Thread by @JLCederblom

Having a brief look at the presentation that resulted in the mental breakdown of one Dr. Hartland. A self-proclaimed alphabet mafia member who believes that biological sex is socially contrived.

Surely, no one could question that?

Putting forth the entirely sane idea that "trans woman" is fine, but "transwoman" is hate-speech. Nothing to question here.

And of course, Hartland is already conflating sex and gender here, as well as conflating natal sex with the paperwork ("assigned") about it.

Of course, neopronouns. And international pronouns day. Definitely nothing questionable in a medical context here.

That does say "pleural pronouns" as in the pleural cavity rather than plural, but the concept of referring to yourself in plural is also pretty question-worthy.

Halfway through this slide Hartland says "I'm gonna just close the Q&A because I can see some things coming in we're going to need to tackle in a minute."

Don't you just hate it when reality knocks at the door and you have to answer it?

I really can't tell the difference between this tone of voice and something a teenage girl would use.

The problem here is that everyone *is* taking the time to consider what Hartland is saying. That's why they're reacting poorly to it.

The next slide is interesting. Let's take the time, as requested, to truly consider what is being said.

"Someone's gender may be the same as their sex, or it may not.
Do not assume they are

These are not interchangeable concepts"

They're not interchangeable, it's just that they can be "the same". So they can be interchangeable, but they're not, at least don't assume they are, because they may not be. Unless they are.

Clear as mud.

And what on earth is going on here?

We have alcohol, someone injured, a red person yelling at a sad (or intensely moustach-wielding) person. Scales (symbol of law?), ten people, truncated venus/mars symbols, a person with a baby?

Red necklace, armless, skirt and handlebars is quite the look, and then some shoes. On the other side we have a womb, DNA, cells, structural formulas, pink and blue mice, mars & venus again, a brain, lungs, heart and sperm.

Presumably these are supposed to represent gender on the left and sex on the right, but who made this, and why did they choose half the things in there?

Answers to those initial questions would certainly be interesting. Unfortunately, we're not going to get any answers. If we're allowed to speculate, the combination of alcohol and Judith Butler could certainly explain a thing or two.

I really like the way they wrote "(Correct)" in this image. People who bring up the gender spectrum bimodal distribution are generally suffering from considerable cognitive difficulty, and I can only imagine the stress of being asked "What are the X and Y axes, exactly?".

Obviously, when discussing mental health on a rainy wednesday in Bristol, you need to keep in mind that gender is one of the colonial pillars.

Gender can indeed be a tool of oppression, why is one of the many reasons why gender worship like that of Hartland is an issue. Feeling smug about yourself for deconstructing gender while actually reinforcing it is not really a solution.

"There is a spectrum of biological differences that exist when we talk about sex."

There will be no bonus points for predicting the next slide.

"Don't worry about actually having to read it" is always a good thing to say in your presentations. I thought Hartland wanted us to truly consider it, but apparently not.

A bit of misinformation never hurt anyone, surely? The definition used here is inconsistent (and wrong, obviously, but more importantly it changes as we go along).

The "1.7%" figure has nothing to do with the definition "born with a combination of sex characteristics".

And, of course, because of developmental disorders, sex is socially constructed. But, generously stated, it "has some use".

The advice at the bottom is terrible, obviously. The risks of a "blind" drop in "oestorgen" (proof reading is not "appropriate language") are very different from females to males.

As for "pregnant people are at risk of gestational diabetes", it is not possible for non-pregnant females, nor males, to have gestational diabetes. Because that's what the word gestational means.

Strangely surprising to Dr Hartland, non-pregnant people aren't pregnant.

It's "really important" to be inclusive, apparently. You'd think that talking to people who under no circumstances will never be pregnant about their non-existent potential pregnancy would be confusing and misleading, but apparently that's a feature, not a bug.

Then there's this slide, for which there really isn't much to say. It does generate a lot of questions, I suppose. Like, perhaps, "what on earth is going on at Unitersity of Bristol?".

Where do we go from here? Well, naturally, to attraction.

Which, of course, is from the Genderbread school of thought. Exactly which version, if it's Genderbread or Gender Unicorn or some fresh spawn of hell, perhaps someone with a higher threshold for pain could tell me.

Oh, and please keep in mind that gender is a colonial pillar.

This person has no clue what a healthy relationship is, which is deeply tragic, and hopefully something they can find in the future, but lecturing on it right now is quite rich.

"Mongomy", "safet y", "yay!" and "not yay."

Ah, we've not been queer enough in the presentation yet. Well, time to rectify that.

Just so you know, desiring to amputate body parts is not an illness, you just have a different frame of reference on what constitutes "health". Removing body parts is only bad for you due to stigma and minority stress.

In case it wasn't abundantly clear already, Hartland is an incredibly smug prick.

You're not worried because you believe that iatrogenesis is bad, you're worried because you're afraid that you'll fail at being an ally.

Despite being one of the safest communities in the UK by trans activists own statistics, we have to fearmonger a bit, because without extreme appeals to emotion the medicine just won't go down.

Dealing with adults who engage in these narcissistic pronoun games is a tricky thing, especially in a system such as the NHS which has played along for quite some time at this point.

The reality of the matter is that you don't get to pick your third person pronouns. Your pronouns are the words you use to describe yourself, and others may choose to use other words to describe you.

More emotional appeals. Constantly conflating LGB with T and Q is fairly homophobic as well, but that's a different matter.

What constitutes conversion therapy? If someone is obsessing over their chest, is something like CBT to cope and minimize this conversion therapy? I think this should be a standard question required for anyone who talks about conversion therapy to answer before continuing.

Well, what could possibly top that?

Oh, yeah, those "black and brown people", and those "disabled people" (which is not a thing since Hartland has condemned the "deficit model", the term should probably be "differently abled", remember to educate yourself and strive to be a better ally).

Wrapping up, apparently Hartland didn't close the Q&A chat as they claimed to, and decided that not affirming someone's beliefs is the same as suggesting that person does not exist.

And finally, we should promote "gender euphoria".

The final two slides.

This person is deeply unwell, and having to abruptly face reality when you're used to living in a safe space of your own fantasy is no doubt painful.

But at some point we also have to say that this person is attempting to do extreme harm to societal institutions like the NHS.

This type of presentation has become run-of-the-mill in this kind of group and community, where they co-ruminate. It's almost like their own little educational and medical fandom. How we help these people back to reality is a difficult question.

Because reality doesn't make you feel good. It's full of real suffering and inconvenient facts that we all have to face. Lying to ourselves might provide short-term relief, and affirming this might make us think we're helping.

But we are not. The best we can do for this person is to help them grow. The question for @rcpsych is whether there are enough grown-ups left there to sort this mess out.