UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => music, art and culture => Topic started by: Duncan campbell on May 02, 2023, 08:11:20 am
-
Just finished listening to the witch trials of JK Rowling which I thought was really good.
Really interesting from both sides, largely made me think that at all times you should try and understand the other point of view and act with humility towards people who hold different views.
Well worth a listen imo
-
Whilst hopefully avoiding getting into any debate regarding trans issues and Rowling, it's worth pointing out that the Witch Trials podcast has been widely condemned for how unevenly it presents the two sides. Natalie Wynn, who features in the sixth episode as a 'trans voice', put out a video essay where she talks about regretting her involvement as well as the broad issue, comparing it to the women's lib and gay rights movements. One of her key arguments is that the whole 'let's all have a civil, respectful discussion about this issue' idea is appealing to people with no skin in the game but not all that easy for trans people in the context of being accused of being mentally ill and dangerous predators, as well as in relation to the wider erosion of transgender people's rights in both the US and the UK.
I'd really recommend it to anyone who takes a 'we should debate the ideas' position, as a large part of her schtick is communicating why these issues are so emotionally fraught to people with some distance from them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
-
Whilst hopefully avoiding getting into any debate regarding trans issues and Rowling, it's worth pointing out that the Witch Trials podcast has been widely condemned for how unevenly it presents the two sides. Natalie Wynn, who features in the sixth episode as a 'trans voice', put out a video essay where she talks about regretting her involvement as well as the broad issue, comparing it to the women's lib and gay rights movements.
Thanks for posting this, I had thought about sharing it to but didn't want to start doing ~~discourse~~
-
Whilst hopefully avoiding getting into any debate regarding trans issues and Rowling, it's worth pointing out that the Witch Trials podcast has been widely condemned for how unevenly it presents the two sides. Natalie Wynn, who features in the sixth episode as a 'trans voice', put out a video essay where she talks about regretting her involvement as well as the broad issue, comparing it to the women's lib and gay rights movements. One of her key arguments is that the whole 'let's all have a civil, respectful discussion about this issue' idea is appealing to people with no skin in the game but not all that easy for trans people in the context of being accused of being mentally ill and dangerous predators, as well as in relation to the wider erosion of transgender people's rights in both the US and the UK.
I'd really recommend it to anyone who takes a 'we should debate the ideas' position, as a large part of her schtick is communicating why these issues are so emotionally fraught to people with some distance from them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
That’s interesting- I’ll take a look
Edit: Just typed out a bit more of a response then remembered you said you didn’t want to get into a debate. I certainly don’t know enough to get into a massive debate in this subject!
-
Thanks Duncan - I definitely don't have the knowledge to get into a debate on the subject, so could only awkwardly regurgitate points made better by others. There's a lot in that video (including niche references and humour that may not be to everyone's taste) and it's nearly two hours long, so - while I'd recommend the whole thing - Chapter 3 (roughly 21 minutes in) deals with the criticism of the podcast and Chapter 5 (around 50:30) has the points she makes re. public debate.
-
I will as always throw in a rec for Shon Faye's outstanding "The Transgender Issue: An Argument For Justice" for people who'd like to learn more on this issue.
-
I have to say, I also found Niall's interview with Taylor Parsons (previously Chris Webb Parsons) on Jam Crack one of the most informative and interesting things I've read or listened to on the subject of Trans.
-
I have to say, I also found Niall's interview with Taylor Parsons (previously Chris Webb Parsons) on Jam Crack one of the most informative and interesting things I've read or listened to on the subject of Trans.
Yeah, that was a fantastic and fascinating interview on all fronts, and I think if you don't know any trans people personally, it might do a lot to put a human face on the issue.
Transitioning isn't something people do for shits and giggles, or because they're too stupid to understand that you can be a man and wear a dress, or something that enough therapy would "cure" them of needing to do.
-
If my understanding is correct then the vast majority of trans people don’t medically transition at all. Whether this is due to a lack of treatment facilities or for other reasons I wouldn’t know, but it’s pertinent to the debate.
-
If my understanding is correct then the vast majority of trans people don’t medically transition at all. Whether this is due to a lack of treatment facilities or for other reasons I wouldn’t know, but it’s pertinent to the debate.
Your understanding is incorrect.
If I recall correctly, there's a claim that sometimes gets thrown around about how "90% of trans women keep their penises!" or some such, which is used to reinforce the idea that trans women are mostly just pervy men dressing up because they get a sexual thrill out of using the women's loos or something.
However, this statistic is based on wilfully misusing comparisons between the number of people who actually get gender-affirming surgery in the UK or US per year and attempts to estimate the number of trans people that there might be in the entire population based on potential incidence rates -- not the people who are out as trans, or the people who ID as trans in the census, but including attempts to estimate the number of people who might be trans but have never come out or contacted services or done anything about it but might be out there.
Now, estimating the disparity between the number of people who get services and the potential number of people who might need them is a valid exercise, but it's being hideously misused to imply that most trans people don't want to medically transition.
Obviously there are people who are non-binary or have complicated genders who may not want to alter their bodies, or want to do so in some ways but not others, there are people who don't want to lose their fertility before they've had biological children, and phalloplasty is still not that great so what genital surgery you do or don't decide to have is a much trickier issue for trans men than for trans women. But broadly speaking, some kind of medical transition is a thing that most trans people do want, very much.
Also, for people who are out as trans, getting access to any services in the UK is an infamously long haul. Notoriously, waiting lists can be in the realm of five years or more just to get a first appointment at a GIC, with many further appointments before you might get hormone treatment and many more years after that before you can get surgery.
So yeah, there are a lot of trans women out there who still have their penises even though they desperately want not to, because they're still stuck on a waiting list. That doesn't mean they're not medically transitioning at all (frequently they'll be on hormones if they can get them) or that they don't want to do so.
In addition, getting access to hormones and then to surgery has always required you to prove that you're already living 100% in the gender you are transitioning to and have been doing so for several years (two years is the common minimum).
So "using women's spaces" like the women's loos before you medically transition in any way is not only normal, it's mandatory. And this has been the case since the '70s.
Also, both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act have no requirement for people to have undergone any specific forms of medical transition in order to get a GRC or to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (for a GRC, medical documentation of treatments you've had can be produced as part of the evidence that you're "really trans", but it's not required). Legally, that boat sailed decades ago.
-
Also, it shouldn't be assumed that transitioning socially but not medically is some sort of "easy option".
If anything, it can be harder, as many non-binary people (or binary trans people waiting to get access to medical transition) know, because without hormonal treatment it's usually harder to "pass", and you are therefore much more likely to be on the receiving end of harassment or violence.
The playwright Travis Alabanza, who's non-binary, has talked about experiencing pressure (both internal and external) to pursue hormonal treatment, electrolysis, etc., not because it's necessarily what they want for themselves, but because if you're seen as looking like a "man in a dress", you're at risk of being assaulted every time you go out in public.
-
If my understanding is correct then the vast majority of trans people don’t medically transition at all. Whether this is due to a lack of treatment facilities or for other reasons I wouldn’t know, but it’s pertinent to the debate.
Your understanding is incorrect...
However, this statistic is based on wilfully misusing comparisons between the number of people who actually get gender-affirming surgery in the UK or US per year and attempts to estimate the number of trans people that there might be in the entire population based on potential incidence rates -- not the people who are out as trans, or the people who ID as trans in the census, but including attempts to estimate the number of people who might be trans but have never come out or contacted services or done anything about it but might be out there.
Now, estimating the disparity between the number of people who get services and the potential number of people who might need them is a valid exercise, but it's being hideously misused to imply that most trans people don't want to medically transition...
But broadly speaking, some kind of medical transition is a thing that most trans people do want, very much.
Fair enough, the stat is based on an estimate (not uncommon in social sciences where data can be hard to come by). But then the obvious question is - what is the percentage of trans people that don't medically transition? This after all was my claim, if it's not a "vast majority" then what proportion is it actually?
If I recall correctly, there's a claim that sometimes gets thrown around about how "90% of trans women keep their penises!" or some such, which is used to reinforce the idea that trans women are mostly just pervy men dressing up because they get a sexual thrill out of using the women's loos or something.
Sigh. This is what makes the trans "debate" so toxic. I don't think many* of those seriously holding gender critical views believe this, and it's certainly not the case from much of what I've read. Of course some people might think that, but it's perfectly possible not to believe this (I don't) and to be gender critical. It's a shame trans rights activists can't engage with the best arguments against their case.
Anyhow, since this unpleasant trope has been deployed at the first opportunity, I'm out.
-
“I don't think many* of those seriously holding gender critical views believe this”
Sean, assuming that this is a response to slab_happy's “idea that trans women are mostly just pervy men dressing up because they get a sexual thrill out of using the women's loos or something” (correct me if I’m wrong on that please): Rowling wrote a book where the villain is a male serial killer who dresses up as a woman; she's tweeted things like “There are proportionately more trans-identified males in jail in the UK for sex offences than among male prisoners as a whole". Obviously nothing that she's written is clear evidence of bigotry, but she has inarguably spent a lot of time talking about instances of trans women committing violence and sexual assault, and focused a lot on how changes to the civil rights of transgender people affect how both real and hypothetical sex offenders who also happen to be transgender would be dealt with in terms of the legal and prison systems.
Thus it’s not the case that a trope has been ‘deployed’ against you and the discussion made toxic when it wasn’t before; the discussion is about Rowling’s views, and she clearly does believe this.
-
So yeah, there are a lot of trans women out there who still have their penises even though they desperately want not to, because they're still stuck on a waiting list. That doesn't mean they're not medically transitioning at all (frequently they'll be on hormones if they can get them) or that they don't want to do so.
On that basis what Sean wrote is completely accurate if you change four words, as below:
If my understanding is correct then the vast majority of trans people don’t haven't medically transitioned at all. Whether this is due to a lack of treatment facilities or for other reasons I wouldn’t know, but it’s pertinent to the debate.
“I don't think many* of those seriously holding gender critical views believe this”
Sean, assuming that this is a response to slab_happy's “idea that trans women are mostly just pervy men dressing up because they get a sexual thrill out of using the women's loos or something” (correct me if I’m wrong on that please): Rowling wrote a book where the villain is a male serial killer who dresses up as a woman; she's tweeted things like “There are proportionately more trans-identified males in jail in the UK for sex offences than among male prisoners as a whole". Obviously nothing that she's written is clear evidence of bigotry, but she has inarguably spent a lot of time talking about instances of trans women committing violence and sexual assault, and focused a lot on how changes to the civil rights of transgender people affect how both real and hypothetical sex offenders who also happen to be transgender would be dealt with in terms of the legal and prison systems.
Thus it’s not the case that a trope has been ‘deployed’ against you and the discussion made toxic when it wasn’t before; the discussion is about Rowling’s views, and she clearly does believe this.
This is interesting because from listening to the podcast, and not having ever followed her on Twitter, I'd concluded that she very clearly does not believe that!
She is in her own words absolutely, painstakingly explicit in the podcast that she does not believe trans women are dangerous, quite the opposite. She is equally painstakingly explicit that her belief is that the problem is male violence and predatory men.
-
One of her key arguments is that the whole 'let's all have a civil, respectful discussion about this issue' idea is appealing to people with no skin in the game but not all that easy for trans people in the context of being accused of being mentally ill and dangerous predators, as well as in relation to the wider erosion of transgender people's rights in both the US and the UK.
It's also important to be clear that Rowling and her associates are now actively campaigning to remove some of trans people's existing legal rights, including demanding that the Equality Act be changed to do so.
Within a few years, they've escalated from "of course we don't want to remove anyone's rights, we're just concerned that gender recognition reform is going too far" (back when gender recognition reform was so uncontroversial it was official Tory policy under Theresa May) to demanding that trans women be banned from women's toilets.
(N.B. that trans women have been using the women's loos in the UK for at least half a century without problems. It has never been illegal, and was established as specifically legal many many years ago. If it was a problem, we would know by now.)
And they've got powerful people like Kemi Badenoch enthusiastically on their side, because the Tories think stirring up culture wars is their last hope for the next election.
There is currently a very well-funded lawsuit against the Survivors' Network (an excellent charity for survivors of sexual violence, who are explictly trans-inclusive and make that very clear) because they refused to throw a woman out of one of their support groups just because another woman thought she might be trans.
There are no legal grounds for the lawsuit, but rape crisis charities are extremely under-funded, and if you've got sufficiently deep pockets you can try to destroy a small organization or force them to back down because they can't afford the legal costs.
It's desperately disingenuous when the same people give their interviews to the Times and the Telegraph and the BBC and the Guardian (etc. etc. etc.) about how they're being SILENCED "just for saying that sex is real!" or "just for defending women's rights!"
Speaking as a cis woman who's been a a trans-inclusive feminist since the '90s, and remembers the previous iteration of this bullshit: not in my name they're not.
-
On that basis what Sean wrote is completely accurate if you change four words, as below:
If my understanding is correct then the vast majority of trans people don’t haven't medically transitioned at all. Whether this is due to a lack of treatment facilities or for other reasons I wouldn’t know, but it’s pertinent to the debate.
I mean, a lot of things are accurate if you change some of the words ...
"Don't" is very different from "haven't been able to".
In any case, even if you change those words, my statement isn't the same as his because (as I stated) trans women who still have their penises mostly are on hormones and thus are medically transitioning.
And I said nothing about "vast majority".
And it's still not "pertinent to the debate", because access to "women's spaces" like toilets and legal gender recognition in the UK has never been dependent on what medical treatments people have or haven't had, and the sky hasn't fallen in as a result.
This is interesting because from listening to the podcast, and not having ever followed her on Twitter, I'd concluded that she very clearly does not believe that!
She is in her own words absolutely, painstakingly explicit in the podcast that she does not believe trans women are dangerous, quite the opposite. She is equally painstakingly explicit that her belief is that the problem is male violence and predatory men.
She has explicitly endorsed and promoted a petition which calls for the Equality Act to be changed to remove some of trans women's existing legal rights and to make it even easier for single-sex services to exclude them (the law already allows single-sex services to exclude trans people, but it has to be a "proportionate means to a legitimate end"; you can't blanket-ban trans people from a service for no reason).
She's been extremely clear that she thinks it's a danger for trans women to be allowed to use women's spaces like toilets and changing rooms (which they have been doing completely legally for decades).
She's started up a rape survivors' service specifically to exclude trans women, because all the existing services in Scotland are trans-inclusive by choice (because the people on the ground actually doing the work have found it to be a non-problem) and she objects to that.
She's now referring to "trans-identified males", because even calling them "trans women" seems to be too much for her.
She has praised and endorsed people including Magdalen Berns (who called trans women "blackface actors" and "sick fucks"), Helen Joyce (who said that the number of trans people needs to be "reduced" because "every one of those people is a huge problem for a sane world", not to mention laundering wildly antisemitic theories about how transness is a plot funded by Jewish billionaires), and Get The L Out (who approvingly quote Janice Raymond's line that "all transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artefact").
Not to mention Posie Parker, who said that men with guns ought to go into the women's loos to protect women from the evil trans predators (and who also networks intensely with and promotes the far right, which is why she had actual Nazis showing up to her rally in New Zealand to support her, which has not stopped Rowling from holding her up as a heroine subsequent to that).
And that's just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head in five minutes.
(I've currently forgotten which of the folk at the LGB Alliance conference it was who claimed that a trans woman going to a shop while wearing a skirt was engaging in a sexual fetish and forcing bystanders to be involved in it and thus sexually assaulting them, so I can't Google to see if Rowling has endorsed them specifically.)
I don't care if she goes on a podcast and say "oh no, I don't have anything against trans women, I love trans women, I'm just worried about predatory men pretending to be trans women!" when her actions and her other statements make it very clear what she believes.
The "predatory men" line has been deployed endlessly by Rowling and others to explain how trans women all have to be punished and excluded because after all you can't tell who the real ones are.
And eventually the mask comes off and, as with the references to "trans identified males", and the claim that they're more likely to be in prison for sexual offences than cis men, it becomes clear that she thinks all trans women are men anyway, and specifically even more likely to be dangerous than cis men are.
So, you know, if you weren't aware of any of these things, I'm going to suggest that perhaps the podcast was not as balanced and "both sides" as it might have appeared.
-
I will as always throw in a rec for Shon Faye's outstanding "The Transgender Issue: An Argument For Justice" for people who'd like to learn more on this issue.
+1 on this. Really excellent book. Pretty uncompromisingly radical in its politics - and rightly so. Recommend it a lot for people who want to learn more about the subject - if anyone wants to read it but can't afford it/can't find it at your local library I would be happy to gift you my copy if you DM me.
-
Scary stuff, thanks for the background.
She also is very clear in the podcast in saying something along the lines of "actions speak louder than words"; hoist on her own petard!
To be clear, I have literally just listened to the podcast and know almost nothing else about this topic.
-
She is in her own words absolutely, painstakingly explicit in the podcast that she does not believe trans women are dangerous, quite the opposite. She is equally painstakingly explicit that her belief is that the problem is male violence and predatory men.
Person accused of being a bigot claims not to be a bigot and deflects - shocker. There’s a long history of bigotry being expressed as ‘legitimate concerns’; the video I linked to up-thread does a good job of linking the dissonance between what Rowling says and what her views demonstrably are into this idea that the person spouting hateful rhetoric is simply asking genuine questions and may even have the best interests of the marginalised group at heart. Rather than put my foot in my mouth with a clumsy, specific analogy I’ll simply ask: How many influential people who have argued for a specific group to have fewer rights in recent history have said or written anything that could be used as conclusive proof of their bigotry?
There seems to be this idea with Rowling that because she's never used slurs or gone absolutely unhinged and demanded the extermination of trans people, her views have been misrepresented by left-wing extremists looking for a bogeyman - that unstable people on Twitter have decided that she needs to be cancelled for going against the grain and that really she's done nothing but ask a few innocent questions, and that she’s not said anything ‘bad’. This and her claim that she's worried about men are nonsense for the reasons slab_happy has outlined.
-
As I say I've literally just listened to the podcast and know nothing else about it, so was just relaying what she'd said and the message you get from listening to the podcast in isolation.
-
Well I think it could very much be the case that Rowling thinks that male violence is the problem, but she also considers most if not all trans women as basically men, thus kind of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where she thinks trans women are violent, dangerous etc
I find it interesting that trans women absolutely dominate the discourse on the topic of trans people, nobody really talks about trans men.
I definitely am on a particular side of this one and I am no fan of Rowling, in the interests of transparency. I find her victimisation of vulnerable people to be pretty disgusting.
-
As I say I've literally just listened to the podcast and know nothing else about it, so was just relaying what she'd said and the message you get from listening to the podcast in isolation.
Oh yeah, I think there's a HUGE problem with a lot of the reporting, which just doesn't mention this stuff, doesn't do its fact-checking or due diligence, and provides endless platforms for Rowling (and Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel and Joanna Cherry et. al.) without ever challenging them on their claims or bringing up other things they've said.
With the result that if you don't have any other knowledge of the topic, and if what you get is presenting itself as a "balanced" overview, of course people go "Wow, I can't believe people are calling Rowling transphobic just because she's worried about women's safety, when she's so clear she has nothing against trans women!", and then often conclude that it's those extremist trans rights activists making the debate"toxic".
Not saying you were saying that, but it's a conclusion many people seem to get led to -- rather understandably if you don't have any other source of info.
It's frightening to know some of the facts (for example, I'm involved in grant-making work with refuges and survivors' services so I actually do know a fair amount about trans inclusion in those contexts) and then watch how badly the journalism is failing, in the face of an active campaign to remove existing legal rights from an incredibly vulnerable group.
-
I find it interesting that trans women absolutely dominate the discourse on the topic of trans people, nobody really talks about trans men.
Rowling and some of the others do actually talk about trans men a fair amount, but it's not symmetrical - trans women are presented as the scary threats potentially invading "women's spaces", while trans men are treated as confused little girls who've gone astray, who were "meant" to be lesbians (even though plenty of trans men are gay and not attracted to women) and need to be rescued and brought back to the true path and taught to love their Womanly Bodies.
Not surprisingly, a lot of trans men find this creepy and patronizing as fuck.
-
Where do the trans rights activists who want to “punch TERFS”, say things like “suck on my lady dick” and attend rallies in black balaclavas fit into the taxonomy of disgust at vulnerable people being threatened?
By the way, can anyone answer my perfectly reasonable request for figures that I made a little further up the thread?
-
I find it interesting that trans women absolutely dominate the discourse on the topic of trans people, nobody really talks about trans men.
Rowling and some of the others do actually talk about trans men a fair amount, but it's not symmetrical - trans women are presented as the scary threats potentially invading "women's spaces", while trans men are treated as confused little girls who've gone astray, who were "meant" to be lesbians (even though plenty of trans men are gay and not attracted to women) and need to be rescued and brought back to the true path and taught to love their Womanly Bodies.
