Dysphobic @Dysphobic - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

3 days ago

The more I understand Engels' idea of 'social murder', the more disturbing I find one particular misuse of the word “transmedicalism”. It has been twisted into treating the need for medical transition, as though it were an endorsement of medical gatekeeping, strict gender roles, and the perisex binary having no exceptions. There is a difference between demanding that everybody meet your criteria for legitimacy and naming the healthcare you need for yourself and those like you. Transsex people have described having to conform to rigid gender expectations, rehearse institutionally approved narratives, and endure years-long humiliation rituals to be given access to hesistant and intentionally flawed care. Having to navigate those demands does not make you their creator. Patients finding ways through a coercive system are not automatically endorsing the conditions it imposes. But when “I need access to healthcare for me to live” is rewritten as “everybody must medically transition to be legitimate,” a statement about your own material needs becomes an accusation about what you supposedly demand of others You put the costume of old transmedicalists onto the present day people who historically have been the biggest victims of transmedicalism and the institution those misguided, scared, and reactionary people helped uphold out of fear of losing the care for themselves The person struggling to get through the gate is retroactively written as the person keeping it shut. You are no longer being accused of defending an abusive system. Your dependence on the resources it controls has become sufficient evidence against you. The victim is reframed to become the perpetrator. The veil of performative progressivism is too thin to hide the dagger underneath. We've seen this pattern before, it's all from the same bourgeois handbook. Let's look how the same inversion worked in the bathroom argument: At first, it was “We’re not talking about trans women. We’re talking about men pretending to be trans women to prey on others.” The sleight of hand occured when that hypothetical impersonator becomes a description of trans women themselves. The people supposedly excluded from the accusation become its target, and look where discourse has come now. These are different arguments, but the manoeuvre is one and the same: recast somebody seeking safety or healthcare as a threat, then present their exclusion as protection. This is, generally, where social murder stops being an abstraction for me and becomes undeniable. People in power can bear responsibility for lethal conditions they knowingly preserve without ever laying a hand on those who die. People privileged enough to live in ignorance without ever having to see that ignorance's consequences dictate the faux-progressive narratives they launder exploitation and abuse, under liberal costumes of virtue. My friends were denied help that could have saved them. My friends are dead. Those still alive are still living with the consequences of care they needed being denied when it mattered most: bodies neurologically incongruent from skin down to bone. Their lives could have been so different. They do not need their suffering reinterpreted into something more convenient for somebody else’s politics. They need the material means to live. My friends could be alive and happy today, they could have done things for this world. Yet under this new 'logic', simply naming the help they needed becomes grounds for branding them the same monsters who murdered them. Needing treatment is not an ideological offence. Acknowledging that someone needs medical care does not uphold this cruel system. Refusing to do so does. Denying somebody’s needs does not become liberation because you have learnt to describe it in progressive language, or pretend it's not real. Once the harm is known, preserving the conditions that cause it is a choice. Never stop noticing how this is done. It will happen again.

Dysphobic's tweet photo. The more I understand Engels' idea of 'social murder', the more disturbing I find one particular misuse of the word “transmedicalism”.

It has been twisted into treating the need for medical transition, as though it were an endorsement of medical gatekeeping, strict gender roles, and the perisex binary having no exceptions.

There is a difference between demanding that everybody meet your criteria for legitimacy and naming the healthcare you need for yourself and those like you.

Transsex people have described having to conform to rigid gender expectations, rehearse institutionally approved narratives, and endure years-long humiliation rituals to be given access to hesistant and intentionally flawed care.

Having to navigate those demands does not make you their creator.

Patients finding ways through a coercive system are not automatically endorsing the conditions it imposes.

But when “I need access to healthcare for me to live” is rewritten as “everybody must medically transition to be legitimate,” a statement about your own material needs becomes an accusation about what you supposedly demand of others

You put the costume of old transmedicalists onto the present day people who historically have been the biggest victims of transmedicalism and the institution those misguided, scared, and reactionary people helped uphold out of fear of losing the care for themselves

The person struggling to get through the gate is retroactively written as the person keeping it shut.

You are no longer being accused of defending an abusive system.

Your dependence on the resources it controls has become sufficient evidence against you.

The victim is reframed to become the perpetrator.

The veil of performative progressivism is too thin to hide the dagger underneath.

We've seen this pattern before, it's all from the same bourgeois handbook.

Let's look how the same inversion worked in the bathroom argument:

At first, it was
“We’re not talking about trans women. We’re talking about men pretending to be trans women to prey on others.”

The sleight of hand occured when that hypothetical impersonator becomes a description of trans women themselves.

The people supposedly excluded from the accusation become its target, and look where discourse has come now.

These are different arguments, but the manoeuvre is one and the same: recast somebody seeking safety or healthcare as a threat, then present their exclusion as protection.

This is, generally, where social murder stops being an abstraction for me and becomes undeniable.

People in power can bear responsibility for lethal conditions they knowingly preserve without ever laying a hand on those who die.

People privileged enough to live in ignorance without ever having to see that ignorance's consequences dictate the faux-progressive narratives they launder exploitation and abuse, under liberal costumes of virtue.

My friends were denied help that could have saved them.

My friends are dead.

Those still alive are still living with the consequences of care they needed being denied when it mattered most: bodies neurologically incongruent from skin down to bone.

Their lives could have been so different.

They do not need their suffering reinterpreted into something more convenient for somebody else’s politics. They need the material means to live.

My friends could be alive and happy today, they could have done things for this world.

Yet under this new 'logic', simply naming the help they needed becomes grounds for branding them the same monsters who murdered them.

Needing treatment is not an ideological offence.

Acknowledging that someone needs medical care does not uphold this cruel system. Refusing to do so does.

Denying somebody’s needs does not become liberation because you have learnt to describe it in progressive language, or pretend it's not real.

Once the harm is known, preserving the conditions that cause it is a choice.

Never stop noticing how this is done.
It will happen again.

0

260

83

14

4K

Dysphobic

@Dysphobic

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users