker, quite legitimately questioned your position.  You then decided to push your opinion which then had to be challenged.  After 2 or 3 such exchanges, it all began to get a bit farcical, with you clearly failing to understand simple information.  As I say, that is the last I want to hear about this issue on this thread.  If you wish to discuss whether your opinion has any validity, perhaps you would start a separate thread ('Talking Therapies - a bad idea', perhaps).

[BashfulAnthony]

Try and understand:  I cannot commit the awful sin of derailing on my own.  It takes two, or more, so why single me out?  Answer that, please.

Final response on this issue, BA, before this gets any further derailed.  You initiated the derail and Shaker, quite legitimately questioned your position.  You then decided to push your opinion which then had to be challenged.  After 2 or 3 such exchanges, it all began to get a bit farcical, with you clearly failing to understand simple information.  As I say, that is the last I want to hear about this issue on this thread.  If you wish to discuss whether your opinion has any validity, perhaps you would start a separate thread ('Talking Therapies - a bad idea', perhaps).

Always me, never Shaker, or anyone else to blame. IT TAKES TWO   Can't you get that?

[Gordon]

Moderator:

I've just added a bunch of posts from Transgender to here, which are the best fit I can manage with what this thread is about.

I note the posts preceding this about derails - so could we please move from derails to what this thread is supposed to be about!

[SusanDoris]

What's silly, exactly, about not only being fine with but actively and positively wanting to see transgender issues made more visible in the public arena with a view to its helping people thus affected?

Oh dear!  Silly because you are simply trying to make an argument where there is none, only a difference of emphasis.

Well, you're the one who started this subject.

[Hope]

Well, you're the one who started this subject.

Susan, can we try not to encourage people who are looking to derail the thread.  Ta. 

[floo]

If people are helped by talking about their angst in public, then what is the problem with that for crying out loud? No one is being forced to discuss their problems with others in public if they don't wish to do so!