Not surprisingly, a lot of trans men find this creepy and patronizing as fuck.
Yeah I've heard about "Lost Lesbian Sisters" a few times. Seems pretty awful.
-
Where do the trans rights activists who want to “punch TERFS”, say things like “suck on my lady dick” and attend rallies in black balaclavas fit into the taxonomy of disgust at vulnerable people being threatened?
By the way, can anyone answer my perfectly reasonable request for figures that I made a little further up the thread?
I tend to cut billionaires who use their free time vilifying marginal groups on twitter considerably less slack than members of marginalised groups who are lashing out over their experience of a pretty cruelly transphobic society.
-
Where do the trans rights activists who want to “punch TERFS”, say things like “suck on my lady dick” and attend rallies in black balaclavas fit into the taxonomy of disgust at vulnerable people being threatened?
By the way, can anyone answer my perfectly reasonable request for figures that I made a little further up the thread?
I think that's pretty grim behaviour (although wearing a balaclava is not in and of itself a problem).
Are gender critical people vulnerable in the same way trans people are though? I don't think so, it's an unequal power relationship.
-
Bradders: Apologies if that came across as combative - it was intended to express frustration regarding the disingenuity of Rowling and the podcast, not a comment on your listening. That's on me for communicating poorly.
Wellsy: Also not laying in, but on the subject of male violence: if she actually regularly talked about male violence separately from violence perpetuated by people who were born as men then I might believe her, but she doesn't so I don't (again, not having a go, just figured it was worth addressing).
Sean: No clue on statistics but curious as to the relevance of percentage that medically transition to the discussion. With regard to people saying ghastly shit on the internet: leaving aside the equally horrendous things said on the other side of the argument (detailed above and not relevant because nothing justifies any of these statements), using the most extreme parts of any movement to discredit the movement as a whole is a crap tactic. Rowling actively endorsing the people who say awful shit, however, is important in terms of showing what she believes.
-
This (Wellsey’s point) is a mirror argument of why “Jews don’t count” - they are often rich, and therefore racism against them is lesser. Threatening to punch a woman is less shocking if the woman is a billionaire? Is anti-Semitism against George Soros lesser because he is also very rich?
Last time I checked getting all emotional and “lashing out” at a woman wasn’t at all acceptable, but perhaps times are changing.
-
Where do the trans rights activists who want to “punch TERFS”, say things like “suck on my lady dick” and attend rallies in black balaclavas fit into the taxonomy of disgust at vulnerable people being threatened?
I thought you were out?
They belong in the realm of largely-fictional threats, with a side of shitty troll behaviour by anonymous internet randos who may or may not even be trans.
Actual violence is bad! Actual threats of violence are bad! I do not condone them!
However, Joanna Cherry holding up a photoshopped joke meme of an anime character holding a gun and pretending to think this is a serious death threat is utter nonsense.
If I say "I wish the Tories would all fucking die in a fire", that is not a threat of arson.
"Suck my dick" is an insulting and dismissing phrase, similar to "go fuck yourself." It has been deployed by plenty of people who don't even have dicks.
The use of "suck my dick" on a placard is not a rape threat, it's an expression of anger.
N.B. I am absolutely sure that J K Rowling has received scary and obscene rape and death threats, because she's a famous woman on the internet expressing controversial opinions, and this happens to everyone in that category, including women far less famous than her, including women whose controversial opinions are their support for trans rights (and I know multiple people who've had to report some alarming threats to police) and certainly including anyone whose offense is being a trans woman on the internet.
However, making the claim that these threats are all coming from trans people, that the trans rights movement condones it, and that this proves that trans people are inherently scary and dangerous and out to harm women -- that is some bullshit.
I am actually sure that Suella Braverman (for example) receives her share of scary and obscene threats because, again, woman in a public role, doing things which make people dislike her.
However, if she were to hold up these threats and declare that it proves asylum-seekers and their defenders are dangerous predators who are out to harm innocent British women -- we would call bullshit.
-
I think that's pretty grim behaviour (although wearing a balaclava is not in and of itself a problem).
If I recall correctly, the infamous case of "black balaclavas" that usually gets cited is the University of Sussex, where students didn't actually wear balaclavas but hoodies and masks, partly because it was October 2021 and there was a pandemic going on, and partly because they were scared of retaliation against them by the university authorities, who fully supported Katheen Stock and had threatened to investigate and punish students for protesting:
https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/10/18/kathleen-stock-university-of-sussex-protest/
-
This (Wellsey’s point) is a mirror argument of why “Jews don’t count” - they are often rich, and therefore racism against them is lesser. Threatening to punch a woman is less shocking if the woman is a billionaire? Is anti-Semitism against George Soros lesser because he is also very rich?
Last time I checked getting all emotional and “lashing out” at a woman wasn’t at all acceptable, but perhaps times are changing.
1) Conflating my point with antisemitism is quite low, imo
2) Rowling actively takes part in the oppression of those people so I think it's reasonable for them to despise her, tbh.
-
"Suck my dick" is an insulting and dismissing phrase, similar to "go fuck yourself." It has been deployed by plenty of people who don't even have dicks.
In fact a (cis) lesbian friend of mine is especially fond of it, often in the form of "Suck my purple sparkly dick."
-
This (Wellsey’s point) is a mirror argument of why “Jews don’t count” - they are often rich, and therefore racism against them is lesser. Threatening to punch a woman is less shocking if the woman is a billionaire? Is anti-Semitism against George Soros lesser because he is also very rich?
Last time I checked getting all emotional and “lashing out” at a woman wasn’t at all acceptable, but perhaps times are changing.
1) Conflating my point with antisemitism is quite low, imo
2) Rowling actively takes part in the oppression of those people so I think it's reasonable for them to despise her, tbh.
More to the point, no big-name (or medium-name or small-name) trans rights activists are endorsing actual violence or threats of violence!
When the other side has to resort to "someone at a demo had a placard about guillotining TERFs and ... no-one knows who the hell that was but the other demonstrators mostly thought it was really stupid and looks bad, actually" or "someone on the internet posted a meme of an anime girl holding a gun" or "some students wore face masks" as evidence that the trans rights movement as a whole is violent and dangerous, that constitutes reaching.
When it comes to things like the occasional "suck my dick" placard, I'm with you in considering that a very understandable expression of anger and frustration (especially in a political context in which trans women's penises are treated as the most horrifying and disgusting things ever and justification for taking their rights away, while they're simultaneously denied access to surgery to get rid of them).
But that's also because it's not an actual threat of any sort.
Which has to be endlessly re-emphasized when some people are so keen to claim that the "TRAs" are so scary and violent and threatening and hate women etc. etc. etc..
-
I've been waiting for a trans topic on here for a while (mine was going to be about the tg-in-sport issue, but I was too wary of posting it). Will catch up on this one later but for now if anyone hasn't seen it, this should be essential viewing before considering any TG issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtpmxZLbYk
-
I've been waiting for a trans topic on here for a while (mine was going to be about the tg-in-sport issue, but I was too wary of posting it). Will catch up on this one later but for now if anyone hasn't seen it, this should be essential viewing before considering any TG issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtpmxZLbYk
This is hands down my fav episode of jam crack. I’ve shown it to quite a few people and I thought was incredibly insightful and impactful.
-
Yeah great interview that. Required viewing. I'll always remember watching her, when she was a he, flashing The Brute at the Diamond and then in the same sesh falling off close to the flash (and FA..can't remember?) of Pink Panther. At that time no-one had come close to flashing the Brute. She pissed it, with bad beta, more of an onsight.
See from 30mins on the interview for a clear explanation of why a great many trans people don't 'fully' transition - it's obviously not exactly an easy journey to begin to undertake to put it mildly and must require a lot of courage, which deters many.
To slabhappy, great defending of the cause. For me you cheapened your position (and the debate) slightly by using this line:
''If I say "I wish the Tories would all fucking die in a fire", that is not a threat of arson.
It isn't. But your casual use of this as a (hopefully jokey) analogy is illuminating. I bet you wouldn't have felt OK using as a jokey analogy, "I wish blacks, Jews, trans people would all fucking die in a fire".
If you wouldn't have been OK saying that, then it probably isn't cool to feel OK saying it about any other group either. Would almost give you slack if you'd said 'paedophile murderers' but even then, nah. However much you might detest a group, they're still just as human as you.
-
To slabhappy, great defending of the cause. For me you cheapened your position (and the debate) slightly by using this line:
''If I say "I wish the Tories would all fucking die in a fire", that is not a threat of arson.
It isn't. But your casual use of this as a (hopefully jokey) analogy is illuminating. I bet you wouldn't have felt OK using as a jokey analogy, "I wish blacks, Jews, trans people would all fucking die in a fire".
If you wouldn't have been OK saying that, then it probably isn't cool to feel OK saying it about any other group either. Would almost give you slack if you'd said 'paedophile murderers' but even then, nah. However much you might detest a group, they're still just as human as you.
I do vaguely agree, I'm never one for aggressive language like this.
However, I suppose there is some nuance to it when on one hand you've got groups of people with characteristics that they cannot change, and are just trying to live their lives ("blacks, Jews, trans people"), and on the other it's people with a political position they have chosen to take, who are arguably seeking to make their own lives better at the expense of others.
Yeah great interview that. Required viewing.
Will add myself to the list of people applauding this podcast. No distinct episode of any podcast has stuck in my head quite like this - one of the best interviews I've ever listened to.
-
This is a peculiar discussion/debate because I feel that I probably disagree with Sean but don't actually know because he hasn't actually said what he thinks. I suspect he is what he describes as "gender critical" but that could mean any one of many different opinions with varying degrees of nuance. The thread jumped straight to talking about the people involved in the debate.
FWIW, as much as I agree with a lot of what Slab has said, if you're arguing with people who are using male sexual violence as a stick to beat trans people with, it is phenomenally stupid to opt for "suck my dick".
-
This is a peculiar discussion/debate because I feel that I probably disagree with Sean but don't actually know because he hasn't actually said what he thinks.
Thanks for this Will, but really, who needs to know? The vaguest scepticism is enough to be described as a TERF and cast into the darkness, regardless of what one truly thinks. It is after all easier to pretend away any conflicts over rights than dealing with them through debate. Better to shout “suck my dick” and harass female academics than it is to debate respectfully*, which leads to perfectly decent people minimising some very unpleasant behaviour. No, turning up to protests in balaclavas has happened more than once and it’s really not okay (for example).
Cynicism aside, I’m going to make a proper reply, but not immediately as I have other things to do first which will almost certainly prove more fruitful and satisfying.
* In general, less so on here. But going on a forum to tell someone they are simply wrong about some numbers but then ignoring their request for some more accurate numbers isn’t exactly the pinnacle of discussion either.
-
I am trying very hard not to care that much about trans issues, mainly because it seems that it is an issue that it is increasingly being jumped upon politicians and the media to create divide between the "liberal" left and the anti-woke right. By caring too much and arguing it feels like we are playing their game. We are getting gross and disproportionate over reporting of a trans "outrages" e.g. an athlete winning one bike race out of 100s in the calendar, or a few trans prisoners' out of thousands of inmates.
That is not to say that there is not a discussion to be had but I think that is better served by quiet reasoned discussion of the science/ethics etc. by people who know what they are talking about. I do not fall within that category.
-
But going on a forum to tell someone they are simply wrong about some numbers but then ignoring their request for some more accurate numbers isn’t exactly the pinnacle of discussion either.
I explained why the claim you were making was spurious and based on inappropriately trying to compare two very different kinds of data, one of which is an incredibly loose estimate of something (the total number of people who might be trans including people who aren't out) where we can't have anything like hard numbers.
You're welcome to retract it, if you'd like.
However, that doesn't then make it my job to produce the hard numbers (which, as far as I know, doesn't exist) for you.
Especially since I've already explained why I don't think it's "pertinent to the discussion" in any way.
-
Me: the vast majority of trans people don’t medically transition at all
You: there are a lot of trans women out there who still have their penises
So we’re arguing on the difference between “vast” and “a lot” based on no actual evidence, at least that one side will accept? And the difference between the two claims which we’ve not got evidence for is enough to make one description “spurious”? Well, maybe.
I should note clearly, in fairness, that lacking longitudinal data my “at all” claim is also not based on evidence. If anyone has that data I’d love to see it, even if it’s flawed - I know enough about social science statistics to cope.
-
I am trying very hard not to care that much about trans issues, mainly because it seems that it is an issue that it is increasingly being jumped upon politicians and the media to create divide between the "liberal" left and the anti-woke right. By caring too much and arguing it feels like we are playing their game.
That is not to say that there is not a discussion to be had but I think that is better served by quiet reasoned discussion of the science/ethics etc.
:agree:
It's yet another wedge issue being exploited by the govt and helped along by the media. I'm fucking sick of hearing large portions of interviews with politicians being devoted to a question about how many willies a woman can possess, or some swivel-eyed Tory MP wading in to a discussion they have zero knowledge or personal experience of. As if that's the most pressing issue of the day.
-
Sean, if this is at all pertinent then say why you think it is. Otherwise we just have a pointless and annoying argument about one data point. Or just say what you think about the topic?
-
Better to shout “suck my dick” and harass female academics than it is to debate respectfully*, which leads to perfectly decent people minimising some very unpleasant behaviour. No, turning up to protests in balaclavas has happened more than once and it’s really not okay (for example).
Using 3 examples of Trans activists acting in unacceptable ways when the overwhelming majority of abuse is directed in the other direction (people wearing black balaclavas vs hard right nazis at protests...) is maybe not the best way of asking for a balanced and respectful debate! However I do agree with your sentiment that this is a debate where respect should be shown to all sides.
For personal reasons I am pretty sensitive to abuse directed towards the trans community, both of the more obvious anti-trans sentiment but also from more respected 'balanced' sources. In a 'real science of sport' podcast from a while ago one of the podcast hosts refers to trans females as "male, even though I know they won't like it". Pretty hard to have a respectful, scientific debate when one side doesn't have the respect/compassion to even use the correct pronouns. It's a pity as in the past I'd felt the RSinS podcast had had good, scientific debates around these issues, but since listening to the podcast from a while back (where there were other issue in the way they discussed it) I've not been prepared to listen to any more.
I'm not planning on engaging in the debate on here as I'd likely get too worked up + slab_happy is doing a better job of it than I would, but I will be reading the views, especially the ones different to mine with interest, so please keep them coming and as Sean asked please keep it all respectful.
-
I am trying very hard not to care that much about trans issues, mainly because it seems that it is an issue that it is increasingly being jumped upon politicians and the media to create divide between the "liberal" left and the anti-woke right. By caring too much and arguing it feels like we are playing their game.
That is not to say that there is not a discussion to be had but I think that is better served by quiet reasoned discussion of the science/ethics etc.
:agree:
It's yet another wedge issue being exploited by the govt and helped along by the media. I'm fucking sick of hearing large portions of interviews with politicians being devoted to a question about how many willies a woman can possess, or some swivel-eyed Tory MP wading in to a discussion they have zero knowledge or personal experience of. As if that's the most pressing issue of the day.
I do think it is a pressing issue though, because trans people experience a lot of discrimination, hate etc, and a lot of prominent British politicians, journalists, writers etc across the political spectrum are aggressively transphobic. And that is increasingly creating an atmosphere which is hostile to trans people, many of whom live in fear a lot of the time.
Now I do think there should be an attempt to engage in some kind of constructive dialogue. But when powerful people of influence use that position to spread transphobic nonsense, and members of a vulnerable group then get upset and lash out, I have considerable sympathy for their position. Its easy for me to stay respectful, I'm a cis white guy, middle class, straight etc. I'm not subject to such broad institutionalised denial of my identity as a valid existence.
This has come up time and time again in many struggled for civil rights and dignity, the counter argument of "if only you'd ask for it respectfully I'd be prepared to listen..." time and time again we've been shown that isn't true (the "concern trolling" position)
I don't agree with death threats being sent to JK Rowling but it's definitely a TERF tactic to home directly in on the actions of a tiny minority to defend the consistent transphobia that comes from Rowling. It doesn't remotely excuse anything.
-
Sean, if this is at all pertinent then say why you think it is. Otherwise we just have a pointless and annoying argument about one data point. Or just say what you think about the topic?
It’s complicated subject, right? And so I would like to treat it respectfully and carefully - doubly so given that I could lose friends or employment opportunities over the issue (but less so because I’m a man, obviously). My point is not to have an annoying argument over a data point but to highlight how little data we actually have and to acknowledge that through a more temperate approach.
-
I do think it is a pressing issue though, because trans people experience a lot of discrimination, hate etc,
Hopefully the takeaway from my post wasn't the final sentence. It's clearly an important topic and needs debating and resolving in certain areas like competitive sport and personal safety etc. but it's frustrating when people with zero knowledge or experience of the issue give their opinions (either solicited or unsolicited) on such a sensitive topic. They're literally adding nothing to the debate aside from yet another worthless opinion for someone else to disagree with or get outraged over. The only people who benefit are the ones driving the wedge in the first place.
-
I do think it is a pressing issue though, because trans people experience a lot of discrimination, hate etc,
Hopefully the takeaway from my post wasn't the final sentence. It's clearly an important topic and needs debating and resolving in certain areas like competitive sport and personal safety etc. but it's frustrating when people with zero knowledge or experience of the issue give their opinions (either solicited or unsolicited) on such a sensitive topic. They're literally adding nothing to the debate aside from yet another worthless opinion for someone else to disagree with or get outraged over. The only people who benefit are the ones driving the wedge in the first place.
I'm not sure if I misunderstand the point you're making, and apologise if so, but surely there's a good deal of value in calling bigotry out when you see it even if you don't have statistics and references or first-hand experience? To my mind it's exactly the same as calling out sexism and racism rather than letting it slide in terms of what that communicates to the targets and perpetrators of that bigotry, as well as spectators.
-
I'm not sure if I misunderstand the point you're making, and apologise if so, but surely there's a good deal of value in calling bigotry out when you see it even if you don't have statistics and references or first-hand experience?
Yeh definitely a misunderstanding if I sounded at all like I was advocating staying silent in the presence of abuse or discrimination towards trans people. It's when opinions about trans issues are voiced from a position of ignorance on the topic that I'm calling out (as happens too often by politicians and the media at the moment). Or even worse, when the whole debate is weaponised for political ends.
-
In a 'real science of sport' podcast from a while ago one of the podcast hosts refers to trans females as "male, even though I know they won't like it". Pretty hard to have a respectful, scientific debate when one side doesn't have the respect/compassion to even use the correct pronouns. It's a pity as in the past I'd felt the RSinS podcast had had good, scientific debates around these issues, but since listening to the podcast from a while back (where there were other issue in the way they discussed it) I've not been prepared to listen to any more.
I don't remember (or perhaps didn't listen to) that episode. But that's disappointing given that it has been one of the few places that has generally been very good at looking at the issues of transgender (and intersex) athletes from a scientific, and generally compassionate, perspective.
-
I am trying very hard not to care that much about trans issues, mainly because it seems that it is an issue that it is increasingly being jumped upon politicians and the media to create divide between the "liberal" left and the anti-woke right. By caring too much and arguing it feels like we are playing their game.
That is not to say that there is not a discussion to be had but I think that is better served by quiet reasoned discussion of the science/ethics etc.
:agree:
It's yet another wedge issue being exploited by the govt and helped along by the media. I'm fucking sick of hearing large portions of interviews with politicians being devoted to a question about how many willies a woman can possess, or some swivel-eyed Tory MP wading in to a discussion they have zero knowledge or personal experience of. As if that's the most pressing issue of the day.
I don't tend to follow the polarizing politics of the issue, and I certainly don't follow Rowling (who is at least guilty of being a vastly inferior and overhyped YA fantasy writer compared to Weis & Hickman, Eddings, etc etc) and obviously I have no personal skin in the game, but I do find it a generally interesting issue from an "understanding humanity" perspective as well as some of the conundrums and grey areas it raises (I also have a general interest in sex, sexuality, sexual morality, deviances, and the grey areas those entail). OTOH in terms of polarization I have blocked a previous friend on Facebook after he took the huff with me for pointing out the inherent prejudice in "trans-identifying men" and other such terminology, used in exactly the way El Mocho highlighted (sports science debate), and had to button my lip when hanging out with a similarly militant black-and-white friend (the conspiracy loon) recently.
I might be tempted to post the sports thread tomorrow. But now I'm off to the Bangface Weekender, in particular to catch my favourite transgender DJ - the mighty KILBOURNE
-
Three pages in and as far as I can tell no one has argued about anything of substance, just argued about the people arguing :lol:
Some people will hate the following anecdote, but still... The only child/adolescent mental health professional that I've ever had a conversation with where this topic popped up was convinced that all the young trans people they had interacted with had significant other underlying issues. But they essentially said that the conversation around this was something most wouldn't go near because of how toxic it is. It would be interesting to know how widely that view is shared, but I doubt it's easy to get many people to talk openly. (I obviously have have no view on the substance of what they said)
-
Some people will hate the following anecdote, but still... The only child/adolescent mental health professional that I've ever had a conversation with where this topic popped up was convinced that all the young trans people they had interacted with had significant other underlying issues. But they essentially said that the conversation around this was something most wouldn't go near because of how toxic it is. It would be interesting to know how widely that view is shared, but I doubt it's easy to get many people to talk openly. (I obviously have have no view on the substance of what they said)
Thanks for sharing that totally vague and meaningful anecdote Alex, really added to the conversation… ::)
-
The only child/adolescent mental health professional that I've ever had a conversation with where this topic popped up was convinced that all the young trans people they had interacted with had significant other underlying issues.
I mean yes, we know that trans kids have extremely high rates of anxiety and depression, which are typically reduced by allowing them to transition socially.
There's also an increased risk of eating disorders: if you're deeply distressed because you're hitting puberty and your body's changing in ways that feel very wrong, then trying to stop it by not eating is a desperate way of trying to get some control.
But it's ass-backwards to infer from that, "well, if we can cure the eating disorder, that'll make them stop being trans!"
There's also a well-documented correlation between transness and autism (also ADHD, if I recall correctly) -- autistic people are way more likely than average to be trans, and vice versa. No-one knows why, but it's a thing.
I have a bunch of trans and non-binary friends just because I have a lot of autistic (and otherwise neurodivergent) friends, and we do skew that way.
(We're also way more likely than average to be gay, lesbian, bi, asexual and/or left-handed, so, you know, we've got a lot going on.)
N.B., however, that this is a correlation documented in adults (and my friends are mostly grumpy middle-aged people like me).
It's not "oh the poor little autistic children just think they're trans because they're too broken and confused to know what gender is"; we actually are more likely to be trans.
And watching so many politicans (and writers like Rowling) cite autism as if it's self-evidently a reason why a teenager can't possibly understand their own identity or be allowed to have any say in medical decisions is a real fucker.
Always lovely to hear other people's blithe certainty that of course you shouldn't be allowed to make decisions as if you were a normal person, don't be silly! Imagine listening to what a young person says about who they are and what they need, even though they're autistic -- outrageous!
N.B. In case it needs saying: I'm absolutely in favour of kids who are questioning their gender getting a proper assessment before any kind of treatment, to establish what they need and ensure they get the most useful kinds of support. Gender's complicated and figuring it out can be complicated! What I'm not in favour of is going "this kid is autistic so obviously anything they say about their gender must be a silly little delusion."
-
I think some people would be worried that children taking treatments such as puberty blockers could end up leaving a young person unable to have children, or function normally in society. Them being young with additional things to deal with such as autism gives people in their lives even more to think about in terms of whether they are in a position to make a decision now that could impact the rest of their lives.
The decision can have a huge impact on a family and life changing for everyone involved, surely looking at dealing with stuff like someones eating disorder first is potentially a useful step forward? its not "ass-backwards" to at least try and cure an eating disorder first.
I have to say slab_happy, with the way you are responding to comments on here, you make it very difficult for someone to approach a conversation in a normal manner. Taking the worst opinions you've seen online and using it as a point to take down anyone's concerns isn't the way forward.
-
I find it interesting that trans women absolutely dominate the discourse on the topic of trans people, nobody really talks about trans men.
Rowling and some of the others do actually talk about trans men a fair amount, but it's not symmetrical - trans women are presented as the scary threats potentially invading "women's spaces", while trans men are treated as confused little girls who've gone astray, who were "meant" to be lesbians (even though plenty of trans men are gay and not attracted to women) and need to be rescued and brought back to the true path and taught to love their Womanly Bodies.
Not surprisingly, a lot of trans men find this creepy and patronizing as fuck.
Yeah I've heard about "Lost Lesbian Sisters" a few times. Seems pretty awful.
Excellent piece on this from Jay Hulme:
https://jayhulme.com/blog/transmen
-
We have reached the time when I start breaking out the citations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17794-1 -- "Elevated rates of autism, other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses, and autistic traits in transgender and gender-diverse individuals"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462 -- "Initial Clinical Guidelines for Co-Occurring Autism Spectrum Disorder and Gender Dysphoria or Incongruence in Adolescents"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2020.1731817?scroll=top&needAccess=true -- "A Clinical Program for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Neurodiverse/Autistic Adolescents Developed through Community-Based Participatory Design"
I think both of the latter two are good on current best practice re: thoughtfully supporting young people who are both autistic and trans or gender-questioning, and should make it clear that the myth about "poor little helpless autistic girls being swept up and forced to be trans men against their will just because they're tomboys" is indeed a myth.
https://xtramagazine.com/power/trans-autism-connection-neuroqueer-206076 -- "Divergent: The emerging research on the connection between trans identities and neurodivergence"
https://www.autistichoya.com/2020/05/gendervague-at-intersection-of-autistic.html -- "Gendervague: At the Intersection of Autistic and Trans Experiences"
https://ellenfromnowon.co.uk/wrongdecisions/ -- "The Wrong Decisions: Trans Rights and Disability"
Or if you want something a lot pithier, there's always the jokey explanation for the correlation between autism and transness produced by an anon person online:
"because gender is stupid and autistic people aren't."
-
And watching so many politicans (and writers like Rowling) cite autism as if it's self-evidently a reason why a teenager can't possibly understand their own identity or be allowed to have any say in medical decisions is a real fucker.
Always lovely to hear other people's blithe certainty that of course you shouldn't be allowed to make decisions as if you were a normal person, don't be silly! Imagine listening to what a young person says about who they are and what they need, even though they're autistic -- outrageous!
N.B. In case it needs saying: I'm absolutely in favour of kids who are questioning their gender getting a proper assessment before any kind of treatment, to establish what they need and ensure they get the most useful kinds of support. Gender's complicated and figuring it out can be complicated! What I'm not in favour of is going "this kid is autistic so obviously anything they say about their gender must be a silly little delusion."
Entirely unconvinced that what Alex posted was said with any sort of blithe certainty.. but anyway..
To play devils advocate, children under age 16 aren't allowed to make a decision on whether they can drive a car on public roads. Children under 18s aren't allowed to make a decision on who governs them. Under 18s aren't allowed to make a decision on whether they can buy alcohol. Under 16s aren't allowed a say on whether it's legal for them to consent to have sex. In other words there are countless examples of 'children not being allowed to have a say', on loads of matters that carry consequences that fully-fledged adults do get to have a say on.
So in your view why should gender transitioning be different, and at what age should people be allowed to make a choice? If anything, gender transitioning appears to have much more profound long-term consequences than some of those other examples above, where children are denied a choice for reasons of public health.
-
surely looking at dealing with stuff like someones eating disorder first is potentially a useful step forward? its not "ass-backwards" to at least try and cure an eating disorder first.
Nobody's saying "don't try to treat the eating disorder". However, it's also unhelpful (and, I would say, cruel) to go "shut up about your gender, we're not going to offer you any support with your gender issues or take them seriously until you stop being anorexic first." Particularly when the gender stuff may be fuelling the anorexia in the first place.
And remember that a lot of this stuff with teenagers is just allowing them to cut their hair or wear a skirt or experiment with using a different name or different pronouns.
I think some people would be worried that children taking treatments such as puberty blockers could end up leaving a young person unable to have children, or function normally in society.
Fortunately, puberty blockers are a temporary measure which don't cause infertility (and I'm not sure how you think they would render people unable to "function normally in society"?).
I am not an endocrinologist, but as I understand it, the one situation where fertility is an issue is when children go on puberty blockers before any puberty has started, and then go directly onto "cross-sex" hormonal therapy (or skip the puberty blockers and go straght to hormones prior to any puberty), in which case their sperm or ova will not have matured.
That's actually relatively rare in practice -- someone has to be VERY clearly trans to be put on puberty blockers before any signs of puberty have started, that's the kids who's been screaming "I'm a girl!" or whatever since they were 4 -- but I know researchers are looking for a way around it; IIRC, one clinic's using a "window" where kids come off puberty blockers for a year before starting hormone therapy, so they can preserve fertility.
Them being young with additional things to deal with such as autism gives people in their lives even more to think about in terms of whether they are in a position to make a decision now that could impact the rest of their lives.
Forcing someone to go through a puberty that feels profoundly wrong and distressing to them and changes their body in permanent ways is also a decision that will impact the rest of their lives, though.
That's why puberty blockers get used in the first place, because they give a couple of years breathing room before any permanent decisions have to be made.
These are complicated decisions, but they're being made between parents and doctors and psychologists and kids, in what's usually a slow process over multiple years.
People seem to imagine that it's like an eleven year-old says "I think I might be a boy?" and the next day they're on testosterone and booked in for a double mastectomy. That would be bad! But it's also not what is happening.
-
Thanks slab_happy for all the informative info. As a cis white middle aged male I don't have any lived experience to help me form an opinion. All I can do is listen and question, with the intention of being a good ally to those who need it most so this has been a really useful thread.
Could this be seen as a form of oppression by proxy? So toxic being the continuing legacy of male violence and harassment against women that it has lead to some women rejecting the one group in society who suffer from this even more than themselves, rather than feeling solidarity with them?
-
I think some people would be worried that children taking treatments such as puberty blockers could end up leaving a young person unable to have children, or function normally in society.
This focus on 'could' and fringe cases is one of the aspects of the gender-critical movement that has become so commonplace that it's accepted, but is pretty ridiculous: Why spend so much time agonising over what 'might' happen were someone to transition and then regret it, rather than focusing on all of the cases in which it's been enormously successful and improved quality of life and prevented suicide?
If you care more about hypothetical kids than real ones, there's a decent possibility that you (sorry - 'some people') don't actually care all that much, and that 'won't somebody please think of the children?' is as hysterical and empty as an expression of concern as it's ever been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30
-
Entirely unconvinced that what Alex posted was said with any sort of blithe certainty
I didn't say it was -- that line was aimed at people like Rowling and Ash Regan and Miriam Cates, who absolutely have spoken with that kind of certainty.
Alex was referencing an anecdote, not expressing an opinion.
If it sounded like I was taking a swipe at Alex, then apologies because that wasn't my intent!
To play devils advocate, children under age 16 aren't allowed to make a decision on whether they can drive a car on public roads. Children under 18s aren't allowed to make a decision on who governs them. Under 18s aren't allowed to make a decision on whether they can buy alcohol. Under 16s aren't allowed a say on whether it's legal for them to consent to have sex. In other words there are countless examples of 'children not being allowed to have a say', on loads of matters that carry consequences that fully-fledged adults do get to have a say on.
So in your view why should gender transitioning be different, and at what age should people be allowed to make a choice? If anything, gender transitioning appears to have much more profound long-term consequences than some of those other examples above, where children are denied a choice for reasons of public health.
Look up the concept of "Gillick competence", for starters.
And we do in fact generally accept kids under 16 should get some say and be involved in medical decisions about them, even when they aren't fully capable of making a decision on their own, or when in some cases they have to be overruled by parents and doctors in their own best interests.
A three-year-old might have to be dragged screaming to be vaccinated, but a thirteen-year-old might get to be involved in discussions about medical treatment they're having and express their wishes, even if they don't get to make the final decisions:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/0-18-years/making-decisions
And we have an extensive body of law which establishes that in some cases, a specific child under 16 can be deemed to be mature enough and have sufficient understanding to give consent to a specific medical treatment on their own (e.g. to take contraception or have an abortion), even without their parents' knowledge or consent.
Of course, that's a moot point because nobody in the UK or US is giving medical treatment to trans kids under 16 without their parents' consent anyway (even though it would theoretically be legal if a particular child was deemed Gillick competent). That's simply not happening. Decisions are being made in collaboration between doctors, parents and kids, regarding what's in a child's best interests.
And note: doctors! they are rather involved here! Even if a child wants a particular medical treatment, they're not getting it until a doctor has concluded that they need it and it's in their best interests.
To return to my point: I don't think that having autism intrinsically renders someone less capable of making decisions or expressing their wishes than someone else of the same age and mental capacity.
-
I think some people would be worried that children taking treatments such as puberty blockers could end up leaving a young person unable to have children, or function normally in society. Them being young with additional things to deal with such as autism gives people in their lives even more to think about in terms of whether they are in a position to make a decision now that could impact the rest of their lives.
The decision can have a huge impact on a family and life changing for everyone involved, surely looking at dealing with stuff like someones eating disorder first is potentially a useful step forward? its not "ass-backwards" to at least try and cure an eating disorder first.
I have to say slab_happy, with the way you are responding to comments on here, you make it very difficult for someone to approach a conversation in a normal manner. Taking the worst opinions you've seen online and using it as a point to take down anyone's concerns isn't the way forward.
This is exactly what has happened the other way around in this thread, people homed straight to the worst behaviour of a tiny minority of trans people towards people like Rowling rather than discuss the very real oppression they face
-
Look up the concept of "Gillick competence", for starters.
Thanks, had a read, interesting.
'The Gillick Competent Child': https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962726/
-
Thanks slab_happy for all the informative info. As a cis white middle aged male I don't have any lived experience to help me form an opinion.
I mean, I'm a cis (if genderweird) white middle-aged woman, who just happens to have a bunch of trans and nb friends, so really, I'd say people should go and read Shon Faye's book rather than listening to me about it!
But I'm glad if it's been helpful.
Could this be seen as a form of oppression by proxy? So toxic being the continuing legacy of male violence and harassment against women that it has lead to some women rejecting the one group in society who suffer from this even more than themselves, rather than feeling solidarity with them?
There's definitely stuff coming from people who (like Rowling) have been through awful experiences of violence and abuse from cis men, and maybe there's a sort of displacement going on where their anger gets directed onto trans women instead.
(Maybe because overthrowing the patriarchy seems like an impossible and despair-inducing task, whereas getting a bathroom bill to ban trans women from using the loos is looking increasingly do-able? I understand the thought of "I'll just focus on this one tiny area where I might be able to change something.")
I'm really wary of sounding like I'm psycho-analyzing people I disagree with, though; it'd be incredibly shitty and patronizing to go "oh, you only think this because of your trauma, you're just confused!"
And there are plenty of people -- like, say, Graham Linehan -- who hold the same views but are certainly not survivors of male violence against women.
Sometimes people just believe what they believe, and they deserve to have their views judged on the content of those views, and their actions judged on their own merits.
-
Look up the concept of "Gillick competence", for starters.
Thanks, had a read, interesting.
'The Gillick Competent Child': https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962726/
Yeah, there's a lot of very thoughtful and nuanced work that's gone into considering how to assess whether a child can meaningfully consent to a particular medical procedure (and also how to involve children as much as possible even when they don't have full capacity); it's good.
It's also worth knowing that a lot of the fight over puberty blockers in the UK has involved people who want to overturn the principle of Gillick competence, specifically because they don't want teenagers to be able to get contraception or abortions without parental consent.
They're not keen on anyone transitioning either, but the big prize for some of them is targeting reproductive autonomy.
Look up Paul Conrathe, Keira Bell's lawyer.
And Posie Parker recently came out explicitly in favour of overturning Gillick competence and said that under-16s shouldn't be able to get contraception or abortions without parental permission, and has also declared that the loss of Roe vs Wade and abortion rights for people of all ages is a "price worth paying".
Which is the sort of thing that makes me personally go "hey, just a thought, maybe feminists shouldn't be allying with these people?"
-
Thanks slab_happy for all the informative info. As a cis white middle aged male I don't have any lived experience to help me form an opinion.
I mean, I'm a cis (if genderweird) white middle-aged woman, who just happens to have a bunch of trans and nb friends, so really, I'd say people should go and read Shon Faye's book rather than listening to me about it!
But I'm glad if it's been helpful.
Could this be seen as a form of oppression by proxy? So toxic being the continuing legacy of male violence and harassment against women that it has lead to some women rejecting the one group in society who suffer from this even more than themselves, rather than feeling solidarity with them?
There's definitely stuff coming from people who (like Rowling) have been through awful experiences of violence and abuse from cis men, and maybe there's a sort of displacement going on where their anger gets directed onto trans women instead.
(Maybe because overthrowing the patriarchy seems like an impossible and despair-inducing task, whereas getting a bathroom bill to ban trans women from using the loos is looking increasingly do-able? I understand the thought of "I'll just focus on this one tiny area where I might be able to change something.")
I'm really wary of sounding like I'm psycho-analyzing people I disagree with, though; it'd be incredibly shitty and patronizing to go "oh, you only think this because of your trauma, you're just confused!"
And there are plenty of people -- like, say, Graham Linehan -- who hold the same views but are certainly not survivors of male violence against women.
Sometimes people just believe what they believe, and they deserve to have their views judged on the content of those views, and their actions judged on their own merits.
It does seem that there are many male commentators who hitherto were very silent on women's rights but have suddenly become strong advocates on this one issue.
-
Yeah great interview that. Required viewing. I'll always remember watching her, when she was a he, flashing The Brute at the Diamond and then in the same sesh falling off close to the flash (and FA..can't remember?) of Pink Panther. At that time no-one had come close to flashing the Brute. She pissed it, with bad beta, more of an onsight.
See from 30mins on the interview for a clear explanation of why a great many trans people don't 'fully' transition - it's obviously not exactly an easy journey to begin to undertake to put it mildly and must require a lot of courage, which deters many.
To slabhappy, great defending of the cause. For me you cheapened your position (and the debate) slightly by using this line:
''If I say "I wish the Tories would all fucking die in a fire", that is not a threat of arson.
It isn't. But your casual use of this as a (hopefully jokey) analogy is illuminating. I bet you wouldn't have felt OK using as a jokey analogy, "I wish blacks, Jews, trans people would all fucking die in a fire".
If you wouldn't have been OK saying that, then it probably isn't cool to feel OK saying it about any other group either. Would almost give you slack if you'd said 'paedophile murderers' but even then, nah. However much you might detest a group, they're still just as human as you.
Being a Tory is not a trait you are born with, though. It's a choice to support and promote a particular set of governments and policies.
Absolutely they're still as human as me! And to be clear, I don't actually want anyone to die in a fire!
But also I'm allowed to feel anger and frustration at the state of the country, and occasionally to vent my feelings through hyperbole.
(And I'm sure a good few Tories will have verbally expressed the occasional wish for unpleasant fates to befall whiny SJW snowflakes like me. It goes both ways.)
My point isn't to defend aggressive language per se, but we can all recognize and understand that this its a thing people do, and that it's different from an actual threat.
-
Some people will hate the following anecdote, but still... The only child/adolescent mental health professional that I've ever had a conversation with where this topic popped up was convinced that all the young trans people they had interacted with had significant other underlying issues. But they essentially said that the conversation around this was something most wouldn't go near because of how toxic it is. It would be interesting to know how widely that view is shared, but I doubt it's easy to get many people to talk openly. (I obviously have have no view on the substance of what they said)
It doesn't strike me as very surprising that if you've got physical dysmorphia to the extent that you feel you're entirely the other gender, then you're going to have mental health issues. To what extent that's correlation or causation and which way the causation goes is a different matter - of course it's entirely possible that in some cases the gender dysmorphia is caused by other issues and would cease to be an issue if those other issues are resolved.
I just remembered the sole retort I had to my black-and-white a-bloke-is-a-bloke friend: If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, has duck genitals, is doused up to the beak on duck hormones, and really truly believes it's a duck, does it matter if it was original born with goose chromosomes??
Quack!!
Anyway, I'm off to night 2 of the Bangface Weekender, but to be honest I'm a bit tired and might not last all night to catch TG "queen of jungletek" MANDIDEXTROUS
-
I've been waiting for a trans topic on here for a while (mine was going to be about the tg-in-sport issue, but I was too wary of posting it). Will catch up on this one later but for now if anyone hasn't seen it, this should be essential viewing before considering any TG issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtpmxZLbYk
SUCH a good interview.
I've just realized it could also be good to drop in the exceptional film "They/Them", for people who'd like to get their education about trans issues interspersed with gorgeous footage of hyper-techy trad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahuiQT4xMdw
-
I just remembered the sole retort I had to my black-and-white a-bloke-is-a-bloke friend: If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, has duck genitals, is doused up to the beak on duck hormones, and really truly believes it's a duck, does it matter if it was original born with goose chromosomes??
If you want to mess with your friend, lob this paper at him:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
There are ducks out there with goose chromosomes who don't even know it!
And this woman is only the subject of a paper because she had normal pregnancies; otherwise, cis women born with XY chromosomes (currently estimated at slightly more than 1 in every 20,000 women) are not at all noteworthy as unusual chromosomal set-ups go.
The fact that cis women with XY chromosomes are not that rare (and XO chromosomes are even more common, ditto women with XX chromosomes who have Mullerian agenesis and no uterus -- both around 1 in 5000) is why Kathleen Stock and some others have gone for "okay, so maybe it isn't chromosomes or uteruses that define someone as 'biologically female' after all! Maybe it's having some or all of a cluster of physical traits -- but only if you don't acquire those traits in a trans way!"
This is what I would call "philosophically incoherent", not to mention "begging the question".
-
In case anyone has any doubt that we're in the middle of a manufactured moral panic:
https://c4genderwars.blogspot.com/2023/05/when-it-comes-to-trans-and-non-binary.html?m=1
https://whittlings.blogspot.com/2023/05/c4s-genderwars-is-vile-and-horrible.html?m=1
-
On that note, interesting and down to earth opinion piece in the Grauniad today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/18/there-is-so-much-more-for-us-to-worry-about-than-men-masquerading-as-women-to-access-single-sex-spaces
-
And the author has some pithy things to say about about the response she's gotten from the "gender criticals":
https://twitter.com/kathryn42/status/1670696226986098689
Meanwhile, the government is gearing up to go full Section 28, according to leaked plans, and require that any kids who question their gender get forcibly outed to their parents even if they beg not to be (also anyone who's visibly gender non-conforming, whether they identify as trans or not -- a "boy wearing a skirt" is one of the things that will require mandatory reporting).
This is absolutely going to result in kids ending up homeless, abused, and/or forced into conversion therapy (which is condemned as abusive and damaging by every single medical association).
It flatly contradicts the NSPCC's rules on safeguarding: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/safeguarding-child-protection/lgbtq-children-young-people
But hey, who cares about children's safety and wellbeing when you might get a bit of "red meat" culture war action?
If anyone fancies doing something constructive for Pride month, you could try sending a letter to your MP to say you're not a fan of this.
Also, petition to sign: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/636802
-
Good story from that bastion of trans-rights the Telegraph :unsure:. Although it is mostly there as publicity to flog the couple's book (and clicks/advertising for the Telegraph). I note they turned off comments..
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/jake-hannah-graf-trans-couple/
-
I think the arguments about sports and bathrooms / changing rooms are window dressing to the more important discussion which is affirmative care and transitioning of children. Genspec offers an alternative perspective to WPATH and Mermaids as well as lots of supportive information and resources for parents.
https://genspect.org
https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/91-uncovering-the-gids-disaster-dr-dave-bell
-
Genspect promotes conversion therapy and has deep ties to US fundamentalist religious hate groups.
Its director, Stella O'Malley, is on record stating that her goal is to prevent any form of gender affirming care for young people.
She's also stated that teenage trans girls have a "pr0n induced" fetishistic compulsion which is comparable to paedophilia and that people shouldn't have "empathy or sympathy" for them.
https://transsafety.network/posts/fet-conference-may-2022/
https://transsafety.network/posts/genspect-misleading-letters/
https://healthliberationnow.com/2022/04/02/leaked-audio-confirms-genspect-director-as-anti-trans-conversion-therapist-targeting-youth/
https://healthliberationnow.com/2022/06/01/a-new-era-key-actors-behind-anti-trans-conversion-therapy/#Direct_connections_between_Genspect_its_leaders_and_religious_conversion_groups
Genspect promotes the debunked "rapid onset gender dysphoria" theory, even though the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and multiple other organizations have all issued a statement saying it doesn't exist:
https://www.caaps.co/rogd-statement
They're also very cosy with the Alliance Defending Freedom and have directly collaborated on ADF cases. Context on the ADF:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/19/alliance-defending-freedom-lgbtq-rights-america
O'Malley's a big fan of Kenneth Zucker, who explicitly practiced conversion therapy which involved banning kids from any form of gender-non-conforming behaviour (e.g. banning boys from playing with dolls or even drawing pictures of girls), and also dangled the idea that if you were lucky enough, it might "avert homosexual development" too.
"Zucker’s priority is “helping these kids be happily male or female,” but he also acknowledges that the treatment process does, in some cases, apparently avert homosexual development . And in support of parents’ rights to avert a homosexual outcome for their children, Zucker cites a persuasive quote from Richard Green: “The right of parents to oversee the development of children is a long -established principle. Who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome?"" -- NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality -- the infamous "reparative therapy" people), March 2007
Lovely people.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genspect
"Genspect is an international group founded in June 2021 by psychotherapist Stella O'Malley that describes itself as "gender-critical". Genspect is known for criticizing and opposing gender-affirming care, as well as social and medical transition for transgender people."
Edit: I see slab happy beat me to it...
-
Slab happy / El. Mocho, are there any elements of Mermaids/Tavistock you are uncomfortable with/would consider inappropriate? Ie is there anything a gender critical person might think /say which you'd think was fair enough?
I say this as someone clueless on the whole affair and unwilling to read a load of articles to form an opinion, but would be interested if there was any crossover.
-
:uns :shrug:
A complex subject for all involved as far as children are concerned. I haven’t heard anything from Genspec that would fit in with the accusations above. A Gender Critical perspective meaning agnostic seems the only rational position evidenced by the high volume of detransitioners. To describe a questioning approach as ‘conversion therapy’ seems absurd. One could equally state that for a detransitioner the transition itself was a conversion therapy for internalised homophobia. See Iran for this practice. Add to the mix the risks involved with puberty blocking, hormone treatment and for some the eventual modification and removal of genitalia, it stands to reason that any adult should develop a critical stance before encouraging a child to take these steps.
-
I haven’t heard anything from Genspec that would fit in with the accusations above.
You just have Nick, slab happy and mocho have both shared examples?
-
Slab happy / El. Mocho, are there any elements of Mermaids/Tavistock you are uncomfortable with/would consider inappropriate? Ie is there anything a gender critical person might think /say which you'd think was fair enough?
I say this as someone clueless on the whole affair and unwilling to read a load of articles to form an opinion, but would be interested if there was any crossover.
I don't consider the Gender Critical to have anything useful to say on issues of trans rights and gender in exactly the same way that Mens Rights Activists don't have anything useful to say on feminism and mens issues.
It's quite fitting that while typing this a reply has appeared in this thread proving exactly why: nonsense claims that are well rebutted and provably false being thrown around to the exhaustion of everyone else. It isn't worth anyone's energy to engage with.
The best I can do is continue to centre the voices of trans people, and I'm really looking forward to reading Elliot Page's memoir (https://time.com/6284143/elliot-page-memoir-pageboy-trans-identity/) when it gets to the top of my list. I think that Shon Faye's Transgender Issue (https://mashable.com/article/shon-faye-book-the-transgender-issue-extract) is essential reading for anyone in the UK trying to understand the topic (and it's shocking how much worse the discourse is now than in 2021 when Shon wrote the book)
-
seems the only rational position evidenced by the high volume of detransitioners.
... except there isn't a "high volume" of detransitioners. The rate of regret in people who've gone all the way to medical transition is incredibly low -- literally a few percentage points, which is way lower than for almost any other medical treatments.
And it's often a lot more complex than the Keira Bell narrative of "I'm 100% cis and this was a terrible mistake which ruined me forever and I should never have been allowed to do this and no-one should be allowed to do this”. Even for some people who at one point were giving the Kiera Bell speech:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/02/detransition-movement-star-ex-gay-explained.html
One could equally state that for a detransitioner the transition itself was a conversion therapy for internalised homophobia.
... except that the majority of trans people aren't straight.
(Serious question: do you actually know any trans people? Because this fact is not exactly secret.)
The whole premise here is that transitioning is taking kids who were "meant" to be gay or lesbian and converting them into straight trans people -- in which case it's sure as hell not working!
Also, of course, it implies that there are all these people out there in the UK and US who are super-homophobic but somehow not transphobic at all.
Going BUT IRAN is not relevant here. Iran has a (very limited) legal mechanism for changing your legal sex if you've had surgery, largely as the result of decades of campaigning by one trans woman activist who managed to successfully lobby Khomeini, while also banning all sexual activity between people of the same gender. It's still a very bad country to be trans in, as well as a very bad country to be gay in.
And it doesn't say anything about other countries unless you want to argue that kids in the UK are deciding to be trans "instead of" gay because of ... laws banning gay sex in Iran?
I haven’t heard anything from Genspec that would fit in with the accusations above.
You're welcome to read the linked articles.
A Gender Critical perspective meaning agnostic
"Gender critical" is not an agnostic position! It explicitly maintains that there's no such thing as gender identity and that being trans is not "real". It's associated with lobbying against any increase in trans rights (e.g. modernizing gender recognition processes) and in many cases now, with lobbying for the removal of some of trans people's existing legal rights.
To describe a questioning approach as ‘conversion therapy’ seems absurd.
If a therapy is aimed at "curing" someone of being trans and treats being trans as a "bad" outcome, then it's conversion therapy, whether it wants to call itself "questioning" or "exploratory" or whatever.
There were (indeed, sometimes still are) conversion therapies which involved endlessly "exploring" the hypothetical childhood traumas and flawed parenting which might make someone experience attraction to people of the same gender, and "questioning" why they thought of themselves as gay or lesbian.
It's still conversion therapy.
-
Just because somebody says something on here or in a book doesn’t make it factual, right or universally true.
-
Slab happy / El. Mocho, are there any elements of Mermaids/Tavistock you are uncomfortable with/would consider inappropriate? Ie is there anything a gender critical person might think /say which you'd think was fair enough?
I say this as someone clueless on the whole affair and unwilling to read a load of articles to form an opinion, but would be interested if there was any crossover.
I don't consider the Gender Critical to have anything useful to say on issues of trans rights and gender in exactly the same way that Mens Rights Activists don't have anything useful to say on feminism and mens issues.
It's quite fitting that while typing this a reply has appeared in this thread proving exactly why: nonsense claims that are well rebutted and provably false being thrown around to the exhaustion of everyone else. It isn't worth anyone's energy to engage with.
The best I can do is continue to centre the voices of trans people, and I'm really looking forward to reading Elliot Page's memoir (https://time.com/6284143/elliot-page-memoir-pageboy-trans-identity/) when it gets to the top of my list. I think that Shon Faye's Transgender Issue (https://mashable.com/article/shon-faye-book-the-transgender-issue-extract) is essential reading for anyone in the UK trying to understand the topic (and it's shocking how much worse the discourse is now than in 2021 when Shon wrote the book)
Cheers; I guess gender critical people wouldn't agree with the comparison to men's rights activists though, which I guess is part of the issue when one is trying work out what's what.
Is there a name for someone who thinks trans people should be treated with dignity and respect in their daily lives, their rights are human rights, who is dubious about whether trans participation in elite sport is desirable or possible to do fairly, and is dubious about whether transitioning should be possible before one is an adult in the eyes of the law? Off the top of my head that's broadly my position without putting a huge amount of thought into it.
-
Very reasoned Spidermonkey, that’s my position too
-
Is there a name for someone...
The name for the person with those views would be 'the silent majority', I'm guessing.
I think that Shon Faye's Transgender Issue (https://mashable.com/article/shon-faye-book-the-transgender-issue-extract) is essential reading for anyone in the UK trying to understand the topic (and it's shocking how much worse the discourse is now than in 2021 when Shon wrote the book)
From the prologue:
''Trans people should not aspire to be equals in a world that remains both capitalist and patriarchal and which exploits and degrades those who live in it. Rather, we ought to seek justice — for ourselves and others alike.''
Instant ignore sorry.
-
Is there a name for someone who thinks trans people should be treated with dignity and respect in their daily lives, their rights are human rights, who is dubious about whether trans participation in elite sport is desirable or possible to do fairly, and is dubious about whether transitioning should be possible before one is an adult in the eyes of the law? Off the top of my head that's broadly my position without putting a huge amount of thought into it.
Yep, if you are serious that you think trans people and their rights should be respected and are willing to stand up when those rights are under attack then the term is "trans rights activist".
-
Slab happy / El. Mocho, are there any elements of Mermaids/Tavistock you are uncomfortable with/would consider inappropriate? Ie is there anything a gender critical person might think /say which you'd think was fair enough?
I say this as someone clueless on the whole affair and unwilling to read a load of articles to form an opinion, but would be interested if there was any crossover.
N.B. I'm not the parent of a trans kid, so can't comment in an informed way about specific services for children and/or parents. Just a grumpy gender-non-conforming cis adult with a lot of trans and nb friends.
Don't know Mermaids well enough to comment about them, though a friend worked on their helpline for a bit and speaks highly of them.
As I understand it: the big issue with the Tavistock is that it's utterly overwhelmed by demand and has kids on waiting lists for many years before they even get a first appointment (anecdotally, their reputation is for being somewhat psychoanalytic and gate-keep-y once you do get an appointment). So kids are usually figuring out their gender identity on their own and with their families long before they ever get to see a clinician.
Nobody actually seems to like the Tavistock or think they're functioning well! But the issue isn't that they're rushing kids into transitioning, it's that the service has collapsed under the demand and isn't meeting anyone's needs very well.
Ie is there anything a gender critical person might think /say which you'd think was fair enough?
About Tavistock and/or Mermaids in particular, or in general?
If you're asking what I think about gender affirming care for kids:
I think gender can be complicated, and both kids and adults sometimes need to try out various possibilities before they find what fits best. Nobody wants to see kids funneled into anything before they're ready, or feeling that they can't change their minds!
But empirically, that's not what's happening.
And we have a huge amount of evidence that supporting kids where they are and accepting how they currently identify does extremely good things for their mental health.
There was a fascinating study on kids who were allowed to socially transition early, which found that a small minority did change their minds and returned to the gender they were assigned at birth -- some of them then switched back again, some ended up identifying as non-binary after starting out as binary trans, while a very small minority (2.5%) ended up returning to their birth gender and sticking with it:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/94-of-transgender-youth-maintain-gender-identity-5-years-after-social-transition
Turns out that environments which are supportive of kids exploring their gender are also supportive of them if they change their minds.
It's really weird that anti-trans people are now starting to treat social transition as if it’s the start of this irrevocable one-way slippery slide all the way to surgery (and therefore, you know, a kid shouldn’t be allowed to cut their hair short or wear a skirt until they have two signed letters from NHS psychologists), when I'm old enough to remember when it was called the "real life test" and the point was to deter people who thought they might be trans.
Because if you're not actually a girl, then having people treat you as a girl and refer to you as "she" and use a girl's name for you and being expected to dress like a girl is going to feel really uncomfortable and weird and bad (as many trans men and non-binary people assigned female at birth could tell you ...).
So experimenting with social transition is a good way to find out if you’re mistaken.
A friend of a friend has got some complicated gender feelings and thought she might be non-binary, so after a lot of consideration she asked people to start using "they/them" and switched to a gender-neutral name.
And then she rapidly found out that it didn't feel good, it felt more uncomfortable and ill-fitting rather than less, and she missed some things about identifying as female -- so after a couple of months she switched back again. Sometimes that's how you find out.
And social transition and all of that happens long before before you get to any kind of medical intervention.
Puberty blockers get used because they’re a “pause button”; they buy kids a few more years to consider their options and what’s right for them before they do anything with permanent physical consequences, whether that’s starting “cross-sex” hormones or going off the puberty blockers and going through their natal puberty.
(Also N.B. that puberty blockers have been used for many many decades on cis kids with precocious puberty, and nobody batted an eyelid or worried that they might have secret permanent side-effects we don’t know about, or that they might somehow turn cis kids trans, which is what some dodgy doctors with no relevant expertise have been claiming.)
It doesn’t seem super-rare for people to start a binary transition — i.e. thinking they’re a trans man or a trans woman — and then find out along the way that they’re some kind of non-binary or genderqueer instead (though I also know at least one person who went in the opposite direction).
So, you know, gender can be complicated! People's sense of themselves can evolve over time, and they can change their minds about what fits them best! That's all true!
And I don't think it's wrong to want people to have a safe space to explore, and to feel able to change their minds if that happens, or to want young people to have enough time to be sure of their choices before any irrevocable physical changes (bearing in mind that going through natal puberty is also an irrevocable physical change) -- as I said, that's why puberty blockers get used, for example.
But if you look at good practice in the field, that's what people are trying to achieve.
-
Is there a name for someone who thinks trans people should be treated with dignity and respect in their daily lives, their rights are human rights, who is dubious about whether trans participation in elite sport is desirable or possible to do fairly, and is dubious about whether transitioning should be possible before one is an adult in the eyes of the law? Off the top of my head that's broadly my position without putting a huge amount of thought into it.
Yep, if you are serious that you think trans people and their rights should be respected and are willing to stand up when those rights are under attack then the term is "trans rights activist".
This. As I've mentioned in other threads, there's a very active campaign going on right now to remove some of trans people's existing legal rights under UK law.
Fingers crossed there's been enough pushback that it'll get kicked into the long grass until the general election, but it is terrifying how rapidly people have shifted from "we don't want to take anyone's existing rights away, we just oppose gender recognition reform" to "yes actually we want to take people's existing rights away."
So, you could take five minutes to drop your MP an e-mail to ask them to stand up for trans people's rights, if you fancied.
You too can be a dangerous trans rights activist with surprisingly little effort!
-
Could someone point me to a study which explains in simple terms the physiological / biological explanations behind being in the wrong body. I think if we’re going to ‘pause puberty’ and for example remove the testes or breasts of a teenager there should be a pretty clear cut scientific explanation.
-
I’ve always understood this as a psychological state. The idea that there are common physiological markers of a trans identity seems unlikely. Do you think differently?
-
Could someone point me to a study which explains in simple terms the physiological / biological explanations behind being in the wrong body.
"Being in the wrong body" is a phrase which is sometimes used to attempt to communicate the experience of being trans and experiencing dysphoria about your body (though some trans people hate the phrase and don't think it's useful).
It's not intended to be understood as a literal statement that there is a metaphysical entity called the soul which can be placed "in the wrong body" -- it's one of those things called a "metaphor", you know?
We do, however, have a mountain of evidence that says that trans people exist, that it's not a "mental illness" as we understand it, that it cannot be "cured" by any form of therapy, and that the appropriate and necessary treatment for people's health and wellbeing is to allow them to transition.
Every single mainstream medical, psychiatric and psychological association agrees on this. Every. Single. One.
They spent decades and decades trying to "cure" trans people (just like they did with gay people) before they finally concluded that it a) doesn't work, and b) causes a great deal of harm. So it's not for lack of trying, god knows.
Trans people exist. This is a clear-cut scientific fact.
I think if we’re going to ‘pause puberty’ and for example remove the testes or breasts of a teenager there should be a pretty clear cut scientific explanation.
I'm sure you'll be very relieved to know that no-one is removing the testes of teenagers in the UK or US (unless they're intersex, but that's a whole other issue).
A very small number of trans boys get top surgery at 17 (just as a few cis boys with gynecomastia do), though you can't get it on the NHS. But nobody's getting genital surgery under 18.
To be blunt, you do seem to be lacking in some fairly basic knowledge about trans people and what gender-affirming care for kids in the UK actually involves.
-
Your description reminds me of the Eucharist in Catholicism and the act of transubstantiation. Another metaphor that may also not be a metaphor. There is a powerful faith aspect to all this, which I hold no problem with either metaphorically or spiritually.
‘While the accidents of the bread and wine (taste, texture, appearance) do not change, the substance (the essential “bread-ness” and “wine-ness”) does change. It still looks, feels and tastes like bread and wine, but it has truly become Jesus. This is what the Catholic Church means by transubstantiation’
I like this idea of thinking as gender as an aspect of the soul, and trans as a faith based psychological phenomenon that could be equated to a religious state of being
-
I’ve always understood this as a psychological state. The idea that there are common physiological markers of a trans identity seems unlikely. Do you think differently?
It's actually not impossible that there could be physiological correlates -- there's been some early research using brain scans and other tests to compare the brains of trans people with those of people of the gender they were assigned at birth and with those of the gender they identify with, e.g.:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
But we're miles and miles away from anything substantial, if we ever get there; research on gender differences[and brain stuff even in cis people is hazy and debatable enough as it is.
So we don't have what I think Gritter may be asking for, which is a nice neat way to look at a brain scan and go "See, this person is trans!" -- any more than we can look at a brain scan and determine whether someone's gay.
But there are a lot of reasons to think that gender identity (just like sexual orientation) is hard-wired on some level.
-
I'd avoid this sort of insulting nonsense if you're hoping to win anyone over slab...
-
it's one of those things called a "metaphor", you know?
I'd avoid this sort of insulting nonsense if you're hoping to win anyone over slab...
How polite must we be when dealing with bad faith trolls who are attacking our identities?
-
I don't consider the Gender Critical to have anything useful to say on issues of trans rights and gender
"Gender critical" is not an agnostic position! It explicitly maintains that there's no such thing as gender identity and that being trans is not "real"
Are you both using "gender critical" in a different way to how I understand it? To my mind I guess it encompasses a fairly broad range of things, but one would be that sex and gender identity are kind of different, e.g. "that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity" as per one of the first things that popped up on google (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/#:~:text=Gender%2Dcritical%20beliefs%20include%20the,is%20distinct%20from%20gender%2Didentity. ) This seems to be how it commonly gets used in my experience of radio 4 or similar. But it doesn't fit with either of the above statements. I assume you are both using a more "hardcore" definition? What's wrong with just having sex and gender (or gender identity, I don't really care about the terminology that much) as different categories? (The gov seems to do this now on some forms - I had to fill out a diversity form for some gov funding recently that asked both questions)
-
I don't consider the Gender Critical to have anything useful to say on issues of trans rights and gender
"Gender critical" is not an agnostic position! It explicitly maintains that there's no such thing as gender identity and that being trans is not "real"
Are you both using "gender critical" in a different way to how I understand it?
"Gender Critical" is used as a label by people who oppose trans rights, in much the same way as Men's Rights Activists oppose women's rights and the Coalition For Marriage was anti gay rights.
-
I don't consider the Gender Critical to have anything useful to say on issues of trans rights and gender
"Gender critical" is not an agnostic position! It explicitly maintains that there's no such thing as gender identity and that being trans is not "real"
Are you both using "gender critical" in a different way to how I understand it? To my mind I guess it encompasses a fairly broad range of things, but one would be that sex and gender identity are kind of different, e.g. "that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity" as per one of the first things that popped up on google (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/#:~:text=Gender%2Dcritical%20beliefs%20include%20the,is%20distinct%20from%20gender%2Didentity. ) This seems to be how it commonly gets used in my experience of radio 4 or similar. But it doesn't fit with either of the above statements. I assume you are both using a more "hardcore" definition? What's wrong with just having sex and gender (or gender identity, I don't really care about the terminology that much) as different categories? (The gov seems to do this now on some forms - I had to fill out a diversity form for some gov funding recently that asked both questions)
Yup, I'm using "gender critical" to refer to the people who have chosen that name to describe their political beliefs, which may start with a fairly innocuous-sounding statement about sex and gender being two different things (though they sometimes also maintain that there's no such thing as "gender" as distinct from "sex" at all) but tend to rapidly escalate, usually via a series of bad syllogisms like:
Sex is biological and immutable and cannot be changed
THEREFORE trans women are not women
and THEREFORE trans women need to be excluded from women's toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges, etc. (all of which they have been using legally and without problems for many decades) because they are inherently biologically dangerous to cis women
and THEREFORE the Equality Act should be rewritten to remove some of trans people's existing legal rights
and THEREFORE trans women should not be able to change their legal sex and be recognized as women
and THERFORE the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 (which allows this) should be overturned (they don't always go all the way to this point, but it's becoming increasingly common)
and THEREFORE I am being oppressed and persecuted if I am required to refer to trans women as "she" and "her" and use their actual names
and THEREFORE trans people thinking they are a different gender from the one they are assigned at birth is a delusion or fetish which needs to be cured
Etc., etc..
In some cases they go much further than that; I'm just covering the most common points.
There are a lot of people, such as Kathleen Stock, who like to claim loudly that they've been CANCELLED "just for saying that sex is real!", and then you look at what they've actually written, and it's like ... ah yes, Professor Stock, you did sign that declaration calling for the the elimination of any legal recognition of trans people's identities and the eradication of all trans-ness as inherently oppressive to women, you've explicitly advocated conversion therapy for trans kids, you want trans women to be banned from using any single-sex spaces, you've written that drag is "evil", you think it's oppression if university teachers are prevented from deliberately misgendering their students ...
And unfortunately a lot of major media platforms (like the BBC) are doing a very poor job challenging people on the details of what they've actually written and advocated.
-
Surely the resolution to this would be to make all toilets and changing rooms unisex with private cubicles. Everybody is happy. A woman who is concerned about seeing another woman’s penis now has somewhere to hide and no one gets offended or upset. Despite what Joel says I like the soul metaphor and trans as a poorly understood metaphysical state.
-
My partner works at a combined CoE/Catholic comprehensive. She’s the deputy Attendance and Safeguarding Officer. Interestingly, the kids are allowed to choose their own gender identity, pronouns etc. without comment or judgment from the school. In a school of 1200 kids, around 120 fall into this category.
They vast majority choose a gender neutral position. More than half entered the school apparently female. 90% of them have appalling trauma in their short lives so far. Only one is actually Trans and doesn’t have any known history of trauma. We’ve known that child since preschool and this is the first time they’ve been happy and performed well at school, had friends etc, in all that time.
It’s, frankly, a confusing world out there, especially if you were raised, as I was, in a different one.
My Youngest has given up on mixed Football. In her words “Boys Figgin suck” (one hour picking up dog shit in the garden. We have three dogs). She passed her trials for Exeter City on Thursday and is going into the JPL+ next season. She also went out and bought her first dress, unexpectedly, with Danny (who is “not my pissing boyfriend” (dishes for three days)), on the basis that she “can be figgin pretty if I want” (there isn’t a hint of dog shit left in the garden).
All while my eldest (Bi), moved out to live with my sister two days before starting her A level exams, because we tried to talk her out of a situation with her boyfriend (three years older, trans F to M) who was threatening suicide when she took more than five minutes to answer a text amongst a litany of other controlling behaviours and much worse. Apparently we were ruining her life.
Oddly, a week after moving out, she ditched the boyfriend and all of her Goth/Emo wardrobe. She’ll be 18 next month.
Pretty sure we’re liberal in our child rearing. I mean, my 16 year old lad’s girlfriend lives with us (after a long debate and discussion with her parents, summed up to, they’re going to do it anyway, it’s legal at 16 and probably better we all accept that and guide/help rather than bury heads).
Basically, my point is gender and sexuality, sex in all forms; is fucking complex (I’ll go pick up some litter) and society needs to grow the fuck up (ok, I’ll wash the car and lose my phone for two days). Live and let live.
-
Surely the resolution to this would be to make all toilets and changing rooms unisex with private cubicles.
Personally I'd have no objections!
Of course, I have to point out that women's loos already have private cubicles (and no urinals). Nobody is seeing anyone's genitals in the women's loos anyway.
And yet somehow a lot of gender critical people (and other anti-trans people) are convinced that the mere presence of a trans woman in there (with or without a penis) is a terrible threat and danger to cis women somehow.
So unfortunately this doesn't resolve the issue to their satisfaction.
-
My partner works at a combined CoE/Catholic comprehensive. She’s the deputy Attendance and Safeguarding
Basically, my point is gender and sexuality, sex in all forms; is fucking complex (I’ll go pick up some litter) and society needs to grow the fuck up (ok, I’ll wash the car and lose my phone for two days). Live and let live.
I think it's one of the things that's so complex it circles round to being simple again, if that makes sense.
You know, it's all complicated and weird, so I'm going to accept that other people's experiences of it are real even if they're different from mine and I don't personally "get" it, and allow people to get on with their lives as best they can.
-
Is there a name for someone...
The name for the person with those views would be 'the silent majority', I'm guessing.
I think that Shon Faye's Transgender Issue (https://mashable.com/article/shon-faye-book-the-transgender-issue-extract) is essential reading for anyone in the UK trying to understand the topic (and it's shocking how much worse the discourse is now than in 2021 when Shon wrote the book)
From the prologue:
''Trans people should not aspire to be equals in a world that remains both capitalist and patriarchal and which exploits and degrades those who live in it. Rather, we ought to seek justice — for ourselves and others alike.''
Instant ignore sorry.
If you want your trans activism with a more capitalist flavour, you should Google Reed Erickson! Multi-millionaire (in the '60s, when that meant a lot more than it does now), engineer, investor, and philanthropist (I have seen him described as the trans Tony Stark). Owned a leopard named Henry which he took on aeroplanes with him. Mostly funded trans and gay rights causes, but also funded research into human-dolphin communication.
Sadly he didn't write a book, as it would have been wild.
This has absolutely no relevance to the discussion, btw, I just think it's a cool factoid.
-
Ha! Sounds like a cool character.. the Joe Exotic (tiger king) of the 60s.
It's unfortunate imo that seemingly many trans/woman's rights activists also espouse radical hard-left economics, or maybe they don't and it's just the ones who do stand out more to me. The two topics needn't correlate. I could go into an off-topic rant about how it's not sensible to extrapolate historical facts into the future but I'll resist.
-
Perhaps our economic system is set up in such a way that trans people tend to be systematically excluded from accumulating capital and often resort to marginalised, possibly illegal, ways of making money like doing sex work. Someone could probably write a few chapters in a book about that.
-
I've no doubt that's true - it's what I implied in my post:
I could go into an off-topic rant about how it's not sensible to extrapolate historical facts into the future but I'll resist.
If a vanishingly tiny number of the overall population of humans on the planet - trans people - feel that the least bad system humanity has yet invented for global co-operation and human progress (capitalism) doesn't treat them fairly, then it doesn't logically follow that some economic system other than capitalism is the obvious best solution. :wall:
It does follow that improvements can happen.
-
Either that or capitalism sucks shit, which is my own personal viewpoint
You may disagree, although I'd point out, you're in the top fraction of a percent, globally, so you probably think it is a good system
-
The Pritzker family have funded the trans movement, Jennifer and JB Pritzker particularly. American Billionaires, and I’m guessing successful capitalists. Jeniffer is a trans woman ex military colonel.
-
Kind of funny to see the transphobia posting become anti-semitic conspiracy theories without prompting and after like half a dozen posts.
Anti-trans and anti-semitic sentiment are so linked that the ADL blogged about it explicitly last year (https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemitism-and-anti-transgender-hate-attacks-gender-affirming-healthcare).
-
Christ, reading that is fucking grim.
-
Either that or capitalism sucks shit, which is my own personal viewpoint
You may disagree, although I'd point out, you're in the top fraction of a percent, globally, so you probably think it is a good system
It's increasingly typical (https://iea.org.uk/publications/left-turn-aheadsurveying-attitudes-of-young-people-towards-capitalism-and-socialism/)of members of your generation to think that.. go get em' you rebel :yawn:
But it's very much said like a privileged westerner without a better alternative.
Stats-wise, top 1.1%, not fraction of a % (although it doesn't break down the top 1.1% further..). According to this: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/distribution-of-global-wealth-chart/
Anyone in the UK with assets over £85k puts them, at minimum, in the top 11.1% of wealth globally. That's a huge number of people in Britain once family assets passed down from the declining boomers are accounted for, as they increasingly leave this world and your generation discovers that these things come in long cycles.
-
The Pritzker family have funded the trans movement, Jennifer and JB Pritzker particularly. American Billionaires, and I’m guessing successful capitalists. Jeniffer is a trans woman ex military colonel.
Jennifer Pritzker's made a donation to a university to set up a chair in trans studies, and supported WPATH, but most of the other stuff cited seems to be donations to organizations like the ACLU and GLAAD that happen to include some trans rights work within their human rights and LGBTQ+ rights remits.
And obviously the trans movement's been around for a very long time, and Pritzker only came out in 2013 (according to Wikipedia).
So it seems rather misleading to say that she or her family "have funded the trans movement."
I mean, I've chucked a few spare quid into the Trans Safety Network's Ko-Fi; that doesn't mean I personally can take credit for "having funded the trans movement", you know?
On a quick Google, I can't tell if J. B. Pritzker has donated anything at all -- the claims about his involvement all seem to be things like "he donated to Duke University, and Duke University has child and adolescent gender care clinics, so he probably secretly made them do that!"
There's also some really weird claims being made that since one of Jennifer Pritzker's companies has investments in another private investment vehicle that has acquired some companies that make medical devices, including some used for surgery, that proves she's MAKING MONEY FROM SEX CHANGE SURGERIES!!! and has a secret agenda to make more people trans so she can profit via this very lengthy chain of connections to companies selling medical equipment.
The person who's made most of all this is a writer named Jennifer Bilek, who has an infamous conspiracy theory that the trans rights movement is being secretly pushed by an evil cabal of Jewish billionaires (George Soros included, of course) who have "set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology" by promoting "Synthetic Sex Identities" as part of a "transhumanist" attempt to "breed a whole new class of slaves" and reshape the entire human species. I am not making this up.
Many people are of the opinion that this theory is ragingly antisemitic.
(Not to mention completely unhinged. This is Qanon level nonsense.)
Hopefully you weren't aware of any of those aspects and just wanted to cite Jennifer Priztker as an example of a very wealthy person who is trans (and who has made some donations in the field). Which she indeed is!
But it's worth being aware that some people are taking facts like that and running with them to some truly horrific places.
-
Extremist propaganda exists on both poles of this divisive topic. The ADL piece being one example just as the this Daily Sceptic article could be considered another polarising work of propaganda
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/25/the-shameful-silence-over-dana-rivers/
-
Christ, reading that is fucking grim.
Have some more deeply grim reading! This time on the intellectual affiliations between the antisemitic alt-right and anti-trans campaigning:
https://progressive.org/magazine/antisemitism-meets-transphobia-greenesmith-lorber/
And Christa Peterson does a brutal breakdown of exactly how many prominent figures in the UK "gender critical" movement are cosy with Jennifer Bilek and/or drawing on her theories:
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1366489983574413317 (thread)
-
I mean, I've chucked a few spare quid into the Trans Safety Network's Ko-Fi
And I'm 3/8ths Jewish! OH NO IT'S ALL TRUE!!!
Can't wait until I get issued my space laser.
-
This is useful website when navigating the world of extremism and propaganda be it left or right. The ADL blog posted above is an extreme example as is much of the posting in this thread aping the propaganda.
https://propagandacritic.com/index.php/propaganda-examples/antifa/
-
Extremist propaganda exists on both poles of this divisive topic. The ADL piece being one example
It wasn't clear to me in what respect the ADL report constituted propaganda.
Could you explain that for me, please?
-
Between this thread and chocolate-gate, I'm left wondering is there anyone sane left on the planet.
-
Yes. People with cool, firm, solid chocolate.
-
Extremist propaganda exists on both poles of this divisive topic. The ADL piece being one example
It wasn't clear to me in what respect the ADL report constituted propaganda.
Could you explain that for me, please?
There's a full list of propaganda devices with explanations to work through on the link posted above, it's not hard to spot. The most obvious part is the linking of 'Anti-trans' to 'Anti-semitism' and a random act of violence perpetrated by one clearly disturbed individual to an extremist group think, usefully posted above to generate a link between anyone questioning trans ideology to violent antisemitic far right white nationalist conspiracy theorists.
The same thing can be said for the Daily Skeptic article which uses fear and name calling to link trans people to violent extremism and psychological disturbance and some sort of media denial / cover-up.
The article posted by slab-happy from the progressive online magazine was a relentless propaganda piece using all the key phrases, far right, extremist, white nationalist, antisemitic, conspiracy theory etc etc
All of this serves to create division and shut down any reasonable discussion.
-
The most obvious part is the linking of 'Anti-trans' to 'Anti-semitism' and a random act of violence perpetrated by one clearly disturbed individual to an extremist group think, usefully posted above to generate a link between anyone questioning trans ideology to violent antisemitic far right white nationalist conspiracy theorists.
Thanks for replying. If I get your point, it's that a single person's behaviour has been misrepresented as numerous people, who can then be said to represent a group.
There's rather a lot of different people quoted and referenced as commenting on the hospital information videos in a way that links Jews and transgender treatment in explicitly hostile and anti-semitic ways. For example:
You refer to - I assume -Catherine Leavy of Westfield, but the article alleges discussion by right wing media figures such Harry Vox and Tucker Carlson which links gender treatment and Jewishness and of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose views are well known, because she very actively makes them so.
There were rather a lot of video comments and posters referred to beyond those figures, for example
''Hysterectomies at Boston CHILDREN’S hospital,”
BCH videos were shared on Twitter by Libs of TikTok, with a caption claiming the hospital was performing hysterectomies on “young girls.
Matt Walsh began sharing video
Tucker Carlson featured videos during his show, falsely stating that gender-affirming care is "the sexual mutilation of children.”
Stormfront and Vanguard News Network, posts from 2008 highlight users' opposition to gender-affirming therapies while referencing Dr. Spack: “Are you surprised it’s a JEW?”
The jews must go. The jews must die [sic].”
Jewby jewby jew,”
That’s a Jew.”
The video description blames Jews for spearheading “transgendermania” and alleges that their goal is “the breakdown of the family and the supremacy of the Jewish people to replace American hegemony.”
“Jews are flesh mutilated dogs!”
“Is this just something they find amusing for the goy?’
Tommy Robinson posted the Yale video on his Telegram channel and described the doctor as “demonic,” then added “These people...need to be dealt with.
“Pull the trigger.”
“Why are so many of these child mutilating supporters jewish?”
Another user suggested that the doctor was Jewish, followed by the statement, “every single time!”
Some responses to the Yale video also included more general antisemitic conspiracy theories. In one case, a user blamed Jews for their control over the “Deep State''
Your explanation that it suggests a single individual is representative of a whole group of people is obviously untrue- as anyone who reads the article will see.
Did you actually read it?
-
Extremist propaganda exists on both poles of this divisive topic. The ADL piece being one example
It wasn't clear to me in what respect the ADL report constituted propaganda.
Could you explain that for me, please?
When people don't agree with something nowadays they call it propaganda. The people who share the propaganda are "shilling". There's lots of other code words like "strawman" that you can use too. It's tremendous fun.
-
"Gender Critical" is used as a label by people who oppose trans rights,
This may be true, but it's also used as a descriptor by lots of normal people. E.g. I would say I'm gender critical by how the gov or BBC would use the term, but not how you use it. Your approach strikes me as being likely to create division and do your cause a disservice, because Pete's silent majority (e.g. me or spider monkey) might see statements like about how you think " gender critical" people shouldn't be listened to about trans topics, assume that you use the term like most people seem to, and think that, well, you're taking an absurd position and as such they're justified in ignoring you :shrug:
-
This may be true, but it's also used as a descriptor by lots of normal people.
I think this is true. I consider myself pro trans rights rather than gender critical for what its worth, but its clearly used to cover a huge swathe of opinion and is not defined clearly. I don't consider myself aligned with JK Rowling or Kathleen Stock (who I think are unhinged) but probably not with slab_happy either. Tbh I think there's an awful lot of people in that position!
-
"Normal people" mostly haven't even heard of the term "gender critical" let alone have an opinion on what it should mean.
A YouGov poll last year (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights) found that "two thirds of Britons say they pay little attention (42%) or no attention (24%) to the debate in the media and politics about trans rights". To be posting in a thread about trans rights on some silly forum firmly opts you out of being a "normal person"!
-
I don't think that follows. If I'd been polled on that question I would probably reply that I pay little attention to it, but that doesn't mean I don't have a view. I'd imagine only a small proportion of those 2/3 have absolutely no opinion on the issue.
-
Either that or capitalism sucks shit, which is my own personal viewpoint
You may disagree, although I'd point out, you're in the top fraction of a percent, globally, so you probably think it is a good system
It's increasingly typical (https://iea.org.uk/publications/left-turn-aheadsurveying-attitudes-of-young-people-towards-capitalism-and-socialism/)of members of your generation to think that.. go get em' you rebel :yawn:
But it's very much said like a privileged westerner without a better alternative.
Stats-wise, top 1.1%, not fraction of a % (although it doesn't break down the top 1.1% further..). According to this: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/distribution-of-global-wealth-chart/
Anyone in the UK with assets over £85k puts them, at minimum, in the top 11.1% of wealth globally. That's a huge number of people in Britain once family assets passed down from the declining boomers are accounted for, as they increasingly leave this world and your generation discovers that these things come in long cycles.
Firstly, whether other people also think it is not really relevant, but I would say that you probably do find discussions about the problems of capitalism tiresome, being as you are a very well off capitalist who's done well off it.
Secondly, 1.1% or fraction of a percent, either way there are people at the top with a vested interest in it being seen as a good idea, your linked breakdown of wealth shares tells me it very much isn't.
Thirdly there are lots of alternatives to our current system. You might say that the fact that capitalists are largely opposed to them has something to do with how they're benefiting from an unfair system.
I'm not going to pretend to have a perfect opposing model, but I'm definitely not going to pretend our existing system isn't heavily flawed and in need of great change and reform. And this ties into trans rights because capitalism is a system of exploitation which creates inequality and trans people are often victims of that (as are lots of minorities). Intersectionalism isn't just made up, it's has a strong basis; you cannot split out trans rights from other forms of systemic inequality.
-
For the sake of our sanity and the thread, please can the Marx-Smith pay-per-view grudge match take place elsewhere?
-
A Trans swimmer, a cisgendered timetravelling dwarf and a reanimated Michael Jackson with a Bob Ross fetish all go climbing at the Roaches.
They All complain about the conditions and cant really decide on the grade of the various lines they end up climbing but they have a lovely day and stay intouch because despite there obvious differences they really enjoy each others company :)
Sorry, just thought i would Zag while you fuckers Zig
-
"Gender Critical" is used as a label by people who oppose trans rights,
This may be true, but it's also used as a descriptor by lots of normal people. E.g. I would say I'm gender critical by how the gov or BBC would use the term, but not how you use it.
I'd suggest looking at the people who the gov and BBC (for example) call "gender critical" and treat as paradigmatic of that position, and who it's fair to say that gender critical feminists would consider to be leaders and key figures -- e.g. people like Kathleen Stock, Allison Bailey, Maya Forstater, Julie Bindel, and Joanna Cherry (not to mention Graham Linehan and J K Rowling).
Have a look at them and what they're actually demanding.
For example, one of their big goals at present is rewriting the Equality Act 2004 to remove some of trans people's existing legal rights.
It's pretty hard to call that anything other than "opposition to trans rights".
(Unless you want to try claiming "No, I'm not opposed to trans rights, I just think they have too many rights and should have some of them taken away"?)
If you're not down with that, then you might want to reconsider whether you really want to call yourself "gender critical", because it's going to give people very much the wrong impression of what you believe.
If you'll excuse a link to Wikipedia, they have a pretty good run-down of the history of "gender critical feminism" in the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism
It really doesn't just mean "believing sex and gender are different things" or "believing biological sex is real" or whatever -- it refers to a pretty specific set of political beliefs and goals.
-
Apologies Will and all.
Firstly, ...
1. We're virtually all well off in the west in relative wealth terms, not just me.
2. By your reasoning we virtually all have a vested interest, not just me.
3. Please name the alternatives, with evidence of them being superior. As a 'least bad option' capitalism has so far proven itself superior to other systems at usefully directing human energies. It can always be far better I agree. The root source of inequality can't be laid at capitalism's door, inequality is present within other economic systems (animal farm ring a bell..) and inequality existed long before the last 250 years of capitalism (feudalism.. et al). If inequality exists outside of capitalism, and existed before capitalism, ergo capitalism isn't an essential ingredient for inequality among humans.
4. Finally some agreement - the world isn't fair. Will or can the world even ever be, given the base material in any system is humanity? Based on the history of humanity's relationship with itself to date that looks very improbable*. That's why capitalism is 'least bad', because it deals with humans with selfish incentives which aren't 'all good' - not even yours, your lord highness of the intersection. You're sort of relying on humans to reign in their ancient inherent incentive-following nature and obey some fuzzy universal notion of fairness to all people at all times? We can't even agree on which toilet is right to piss in.
* But not impossible (not to extrapolate into the future etc.). I'm willing to do what I think's the right thing where I feel I can make a difference. I'm also a realist
-
I don't want to shit up the thread, and I am not going to persuade you of anything, so I'll drop it
-
"Gender Critical" is used as a label by people who oppose trans rights,
This may be true, but it's also used as a descriptor by lots of normal people. E.g. I would say I'm gender critical by how the gov or BBC would use the term, but not how you use it.
I'd suggest looking at the people who the gov and BBC (for example) call "gender critical" and treat as paradigmatic of that position, and who it's fair to say that gender critical feminists would consider to be leaders and key figures -- e.g. people like Kathleen Stock, Allison Bailey, Maya Forstater, Julie Bindel, and Joanna Cherry (not to mention Graham Linehan and J K Rowling).
Have a look at them and what they're actually demanding.
For example, one of their big goals at present is rewriting the Equality Act 2004 to remove some of trans people's existing legal rights.
It's pretty hard to call that anything other than "opposition to trans rights".
(Unless you want to try claiming "No, I'm not opposed to trans rights, I just think they have too many rights and should have some of them taken away"?)
If you're not down with that, then you might want to reconsider whether you really want to call yourself "gender critical", because it's going to give people very much the wrong impression of what you believe.
If you'll excuse a link to Wikipedia, they have a pretty good run-down of the history of "gender critical feminism" in the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism
You seem to think that it just means "believing sex and gender are different things" or "believing biological sex is real" or something like that, and that's really not the case -- it refers to a pretty specific set of political beliefs and goals.
I suppose it might be the aim of gender critical hardliners to sound reasonable.
I am personally very critical of gender. I think it is a highly reactionary and conservative idea, designed to keep people in tired, outdated gender roles.
I think people should be free to do whatever they want. I'm not going to stop anyone identifying as whatever they choose, but I feel the movement is tragically regressive.
I think I had hoped, that with greater personal freedom afforded to people, the distinction between genders would evaporate. Social and legal rules dictating clothes, behaviour, sport, hobbies etc would become less and less relevant. Instead we have these things being baked into society via the trans rights movement. Essentially the only thing a woman can do that I can't is give birth and lactate. Likewise there should be nothing off limits to a woman other than producing sperm. No paperwork or pronoun use can change that. (Though roll on test tube babies and we an eliminate sexual differences as well)
Does this make me gender critical? Maybe I'm just militantly non-binary.
-
@ pjh and Wellsy:
Two thoughts, reading your interesting points
1: Are you truly talking about the same thing? Capitalism as unrestrained market forces does not exist. Governments provide and control the framework, so there are various models available, not just a single form.
2: This thread was about something else. Maybe a good debate to give its own thread to?
-
I am personally very critical of gender.
Likewise! And you might think that logically, something called "gender critical feminism" would be all about being critical of gender, but nope!
I'm not going to stop anyone identifying as whatever they choose, but I feel the movement is tragically regressive.
By "the movement" do you mean the trans rights movement? In which case, I think you might be rather relieved by the reality.
I think a fair few people assume that trans people transition because they have have "masculine" or "feminine" traits that don't fit with their gender assigned at birth and imagine that this means they must be a "man" or a "woman", so they transition in order to fit with stereotypes.
E.g. a boy wants to wear dresses and play with dolls, and because of deep-rooted gender stereotypes he thinks this means he must "really be a woman".
And while this was very much the narrative about transness pushed by doctors in the 1950s (and still enforced by gatekeeping at clinics to some degree), it's absolutely not the lived reality, as trans feminists have been pointing out since the '70s.
Trans people don't conform to stereotypes any more than anyone else does! There are trans women who are butch! There are trans men who like wearing dresses! There have been studies showing that trans kids aren't any more gender-conforming than cis kids are!
Gender expression (how "masculine" or "feminine" you are), your interests, what you want to wear -- those are all distinct from gender identity (the little internal sense that says "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" or "none of the above thank you").
And we don't know what the hell causes that little sense, but it does seem to be something pretty deep-rooted and unalterable, and for a few people it doesn't match up with the gender they were assigned at birth.
But it doesn't mean they're any more inclined to conform to stereotypes than anyone else is.
(Or that they expect anyone else to -- speaking as a very gender-non-conforming cis woman, I've found it's my trans and non-binary friends who get how I relate to gender without batting an eyelid.)
So yeah, I'm all for dismantling gender roles and "social and legal rules dictating clothes, behaviour, sport, hobbies etc." -- bring it the fuck on, please!
But you can support that and still understand that (many, not all) people still have have a sense of gender identity, and that being able to identify as a man/woman/other (and have that recognized in law, as long as law makes a distinction between the genders) is important to them.
And plenty of trans people will be utterly onboard for the dismantling of gender roles. Viva la revolution and all that.
-
But you can support that and still understand that (many, not all) people still have have a sense of gender identity, and that being able to identify as a man/woman/other (and have that recognized in law, as long as law makes a distinction between the genders) is important to them.
I would be interested to hear what proportion of people have a gender identity. It is personally a concept that is totally alien to me and I'm sure the majority of people do not feel their gender in any way at all.
From the outside it appears akin to religious experience. Convincing to those touched, baffling to those outside.
-
I think most people have a mild sense that they are A Man or A Woman or A Neither or whatever, but of course I don't know that, merely supposition
-
Do you think that most men have a sense they are male or simply that they possess the knowledge they have male sexual organs?
-
I don't know. Probably the former if I had to guess, for various reasons.
-
I for one don't think I feel "male " other than that I observably am and I conform to far more of our culture's male stereotypes than female. But maybe I do feel it I just don't realise I do? :shrug:
-
But you can support that and still understand that (many, not all) people still have have a sense of gender identity, and that being able to identify as a man/woman/other (and have that recognized in law, as long as law makes a distinction between the genders) is important to them.
I would be interested to hear what proportion of people have a gender identity. It is personally a concept that is totally alien to me and I'm sure the majority of people do not feel their gender in any way at all.
From the outside it appears akin to religious experience. Convincing to those touched, baffling to those outside.
Yeah, I'd love to know the stats too. Because we only tend to hear about it in the cases where there's that mismatch, but it seems like people do experience it in a range of different ways, and to very different degrees.
Here's an interesting thought experiment -- and it's interesting because people's instinctive answers turn out to be very different:
Imagine that you wake up tomorrow to find out that aliens have kidnapped you in the night and transformed your body through weird alien science methods to that of the "opposite sex", whatever that is for you, before returning you to your bed.
Do you go, "eh, okay, guess I'm a woman (or man, delete as appropriate) now"? Or do you go "No, I'm still a man, I'm just currently in the body of a woman" (or vice versa)? Or some other answer?
I think I personally would feel that I, slab_happy, am still female, even if I had the body of a man. Other people feel differently.
I've heard some people use the term "cis by default" to describe feeling that they don't have any objection to being the gender they were assigned at birth, but they feel like they'd have gone along equally well if they'd been assigned the other one.
And of course some people who find the whole gender thing alien and meaningless will identify as non-binary, specifically "agender" -- that's the "no gender for me, thanks!" option.
N.B. I'm obviously not saying you have to identify as non-binary or anything! But there are certainly plenty of people who share your sense that the whole gender identity thing is totally alien to them.
I think there's a lot of diversity in how people experience gender, even within the category of people who are cis (or "close enough for government work", as the saying goes).
-
It really doesn't just mean "believing sex and gender are different things" or "believing biological sex is real" or whatever -- it refers to a pretty specific set of political beliefs and goals.
The link to the court ruling I posted would seem to imply that at the very least in the eye of the courts that believing biological sex is real would, quite explicitly, be considered gender critical..
The cynical side of me feels like some are trying to define it in a way that advantages their side of the debate by making it sound extreme (I appreciate many people who are gender critical are extreme) and making the label toxic. Interestingly page one of Google is a fair split in usages. Maybe we need a term for people who think that trans women aren't technically women but that that doesn't matter much in most circumstances but does in a few ( a bit like spidermonkey was asking for but maybe not quite) since that's what some like me think "gender critical" should/does mean ?
-
Why spend so much time agonising over what 'might' happen were someone to transition and then regret it, rather than focusing on all of the cases in which it's been enormously successful and improved quality of life and prevented suicide?
If you care more about hypothetical kids than real ones, there's a decent possibility that you (sorry - 'some people') don't actually care all that much, and that 'won't somebody please think of the children?' is as hysterical and empty as an expression of concern as it's ever been
I would quite like it if we didn't put vulnerable 15 year old girls with a slew of co-morbid mental health conditions and complex trauma -- it'd be nice if we didn't put them on cross-sex hormones and a waiting list for a fucking mastectomy at their second 45 minute appointment, and then discharge them when they express a desire to detransition[1][2], violating their duty of care in the most egregious way imaginable. I would also like it if we didn't affirm children's delusions that they are literally "born in the wrong body" with wholly unscientific gender ideology dogmas such as that there are "degrees of maleness" and femaleness[3].
So yes, I would be fully in favour of giving some thought to the children, thank you for asking :yes:
Maybe consider if you're one of the baddies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Are you aware that the composition of referrals to gender identity clinics has shifted from ~70% male to 70% female in the same period across Europe and North America?
Are you aware that referrals to gender identity clinics have increased exponentially over the last decade in every country for which data is available?
(https://segm.org/images/280.UK_full.svg)
- Are you aware that the NHS, The French National Academy of Medicine, the Swedish National Board of Health & the Finnish Health Authority have all stated that there is credible evidence that "social contagion" may be responsible for said increase?
Are you aware that the UK, Sweden & Finland have banned puberty blockers for under 16s outside of clinical trials?
Are you aware that all these countries have abandoned the "gender-affirming" model of care, which only the United States continues to cling to in the face of growing evidence?
1. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/20/tavistock-transgender-patient-mastectomy-regret/
3. https://www.itv.com/watch/the-clinic/10a3894 26min25s
3. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/12/nhs-childrens-trans-clinic-accused-peddling-unscientific-fiction/
-
I would quite like it if we didn't put vulnerable 15 year old girls with a slew of co-morbid mental health conditions and complex trauma -- it'd be nice if we didn't put them on cross-sex hormones and a waiting list for a fucking mastectomy at their second 45 minute appointment, and then discharge them when they express a desire to detransition[1][2],
You didn't read the article you linked to very carefully, did you?
She was referred to the Tavistock at 15.
She was seen three times at the Tavistock's GIDS clinic for children.
She was then transferred to adult services at 17.
At her second appointment at adult services -- so after five appointments, spread over at least two years -- she then got a referral to see someone else for hormones and to be put on the waiting list for a mastectomy.
Which she wouldn't have got until 18 at least, because the NHS doesn't do them any earlier. So, when she was a legal adult.
You can complain about the Tavistock not providing adequate care (and you wouldn't be alone -- as mentioned earlier, they are collapsing under demand and no-one seems very happy with them), but if you want to make a case, might as well get the basic facts correct.
Because a 15-year-old didn't get a referral for a mastectomy at her second ever appointment. None of that is true.
Are you aware that the composition of referrals to gender identity clinics has shifted from ~70% male to 70% female in the same period across Europe and North America?
Do you have a point with that?
Do you think that children assigned female at birth are inherently more vulnerable and less able to know their own minds? Do we need to worry about them and protect them more, the poor confused fragile little girls?
Are you aware that referrals to gender identity clinics have increased exponentially over the last decade in every country for which data is available?
It's almost like there's been an exponential rise in awareness of trans issues or something ...
Remember all the screaming about how there's an "epidemic of autism" because the numbers of diagnoses have increased exponentially?
Are you aware that all these countries have abandoned the "gender-affirming" model of care, which only the United States continues to cling to in the face of growing evidence?
Are you copying-and-pasting from somewhere? One of those countries is the UK. I live in the UK. This is literally, factually untrue.
The only people claiming that the NHS is "ending gender-affirmative care for children" are SEGM, a bunch of conversion therapist cranks closely overlapping with Genspect.
The current plan is for the Tavistock to be replaced by a number of regional clinics to provide a better service.
There's currently some fighting about whether under-16s will still be able to get puberty blockers without consenting to be used in research (which the government are pushing for, but forcing people to consent to be used in research in order to get medical treatment is normally considered to violate a number of principles on human research). But broadly, nothing is ending.
Though it's probably going to be trundling along in the same under-funded, desperately overstretched way as before, like every other NHS service but more so.
-
Oh wow, so you seriously maintain that the UK has not abandoned the "gender-affirming" approach?
You know that puberty blockers have been banned outright in under 16s outside of clinical trials, right?
This was after a review by NICE which concluded that the evidence for their efficacy was of "low" to "very low" quality.
The new interim specification for GIDS even cautions against *social transition*, letalone medical interventions. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-and-Young-People.pdf
It's easy to verify with google. I was gonna have a board sesh but I can waste my evening digging out the citations if you really insist.
-
Oh wow, so you seriously maintain that the UK has not abandoned the "gender-affirming" approach?
You know that puberty blockers have been banned outright in under 16s outside of clinical trials, right?
You're welcome to reread my reply:
There's currently some fighting about whether under-16s will still be able to get puberty blockers without consenting to be used in research (which the government are pushing for, but forcing people to consent to be used in research in order to get medical treatment is normally considered to violate a number of principles on human research).
By the way, this is explicitly the "draft interim clinical commissioning policy", which is going to be opened for public consultation following "stakeholder testing and consideration by NHS England’s Patient and Public Voice Assurance Group."
There's also a note in the report, that if they do follow through on restricting prescription of puberty blockers, they'll also be modifying the policy in prescribing cross-sex hormones by "removing the requirement for a young person to have been receiving puberty supressing hormones for a defined period."
In other words, if kids can't get puberty blockers outside research, they'll have to lower the requirements for prescribing cross-sex hormones, because you can no longer say that you can only get cross-sex hormones after you've been on puberty blockers for a certain amount of time.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Consultation-report-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-.pdf
-
The new interim specification for GIDS even cautions against *social transition*, letalone medical interventions. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-and-Young-People.pdf
It literally doesn't; it just says that it's not a "neutral act" but then:
Social transition is something that should be led by the young person with family input
And:
The Service will support a shared decision-making process - it is important that the risks and benefits of social transition are discussed with the child or young person and family, referencing best available evidence. Decisions will be individual, and the agency to make the decision rests with the young person, along with their family.
And to be honest, even that's the result of the government pushing heavily to try to be seen as "clamping down" on children getting care, with the result that changing your pronouns and getting a haircut is being presented in some quarters as if it was a risky medical intervention that requires professional supervision.
But it still ends up with a policy that says "yeah it's the kid's decision".
-
The link to the court ruling I posted would seem to imply that at the very least in the eye of the courts that believing biological sex is real would, quite explicitly, be considered gender critical.
No, it says that this is one of the tenets of "gender critical" beliefs:
Gender-critical beliefs include the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.
Also that's a HoC Library briefing, not the ruling proper. This is the court ruling, if you want it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
On a quick read, I don't think it attempts to define what "gender critical beliefs" per se are, just what Forstater's particular beliefs are -- and it does include her testimony about how she believes trans women should be excluded from all single-sex spaces, and that she's entitled to misgender people whenever she wants.
Incidentally, she won the appeal that her views were "protected beliefs" under a law which is intended to cover religious beliefs and things which are equivalent to religious belief.
The case law here is clear that if the belief is an opinion formed on the basis of current information (Grainger), or if the belief in question is open to being changed by further evidence (McClintock vs Department of Constitutional Affairs), it doesn't qualify as a "protected belief" for these purposes.
Essentially, it has to be a kind of faith.
So it's kind of weird to see people holding the ruling up as if it's proof that "gender critical beliefs" are particularly court-approved or have special status above other beliefs, when it was won on the basis of a) "this is equivalent to a religious faith" and b) the point on which the appeal was won, that it's not considered "akin to Nazism or totalitarianism" (the threshold at which a belief is considered "not worthy of respect in a democratic society".)
The cynical side of me feels like some are trying to define it in a way that advantages their side of the debate by making it sound extreme (I appreciate many people who are gender critical are extreme) and making the label toxic.
Like I said: look at Forstater, Bailey, Stock, Bindel et al (who are indisputably among the key gender critical figures in the UK), read what they're saying and writing, and see what they're actually demanding.
I'm not somehow making them say that stuff!
-
(https://segm.org/images/280.UK_full.svg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9woRj5q.png)
-
Imagine that you wake up tomorrow to find out that aliens have kidnapped you in the night and transformed your body through weird alien science methods to that of the "opposite sex", whatever that is for you, before returning you to your bed.
Do you go, "eh, okay, guess I'm a woman (or man, delete as appropriate) now"? Or do you go "No, I'm still a man, I'm just currently in the body of a woman" (or vice versa)? Or some other answer?
I think I personally would feel that I, slab_happy, am still female, even if I had the body of a man. Other people feel differently.
I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology. You retain your sense of womanhood due to your historical lived experience as a woman.
I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.
Allowing people to define themselves as either gender is all well and good but as I raised once before still fundermentaly a poor intermediate step on the road to eliminating restrictive stereotypes.
-
I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology. You retain your sense of womanhood due to your historical lived experience as a woman.
I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.
Gender is a social construct; that is what the word means. It reflects a dominant view of what constitutes maleness and femaleness. You want to move that debate along; good for you.
Not all aspects of gender may be inherently stereotyped and outdated though. But sure, you could reconfigure expectations of social roles- men could be the de facto stay at home carers and nurturers in the household, for an example. How easily changes of role would be adopted is another matter.
-
I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology.
Gender is a social construct, in my opinion -- nothing inadvertent there! Which doesn't make it "not real", of course. Money is also a social construct, and extremely real in how it shapes people's lives ...
I wouldn't say gender is completely divorced from biology -- most people's gender identity seems to "match" their reproductive anatomy at birth, or at least not conflict with it, and the people whose anatomy is mismatched to their gender often feel a strong need to make it fit better -- but the relationship is certainly far more complicated than people sometimes think.
I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.
Except nope to that bit.
My sense of gender is not based on whether I conform to any gender stereotypes, because I don't. I was the little kid who demanded an Action Man instead of a Barbie, wanted to cut my hair short as soon as my parents would let me, never wanted to wear skirts or dresses, never wore make-up, etc. etc.. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not rare for me to get misgendered in public -- it's shockingly easy to fail to "pass" as a woman if you're not performing femaleness in the way society expects, even if you're actually cis.
And my sense of gender is certainly not based on being aware that I have a uterus, because I've always been clear that I have no desire to ever ever get pregnant, and the idea that my gender is reducible to "can be a baby-carrier" gives me the fucking creeps.
And yet, being female is a meaningful concept to me and part of my identity. Why? No idea, but it is.
I've had fascinating discussions with some of my non-binary friends, because our experience of gender is very similar in some ways and yet radically different in others.
-
Oh wow, so you seriously maintain that the UK has not abandoned the "gender-affirming" approach?
You know that puberty blockers have been banned outright in under 16s outside of clinical trials, right?
You're welcome to reread my reply:
There's currently some fighting about whether under-16s will still be able to get puberty blockers without consenting to be used in research (which the government are pushing for, but forcing people to consent to be used in research in order to get medical treatment is normally considered to violate a number of principles on human research).
By the way, this is explicitly the "draft interim clinical commissioning policy", which is going to be opened for public consultation following "stakeholder testing and consideration by NHS England’s Patient and Public Voice Assurance Group."
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Consultation-report-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-.pdf (https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Consultation-report-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-.pdf)
Most reporting on the subject implies that the policy is going ahead, the objections of trans activists notwithstanding.
The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65860272) is unambiguous: "Puberty blockers will only be prescribed to children attending gender identity services as part of clinical research, NHS England has announced."
As is the interim spec (https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/gender-dysphoria-clinical-programme/implementing-advice-from-the-cass-review/): "We have previously made clear, including the draft interim service specification we consulted on, the intention that the NHS will only commission puberty supressing hormones as part of clinical research."
Do you have a source suggesting otherwise?
There's also a note in the report, that if they do follow through on restricting prescription of puberty blockers, they'll also be modifying the policy in prescribing cross-sex hormones by "removing the requirement for a young person to have been receiving puberty supressing hormones for a defined period."
In other words, if kids can't get puberty blockers outside research, they'll have to lower the requirements for prescribing cross-sex hormones, because you can no longer say that you can only get cross-sex hormones after you've been on puberty blockers for a certain amount of time.
The min. age for starting cross-sex hormones (CSH) is 16. If you both increase the age required for PBs to 16 and require CSH to be preceded by a period on PBs, obviously that pushes back the age you can start CSH to some time (whatever the period on PBs was) after your 16th birthday. I’m not sure this would actually be lawful.
In any case, dropping the former requirement (which afaict was informal anyway, the duration of PB treatment being agreed with the patient) is the only logically possible way to keep the age for CSH at 16.
Pretty ironic you would present this as a liberalization of policy when it’s literally the only way the new policy on PBs can be implemented without changing the age required for CSH.
Why are you being disingenuous?
The statement that the UK and several other European countries have shifted away from the US model which emphasizes affirming a trans identification with medical interventions, towards one focused on psychotherapy, is not really controversial at this point. Ahem...
The Economist (https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/11/17/britain-changes-tack-in-its-treatment-of-trans-identifying-children):
Until recently, many gender specialists in the National Health Service (NHS) treated trans-identifying children by broadly following an “affirmative” approach which accepts patients’ self-diagnosis as the starting-point for treatment. That can mean the prescription of puberty blockers from early adolescence, followed by cross-sex hormones.
Dr Cass’s report seems to have prompted the NHS to rethink its wider approach to gender ideology— which holds that gender identity is as important as biological sex. The affirmation model is predicated on the idea that being trans, like being gay, is innate. Yet in draft guidelines published in October the NHS cautioned that in children “gender incongruence...may be a transient phase”. This suggests that prescribing blockers to some children may have harmed them.
The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/gender-affirming-care-debate-europe-dutch-protocol/673890/):
As Republicans across the U.S. intensify their efforts to legislate against transgender rights, they are finding aid and comfort in an unlikely place: Western Europe, where governments and medical authorities in at least five countries that once led the way on gender-affirming treatments for children and adolescents are now reversing course, arguing that the science undergirding these treatments is unproven, and their benefits unclear.
The BMJ (https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382):
US medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features. At the same time, however, several European countries have issued guidance to limit medical intervention in minors, prioritising psychological care.
Sweden
Socialstyrelsen – Care of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Summary (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2022-3-7799.pdf)
Contrary to your claims of a “moral panic”, actual clinicians are concerned by the rapid increase in referrals among girls:
For adolescents with gender incongruence, the NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases. This judgement is based mainly on three factors: the continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments [2], the new knowledge that detransition occurs among young adults [3], and the uncertainty that follows from the yet unexplained increase in the number of care seekers, an increase particularly large among adolescents registered as females at birth [4].
France
The French National Academy of Medicine (https://www.academie-medecine.fr/la-medecine-face-a-la-transidentite-de-genre-chez-les-enfants-et-les-adolescents/) concurs, suggests that social contagion is to blame for at least some of the increase:
Gender transidentity is the strong sense, for more than 6 months, of identification with a gender different from that assigned at birth. This feeling can cause a significant and prolonged suffering, which can lead to a risk of suicide (a). No genetic predisposition has been found....
The recognition of this disharmony is not new, but a very strong increase in the demand for physicians for this reason has been observed (1, 2) in North America, then in the countries of northern Europe and, more recently, in France, particularly in children and adolescents...
Whatever the mechanisms involved in adolescents - excessive engagement with social media, greater social acceptability, or influence by those in one’s social circle - this epidemic-like phenomenon manifests itself in the emergence of cases or even clusters of cases in the adolescents’ immediate surroundings (4). This primarily social problem is due, in part, to the questioning of an overly dichotomous view of gender identity by some young people....
“[T]here is no test to distinguish between persisting gender dysphoria and transient adolescent dysphoria. Moreover, the risk of over-diagnosis is real, as evidenced by the growing number of young adults wishing to detransition [c]. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the phase of psychological care as much as possible.
-
What you're up against here Alex is known as 'peak insanity' in which there is literally nothing you can say to sway the mind of someone that believes it's reasonable to 'pause' the puberty of a child with the intention of beginning a process that will render that child sterile and irreversibly physically altered with increased vulnerability to all sorts of health issues and reduced lifespan.
-
I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology.
Gender is a social construct, in my opinion -- nothing inadvertent there! Which doesn't make it "not real", of course. Money is also a social construct, and extremely real in how it shapes people's lives ...
I wouldn't say gender is completely divorced from biology -- most people's gender identity seems to "match" their reproductive anatomy at birth, or at least not conflict with it, and the people whose anatomy is mismatched to their gender often feel a strong need to make it fit better -- but the relationship is certainly far more complicated than people sometimes think.
I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.
Except nope to that bit.
My sense of gender is not based on whether I conform to any gender stereotypes, because I don't. I was the little kid who demanded an Action Man instead of a Barbie, wanted to cut my hair short as soon as my parents would let me, never wanted to wear skirts or dresses, never wore make-up, etc. etc.. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not rare for me to get misgendered in public -- it's shockingly easy to fail to "pass" as a woman if you're not performing femaleness in the way society expects, even if you're actually cis.
And my sense of gender is certainly not based on being aware that I have a uterus, because I've always been clear that I have no desire to ever ever get pregnant, and the idea that my gender is reducible to "can be a baby-carrier" gives me the fucking creeps.
And yet, being female is a meaningful concept to me and part of my identity. Why? No idea, but it is.
I've had fascinating discussions with some of my non-binary friends, because our experience of gender is very similar in some ways and yet radically different in others.
There is literally no end to your bullshit. The Emperor truly has no clothes.
-
And, we’re into the unhinged rant and personal insult phase that this conversation dissolves into every time it happens…
My opinions on the matter, um, don’t (because that’s all I’m qualified to have, an opinion, worth exactly what it should be in such a matter: zero).
So, I’ll leave the ranting to the zealots and remain of the opinion I started reading all of this with:
It’s a complex, unique and truly individual issue for each and every person involved (the human being in crisis and the professionals trying to help and guide them).
Best left to those two groups to make the best choices they can, with the knowledge available to them all, at the time. Normal standards of malpractice, not withstanding.
I couldn’t support any government policy that didn’t translate to that.
Public opinion, moral judgments (particularly those based on religion) and political stances (especially ones that involve the term “family values”) can fuck right off.
The argument that “nobody should do anything, because it might be (or later turn out to be) the wrong thing or a decision regretted” ( because that what some of the above boils down to) is, frankly, laughable.
And finally (‘cos I’m feeling like a ‘avin a bit of a flounce and appreciate Slabs’ dedication, even if I don’t “agree” with everything she says): Gritter, get a grip.
-
I go away for two years and there it is, Matt is still making sense in relation to complex issues with a nuanced response.
Good to see that some things don’t change.
-
I go away for two years and there it is, Matt is still making sense in relation to complex issues with a nuanced response.
Good to see that some things don’t change.
Agreed, OMM's 'little snowflake in expert hands' fantasy regarding trans kids healthcare is certainly worthy of an award
-
I go away for two years and there it is, Matt is still making sense in relation to complex issues with a nuanced response.
Good to see that some things don’t change.
Agreed, OMM's 'little snowflake in expert hands' fantasy regarding trans kids healthcare is certainly worthy of an award
Well, I wasn’t going to respond any more, but…
Ah ha ha ha ha ha.
Ah hah hah haaaa…
Snort.
(Slaps knees, catches breath, wipes tear from eye).
Somebody pass this tit a mirror.
-
I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology.
Gender is a social construct, in my opinion -- nothing inadvertent there! Which doesn't make it "not real", of course. Money is also a social construct, and extremely real in how it shapes people's lives ...
I wouldn't say gender is completely divorced from biology -- most people's gender identity seems to "match" their reproductive anatomy at birth, or at least not conflict with it, and the people whose anatomy is mismatched to their gender often feel a strong need to make it fit better -- but the relationship is certainly far more complicated than people sometimes think.
I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.
Except nope to that bit.
My sense of gender is not based on whether I conform to any gender stereotypes, because I don't. I was the little kid who demanded an Action Man instead of a Barbie, wanted to cut my hair short as soon as my parents would let me, never wanted to wear skirts or dresses, never wore make-up, etc. etc.. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not rare for me to get misgendered in public -- it's shockingly easy to fail to "pass" as a woman if you're not performing femaleness in the way society expects, even if you're actually cis.
And my sense of gender is certainly not based on being aware that I have a uterus, because I've always been clear that I have no desire to ever ever get pregnant, and the idea that my gender is reducible to "can be a baby-carrier" gives me the fucking creeps.
And yet, being female is a meaningful concept to me and part of my identity. Why? No idea, but it is.
I've had fascinating discussions with some of my non-binary friends, because our experience of gender is very similar in some ways and yet radically different in others.
There is literally no end to your bullshit. The Emperor truly has no clothes.
Slab ain't the one coming across as a nutter here, mate
-
No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.
-
Most reporting on the subject implies that the policy is going ahead, the objections of trans activists notwithstanding.
I'm just quoting what the document actually says, which is that it's going to be opened to further public consultation following "stakeholder testing and consideration by NHS England’s Patient and Public Voice Assurance Group."
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Consultation-report-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-.pdf
As they state, this is the intention for what what they want the revised policy to be; it remains to be seen what will actually happen.
In any case, dropping the former requirement (which afaict was informal anyway, the duration of PB treatment being agreed with the patient) is the only logically possible way to keep the age for CSH at 16.
Pretty ironic you would present this as a liberalization of policy when it’s literally the only way the new policy on PBs can be implemented without changing the age required for CSH.
I didn't say it lowered the age, just that it lowered the requirements. Which it does.
There’s no longer going to be the requirement that you've spent time on puberty blockers, in order to have that pause for reflection.
If people are concerned about kids being "rushed", you'd think they might feel that losing the option of that extra pause is a bad thing.
If you both increase the age required for PBs to 16 and require CSH to be preceded by a period on PBs, obviously that pushes back the age you can start CSH to some time (whatever the period on PBs was) after your 16th birthday. I’m not sure this would actually be lawful.
I'm glad you agree that prescribing of cross-sex hormones to teens 16 and older (when this is considered medically appropriate and necessary) is legal and that there's no intent (or ability) to change that.
Prescribing of cross-sex hormones to a 16-year-old would, of course, very much count as "gender affirming care."
As does social transition, which the documents make it clear will still be a child-led decision.
The one thing that's potentially changing is whether kids can get puberty blockers without consenting to be part of research, and the document states that they have commissioned said research and anticipate it opening for recruitment in 2024. So kids will potentially still be able to be prescribed puberty blockers as long as they agree to be part of the study.
For context, it’s also worth being aware that UK's current services are so overloaded and underfunded and waiting lists are so incredibly long that very few kids actually get puberty blockers before they're well into puberty anyway.
Only a very small minority of kids seen by the Tavistock (16%, in 2019-20) ever get referred to an endocrinologist for consideration for puberty blockers (versus aging into adult services at 17 before they get considered for a referral, like the person in the Telegraph article), and the majority of those who do get a referral from the Tavistock are 15 or older (which means they're on average 16 before they actually get approved for any treatments).
https://gids.nhs.uk/research/pathways-through-our-service/
The number of kids under 16 getting puberty blockers in the UK has always been very small.
Which is why the Bell case had to rely on someone (Keira Bell) who didn't get them until she was 16, even though it was attempting to rule on whether under-16s could consent to them.
So to be clear, I still think the proposal is bad and shitty, but (if it goes ahead) its impact is in practice likely to be fairly limited because of how limited existing services are anyway.
The statement that the UK and several other European countries have shifted away from the US model which emphasizes affirming a trans identification with medical interventions, towards one focused on psychotherapy, is not really controversial at this point. Ahem...
If you're under the impression that there has been a shift in the UK to using psychotherapy with the goal of "treating" or "curing" trans-ness, you should be aware that this would be consider conversion therapy and has been rejected comprehensively by every relevant medical, psychiatric and psychological organization, all of whom support a flat-out ban:
https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/mou/
The service specifications you’ve linked to are clear that any therapeutic work envisaged “is not directed at gender incongruence itself” but aimed at addressing a child’s other emotional needs and providing them with support.
"Gender affirming care" simply refers to approaches which start by accepting where a kid currently is with their identity, rather than attempting to talk them out of it.
It can include social transition (which the documents accept as something that should be child-led) and prescription of cross-sex hormones, if appropriate -- both of which will be continuing as options.
The one major thing that's potentially changing is whether or not kids will be able to get puberty blockers specifically without consenting to be in a research trial.
-
No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.
Agreed. It's important not to conflate the world of adults going about their lives with that of children struggling with complex mental health issues.
-
No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.
Agreed. It's important not to conflate the world of adults going about their lives with that of children struggling with complex mental health issues.
Your observation would hold if trans identity were something that developed in adults but not children. As I understand it, most (all?) trans adults had these feelings from childhood. The trans adults were trans children.
In which case it’s not conflating separate issues, it’s the same thing at different ages, so the comment is nonsense.
If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that trans children are being led, by adults, down a path which is harmful. Is that your view?
-
Yes, I believe this to be the case.
-
No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.
Agreed. It's important not to conflate the world of adults going about their lives with that of children struggling with complex mental health issues.
Not what I said, and not implied by what I said, at all. Stop co-opting other's words and posts.
-
Navigating these feelings in young people who have not matured is really problematical and difficult to legislate for. I took Andy’s comment to mean we need to be guided by tolerance. and forebearance. As someone who has no direct influence on any of this (but I’ve encountered young people questioning their identity) they seem like the best guides as to how to respond.
I don’t see any evidence of trans lobby trying to convert confused kids to their cause. That’s just culture war distraction nonsense as far as I can tell.
I do see bigotry masquerading as ‘but won’t someone think of the kids’ posturing though. The idea that women, who as a group face all sorts of inequalities and hazards that men don’t, should be focused on the dangers of transitioning people using a toilet seems ridiculous. There are bigger concerns, surely? Stock and Rowling would do more good using their platforms to raise the profile of domestic abuse and femicide in my view.
With children, it’s clearly hazardous to make irreversible decisions easy to take at an age when identity is still developing. It doesn’t seem to be the current state of affairs though, as far as I can tell there are quite a lot of barriers and delays. Mental health problems complicate things, but are bound to accompany the anguish of those who feel trapped in the wrong body. Gender affirming drugs are drastic, but so is suicide. We should tread as carefully denying medication as in providing it.
I’m glad I don’t have responsibility for these sorts of decisions. It must be horrendous for parents and doctors.
Edit - @ gritter, post crossed with Andy’s
-
Yes, I believe this to be the case.
Actually, my feelings about commenting on the subject we were meant to be discussing, not withstanding (oh god, I’ve used that word twice already. I do apologise). This is starting to intrigue me.
I apologise for the digression but I think it’s worth it.
I note you have not submitted much in the way of evidence to support your position, excessive positive assertions not withstanding (shit, fuck, where’s my Thesaurus? ).
I was going to write something that would have amounted to a statement that would have translated to something beginning “I bet you think…”
Then, I thought perhaps there are enough Straw men hanging around already.
So, you have a definite, and (at least to you) patently obvious position on this. Would you mind explaining your, perhaps, qualification(s) and/or experience, study or observations which have lead you there?
Please don’t be offended if I* judge the validity, to me, of that position; based on the position of those it seems reasonable to call “expert”.
*Supposedly, I’m an “expert” in my (totally unrelated) field.**
**I’ve been called as an expert ***witness twice, once for the prosecution and once in defence (different cases, though might have been amusing if it had been the same one).
*** I try to remind myself that “X” is an unknown quantity and “spurt” is a drip under pressure.
Is that enough levity to choke off your (likely) waspish response?
-
The latest developments in a story of politically motivated transphobic influencers, and politicians who should know better, jumping on something to be angry about.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/22/dead-cats-and-transphobic-lies/
-
The latest developments in a story of politically motivated transphobic influencers, and politicians who should know better, jumping on something to be angry about.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/22/dead-cats-and-transphobic-lies/
They can all relax, human-cat surgery is not available and no one's going to be threatened by which litter tray is used.
I know a few cats, they're all cool.
-
did well to Squeeze that joke in.
-
The latest developments in a story of politically motivated transphobic influencers, and politicians who should know better, jumping on something to be angry about.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/22/dead-cats-and-transphobic-lies/
They can all relax, human-cat surgery is not available and no one's going to be threatened by which litter tray is used.
I know a few cats, they're all cool.
It’s all very, very predictable. Get angry about something invented or of little consequence, identify with the in group, be distracted from the things that have a serious impact.
Unoriginal. Effective.
-
They can all relax, human-cat surgery is not available and no one's going to be threatened by which litter tray is used.
See, you say this as a joke, but the whole "child identifies as a CAT!!!" thing is a hoax recycled from the US, after it's already been extensively and repeatedly debunked there, and litter boxes play a big part, I kid you not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_boxes_in_schools_hoax
So any journalist should know better than to start running with this sort of stuff before fact-checking it.
Meanwhile, the school have even had to issue an official statement that none of their pupils identify as cats "or any other animal":
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/23/child-identifying-as-cat-controversy-from-a-tiktok-video-to-media-frenzy
It’d be informative to note which newspapers (e.g. the Telegraph, the Mail) have run endless outraged articles on this “story”, and see whether any of them ever acknowledge to their readers that there was never a cat child.
-
My understanding is anthropomorphism has a complex relationship with the LGBTQIA+ community ranging from Furry Fandom to more fetishised BDSM Pup Play, although according to online information anybody is welcome to engage in pup play and furryfandom at a platonic level or something that may be more sexually explorative such as being a 'pup' and having a 'handler'.
This friendly article discusses the myths and facts in relation UK schools
https://oursaferschools.co.uk/2023/04/24/furries/
This website is quite extensive and provides an FAQ's page about 'the science'
https://furscience.com
This website is dedicated to pup play across the spectrum from platonic fun to BDSM
https://www.pupspace.net/en-US/Home/FAQ
and this is an interesting and darkly amusing video of a German 'Pride' event for the serious fringe identity of Zoophile, note I'm not advocating zoophilia and believe the rights of the German Shepard in question as well as the Zoophile community members must be carefully balanced. Until 'the science' catches up with and recognises the validity of the relationships in question, possibly through the use of fMRI scanner showing how the part of the limbic system associated with desire and love, lights up when the dog is presented with the partner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEmsAONihU
-
FWIW my sister-in-law does teach a child who reported identifying as a cat (might still do, I don't know).
I don't believe any litter trays have been installed.
-
Fur real?
-
FWIW my sister-in-law does teach a child who reported identifying as a cat (might still do, I don't know).
I don't believe any litter trays have been installed.
I followed with fascination the case of Rachel Dolezal several years ago and the criticism she received for identifying as black.
-
What you're up against here Alex is known as 'peak insanity' in which there is literally nothing you can say to sway the mind of someone that believes it's reasonable to 'pause' the puberty of a child with the intention of beginning a process that will render that child sterile and irreversibly physically altered with increased vulnerability to all sorts of health issues and reduced lifespan.
100% mate
We have Slab citing vanishingly rare intersex disorders to try to poke holes in the definition of biological sex, while proposing to replace it with something called "gender identity" that they cannot even begin to define.
You couldn't make this shit up.
It's one thing to support those medical interventions but Slab also wants to pretend that there aren't reasonable clinicians (including national medical bodies) who disagree, and that is just not sustainable.
For those of you who still have an open mind, please consider carefully whether the judgement of history will be kind to those who used specious arguments to justify cutting off the healthy breasts of 13 year old girls. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. https://youtu.be/gZWslwe3W1c.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
RE: the Rye College catgirl story.
I follow Otto English on twitter and he's tweeted dozens of times about this story. He plainly has an intense emotional commitment to the cat aspect being false for whatever reason; he dismissed it as fake news soon after the story was published.
Then when people weren't convinced, a teacher reached out to him to confirm his interpretation was correct. Suuuuuureee.
The BylineTimes has been falsely reporting that cats are referred to once in the recording. Actually, it's mentioned three times.
"If they want to identify as a cat or something then they are genuinely unwell"
"they turned around and started saying something, and I said how can you identify as a cat when you're a girl"
"You can't have a vagina and be a girl but then identify as a cat"
It takes some mental gymnastics to get around the interpretation that we are dealing with a girl identifying as a cat.
The alternative interpretation would be that this is a female student who identifies as a boy, whom the girls were mocking by comparing this to identifying as a cat.
If this was the case, why didn't the teacher simply say "but this pupil identifies as a boy/girl, not a cat". She had three opportunities to do so.
Btw, usually when people want to mock a trans identification they say things like "I identify as a cat /attack helicopter/whatever", rather than imputing those beliefs to other people. Because nobody can deny another person's internal mental state.
I'm open to being persuaded but it's going to take more than a mere denial from the school, which the girls involved dispute, and an anonymous statement in the BylineTimes lol.
Having said all that, the most troubling aspect of the story for me was the unreasonableness of the teacher: her misunderstanding of biology (no, intersex people do not constitute a third sex), the incoherence of her beliefs (not accepting multiple genders is the cause of homophobia, somehow), and her intolerance of opposing views (believing there are two genders is "despicable" and the girls should find another school).
She is not fit to teach children.
-
FWIW my sister-in-law does teach a child who reported identifying as a cat (might still do, I don't know).
I don't believe any litter trays have been installed.
I followed with fascination the case of Rachel Dolezal several years ago and the criticism she received for identifying as black.
This reminds me of the case of Jorund Viktoria the Norwegian trans woman who identified as disabled and was a wheel chair user or the lady in this video who has something defined as body integrity disorder in which she lives mostly as a paralysed woman and is hoping to find a surgeon to paralyse her. If she moved to Canada they'd sort her out in the blink of an eye, then probably give her some psychedelics, talk her into MAID and turn her into soylent green :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xujgH_C2q8
-
But why is this your problem?
What right do you have to tell other people how to live their lives?
Freedom of choice. Body autonomy and all that.
-
It's not my problem. Did I say I had an issue with it? No.
-
It's not my problem. Did I say I had an issue with it? No.
And yet, here you are, again.
Fascinating.
And Alex, such absolutes!
Oh to be so sure, to see the world so clearly.
Must be so much easier than trying to understand.
And yet, you both seem really quite stressed.
Can’t be good for you.
-
She is not fit to teach children.
Impressive that you, behind your keyboard, can determine what the GTC would need a full investigation to establish. And all you needed was a child’s TikTok!
-
FWIW my sister-in-law does teach a child who reported identifying as a cat (might still do, I don't know).
Is this a genuine original case though, or is the child a...copycat?
:tumble:
-
Jokes aside, all this ‘identifying as (insert something ridiculous)’ is just a way of ridiculing and attacking the validity of what must be very painful for the people involved in these issues.
If I can identify as something plainly impossible, the process of self-identifying must be inherently nonsense, mustn’t it?
-
Jokes aside, all this ‘identifying as (insert something ridiculous)’ is just a way of ridiculing and attacking the validity of what must be very painful for the people involved in these issues.
Yeah, absolutely. Better to approach the ridiculous ones with humour rather than outrage though, I feel.
I myself can appreciate wishing to identify as a cat (having several cattish traits and tendencies), though not to the exclusion of being a man.
-
Thread about trans issues derailed into "but what if kids identified as helicopters/cats/formula one cars!!!!!" In extremely predictable gender critical nonsense move
-
https://youtu.be/6O3MzPeomqs
Well worth a listen.
If you’re an adult who wants to spend their life pretending you’re something you’re not then cool, but don’t infringe on women’s spaces and leave the children alone.
The amount of nonsense being pushed onto impressionable kids by some adults it’s absolutely disgusting in my opinion.
I did enjoy the young girls doing a fabulous job of educating their teacher (regarding the cat incident)
At the same time it’s pretty concerning, conform or suffer the consequences children!
-
Jokes aside, all this ‘identifying as (insert something ridiculous)’ is just a way of ridiculing and attacking the validity of what must be very painful for the people involved in these issues.
If I can identify as something plainly impossible, the process of self-identifying must be inherently nonsense, mustn’t it?
A.k.a the One Joke:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_joke
Arguably, it's a version of the old line used against same-sex marriage --"if you allow people to marry someone of the same sex, next they'll want to marry a DOG, next they'll want to marry a TOASTER" etc. etc..
In the immortal words of Hannah Gadsby, "I identify as tired."
-
My understanding is anthropomorphism has a complex relationship with the LGBTQIA+ community ranging from Furry Fandom to more fetishised BDSM Pup Play, although according to online information anybody is welcome to engage in pup play and furryfandom at a platonic level or something that may be more sexually explorative such as being a 'pup' and having a 'handler'.
This friendly article discusses the myths and facts in relation UK schools
https://oursaferschools.co.uk/2023/04/24/furries/
This website is quite extensive and provides an FAQ's page about 'the science'
https://furscience.com
This website is dedicated to pup play across the spectrum from platonic fun to BDSM
https://www.pupspace.net/en-US/Home/FAQ
and this is an interesting and darkly amusing video of a German 'Pride' event for the serious fringe identity of Zoophile, note I'm not advocating zoophilia and believe the rights of the German Shepard in question as well as the Zoophile community members must be carefully balanced. Until 'the science' catches up with and recognises the validity of the relationships in question, possibly through the use of fMRI scanner showing how the part of the limbic system associated with desire and love, lights up when the dog is presented with the partner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEmsAONihU
1) There is no child at this school who identifies as a cat. There never was.
2) This has nothing to do with furries. Furries are people who like dressing up as anthropomorphized animals. They don't believe they literally are animals. As with other groups of people, some furries are also LGBTQIA+, some of them aren't.
The (false) claim wasn't that a child at this school was a furry, but that they literally "identified as a cat".
3) Are you seriously trying to imply that the LGBTQIA+ community has anything to do with bestiality?
Until 'the science' catches up with and recognises the validity of the relationships in question, possibly through the use of fMRI scanner showing how the part of the limbic system associated with desire and love, lights up when the dog is presented with the partner.
You seem to be going out of your way to imply that fucking a dog is somehow comparable or related to being gay or trans or has some kind of relevance to this topic.
Is that really where you want to go with this? Really?
Also, you're linking to a video from a channel which appears to feature rants about fluoride in water, claims that Oprah Winfrey is a pedophile, "#andrewtate talking about #taliban spitting facts about their war with Zionist and #atheists", a lot of Trump videos, a lot of videos about how the Russians are just being the awesome-est in Ukraine, and a video gloating over the burning of a hotel housing refugees.
Interesting viewing choices you have there.
-
We have Slab citing vanishingly rare intersex disorders to try to poke holes in the definition of biological sex, while proposing to replace it with something called "gender identity" that they cannot even begin to define.
You couldn't make this shit up.
And yet, you did make it up:
gender identity (the little internal sense that says "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" or "none of the above thank you").
I've said we don't know what the hell causes it or why people experience it in such diverse ways, but there you go, that's a definition for you right there.
It's one thing to support those medical interventions but Slab also wants to pretend that there aren't reasonable clinicians (including national medical bodies) who disagree, and that is just not sustainable.
Dude, I've literally been reading the documents you linked to and pointing out what they actually say.
For those of you who still have an open mind, please consider carefully whether the judgement of history will be kind to those who used specious arguments to justify cutting off the healthy breasts of 13 year old girls. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
You understand that, as I've already mentioned, no-one's getting top surgery in the UK before the age of 18 (on the NHS), or maaaaybe in a few cases 17 privately?
Like how your "15-year-old" who was getting top surgery turned out not to be, as soon as I read the actual article you linked to?
And now we've gone down to 13-year-olds. They'll be 11-year-olds by the next mention!
Incidentally, speaking as someone who is, I believe, one of very few people in this thread to actually have breasts --
It's really creepy how people seem to think that the most horrific thing in the world is for someone assigned female at birth, who is considered old enough and capable of giving informed consent (and who is in almost all cases, a legal adult), to have a mastectomy.
Oh wait, a mastectomy, gotta bold it.
Forget their psychological wellbeing or what they might imagine they want (in their silly little girl brains), the most important thing is whether or not they still have tits!
Are they healthy? Who cares! The important thing is that the tits are healthy.
Of course, men with gynecomastia can get surgery for it, and I imagine a few of them get it at 17 (though again, not on the NHS). If you trawl the internet enough, you can probably find a few cases in the world of people getting it younger.
Where's your outrage about "cutting off the healthy breasts" of teenage boys?
Or do you, perhaps, think that if a young cis man has breasts and this is causing him severe distress and discomfort with his body because they don't fit his gender, he should (in consultation with medical professionals, if they think it's an appropriate treatment option) get to decide what to do about it?
-
My point is, Slabs, that 'pseudo science' can enable anything.
-
No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.
Thank you. There's a whole lot of this "debate" that gets very simple if you know anyone who's trans (or are trans yourself, of course).
This is about real human beings.
Here are some fun questions for Alex B, Gritter and co.:
Do you have any trans friends? Do you know any trans people? Any families with trans children?
Or is all this outrage about a group of people you have no direct knowledge of at all?
I'm not saying that firsthand knowledge the only way of learning about an issue!
But it’s a huge problem if the "trans debate" is being carried out (in general, not just here) not only in a way that often doesn't involve any trans voices at all, but where the vast majority of people "debating" don't know a single trans person.
Pick another minority group, frame their entire existence as "the X debate" or "the X issue" (“the X question” has gone out of fashion for some reason …), and imagine that debate being carried on almost entirely by people who've never even met a member of that group.
-
Of course, men with gynecomastia can get surgery for it, and I imagine a few of them get it at 17 (though again, not on the NHS). If you trawl the internet enough, you can probably find a few cases in the world of people getting it younger.
Where's your outrage about "cutting off the healthy breasts" of teenage boys?
Or do you, perhaps, think that if a young cis man has breasts and this is causing him severe distress and discomfort with his body because they don't fit his gender, he should (in consultation with medical professionals, if they think it's an appropriate treatment option) get to decide what to do about it?
I don't want to get involved in this larger debate but you are really creating an unhelpful false equivalence here. There are huge differences in aetiology, complexity and consequence between the two things you are conflating.
-
Thank you. There's a whole lot of this "debate" that gets very simple if you know anyone who's trans (or are trans yourself, of course).
This is about real human beings.
100% this. There are things Slab has asserted here that I'm undecided about, some I strongly disagree with, and some I strongly agree with. But this^ is the most important point. It doesn't conveniently eliminate all the questions and concerns, it's a frame to view them through.
A bit of reading up on ancient tribal communities suggests trans gender hasn't just appeared out of nowhere and has always been a part of humanity. What's different now is awareness and the spreading of ideas, through the curse in disguise of the internet, and the potential mass-awareness brings for bandwagon behaviour and trend-following which is what a lot of concerns boil down to (thin end of the wedgie).
Personally I'm enjoying seeing Slab's views challenged through (some) intelligent debate, it's through debate you learn more about a topic. I don't feel that I need to agree with either of them to take their opinions on board and consider them.
edit, was also going to say, to those who are debating on the point about concern about harm/self-harm - look around you... The population is in a state of chronic obesity with all the related destruction to health this brings, it's the biggest harm/self harm epidemic in perhaps all of human history. Loads of kids' lifelong health outcomes are being negatively impacted by the eating habits of western society (and yes profit, industry, policy, among other things, are all culpable). Might want to consider scale of risk here, and ask yourself how much of your concern for children's health stems from trans people being very obviously 'other' compared with the 'normal' parent, partner or child with pre-diabetes.
-
The amount of nonsense being pushed onto impressionable kids by some adults it’s absolutely disgusting in my opinion.
I assume you are equally outraged by religious education?
Do you also want to police other aspects of children's behaviour to prevent children making long lasting decisions they will have to live with the rest of their lives. Ban under 18 from bouldering as it's dangerous and they cannot understand the consequences of their actions?
It's the nanny state reinvented
-
I think it's interesting to revisit Thatcher's pro-Section 28 speech from 1987 (https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106941) in light of some of the discussions in this thread.
But it's the plight of individual boys and girls which worries me most. Too often, our children don't get the education they need—the education they deserve.
And in the inner cities—where youngsters must have a decent education if they are to have a better future—that opportunity is all too often snatched from them by hard left education authorities and extremist teachers.
And children who need to be able to count and multiply are learning anti-racist mathematics—whatever that may be.
Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans. [end p6]
Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.
And children who need encouragement—and children do so much need encouragement—so many children—they are being taught that our society offers them no future.
All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life—yes cheated.
Moral panics like the ones happening now are nothing new. They were wrong when it was about gay kids in the 80s, they're wrong about trans kids now, and they'll be wrong about whatever the next generation is fighting for. (It is very funny that the stuff about woke mathematics could be recycled into a Daily Express article and not look out of place in tomorrow's paper though, isn't it?)
-
they'll be wrong about whatever the next generation is fighting for
If morality is defined by consensus then yes by definition; if it is absolute then maybe or maybe not. But unless this is just a roundabout way of posting that you don't believe in moral absolutes this kind of statement seems so absolutist and nuts that it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, and it does a disservice to whatever you're trying to argue for :wall:
-
Which social justice issue of the past couple hundred years do you think progressives got wrong?
-
they'll be wrong about whatever the next generation is fighting for
If morality is defined by consensus then yes by definition; if it is absolute then maybe or maybe not. But unless this is just a roundabout way of posting that you don't believe in moral absolutes this kind of statement seems so absolutist and nuts that it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, and it does a disservice to whatever you're trying to argue for :wall:
But when things are looking like an exact reprise of the build-up to Section 28 -- complete with the government wanting some "red meat" to stir up voters in the run-up to a general election -- it's reasonable to ask if, in fact, it's the exact same sort of moral panic.
For those of you who are young enough not to have lived through it first time round:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_United_Kingdom_general_election
During the 1987 election campaign, the Conservative Party (under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher) issued attack posters claiming that the Labour Party wanted the book Young, Gay and Proud to be read in schools, as well as Police: Out of School, The Playbook for Kids about Sex, and The Milkman's on his Way, which, according to the Monday Club's Jill Knight MP – who introduced Section 28 and later campaigned against same-sex marriage – were being taught to "little children as young as five and six", which contained "brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done", and "explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life".
In case anyone has any doubts about how much bullshit this was, you can view some of those SHOCKING stick men illustrations here:
https://www.gayinthe80s.com/2012/08/1980-book-the-playbook-for-kids-about-sex/
-
it's reasonable to ask if, in fact, it's the exact same sort of moral panic.
No doubt. But that's not the remotely the same as claiming that whatever people decide to campaign for that stirs up some kind of "moral panic" must necessarily be "right" morally.
Which social justice issue of the past couple hundred years do you think progressives got wrong?
1. That's a non argument. At one point I thought I just wouldn't fall off dangerous routes because I hadn't done. Unfortunately that didn't protect me against things changing :lol:
2. I have no idea, I doubt I could name more than a handful of social justice issues from the past 200 years off the top of my head, and those will be the obvious ones where things have shifted significantly. At a guess you'd look for things that "progressives" campaigned for but that are not currently in place rather than starting from things that were adopted... 5 min on Google throws up various things (e.g. various bits in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States) that were overblown or morally sketchy but I'm way outside my knowledge base on the details of them or the accuracy of what's on that wikipedia page.
-
Research by James Cantor suggests pedophilia is innate and mostly seen in short left handed men of below average IQ. As a gay man he argues to add a P to the LGBTQIA+ based upon current scientific evidence indicating that pedophiles are a marginalised and stigmatised minority group who have no choice in their sexual preferences. I can see his point. Hence the distinction between the obvious moral panic and the real world implications of potential harm. Which in gender affirming surgery / pharmaceutical treatment for children is a very high risk indeed. Once an adult with capacity to make clear decisions I don’t believe anyone on here is saying that person should not be treated with dignity and respect etc.
-
In the 1980s it was that gay people are paedos, they'll let you marry dogs next, won't someone think of the children
Now it's that trans people are rapists, they'll let you identify as a cat next, won't someone think of the children
Pure reactionary bollocks
-
Sorry, I have missed most of the discussion and am jumping back in as an ignoramus...
As far as children are concerned, it seems quite straightforward. Over time we should gradually reduce differentiation by gender in the education system (and childhood). There are very few situations where it needs to make a difference in the school day/college/University day. As far as the media is concerned, it essentially comes down to changing rooms/toilets and sport.
There are plenty of other reasons why moving to unisex cubicles would be beneficial (e.g. body image, bullying).
For sport, whatever solution needs to be clear and readily understood e.g. Either everyone competes in an open category or compete as the gender you were born.
My guess is that most children involved would benefit from an awful lot less attention.
-
The amount of nonsense being pushed onto impressionable kids by some adults it’s absolutely disgusting in my opinion.
I assume you are equally outraged by religious education?
Do you also want to police other aspects of children's behaviour to prevent children making long lasting decisions they will have to live with the rest of their lives. Ban under 18 from bouldering as it's dangerous and they cannot understand the consequences of their actions?
It's the nanny state reinvented
There are a fair few people involved -- such as Paul Conrathe, Keira Bell's lawyer -- who are very keen to ensure that under-16s shouldn't be allowed to make other medical decisions either: specifically, using contraception or having abortions.
What they really care about is getting rid of Gillick competence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence
Conrathe is a "pro-life" true believer who's fought cases solely aimed at overturning Gillick competence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4424778.stm
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/taxpayers-foot-bill-for-abortion-case-1017486
There was also a horrifying case where he tried to get an injunction to prevent a 31-year-old woman from being allowed an abortion, because her ex-boyfriend wanted to stop her:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/21/rebeccaallison
Oh, and he was also involved in trying to prevent the equalizing of the age of consent in 2000, because he thinks 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to consent to gay sex.
Posie Parker, darling of "gender criticals" like Rowling, has explicitly said that Gillick competence needs to be overturned, and declared that attacking trans rights is "worth even setting aside the right to a legal abortion" (speaking with reference to the US, where abortion rights for people of all ages are being removed).
So yeah -- for some anti-trans campaigners, getting rid of the right to bodily autonomy, first for under-16s but then for people of all ages, is either one of the goals or something they're happy to accept as collateral damage.
-
For sport, whatever solution needs to be clear and readily understood e.g. Either everyone competes in an open category or compete as the gender you were born.
We've got a whole second thread for arguing about that!
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,33545.0.html
-
For sport, whatever solution needs to be clear and readily understood e.g. Either everyone competes in an open category or compete as the gender you were born.
We've got a whole second thread for arguing about that!
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,33545.0.html
Just to clarify, I was talking specifically about children in my (sweeping) statement above.
-
In the 1980s it was that gay people are paedos, they'll let you marry dogs next, won't someone think of the children
Now it's that trans people are rapists, they'll let you identify as a cat next, won't someone think of the children
Pure reactionary bollocks
Unlike your midwit response, the science doesn’t have emotions when it comes to identifying sex, sexual and gender proclivity. If one thing is on the table, as evidenced by science, then there is no reason why another shouldn’t be.
-
We have Slab citing vanishingly rare intersex disorders to try to poke holes in the definition of biological sex, while proposing to replace it with something called "gender identity" that they cannot even begin to define.
You couldn't make this shit up.
And yet, you did make it up:
gender identity (the little internal sense that says "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" or "none of the above thank you").
But of course, you cannot define man or woman (a circular definition is not a definition).
Dude, I've literally been reading the documents you linked to and pointing out what they actually say.
Holy shit, you're caught in a lie and you just go on lying.
I will quote from my previous post. Again, people can decide for themselves if there is a consensus among clinicians.
The BMJ - Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement (https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382):
US medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features. At the same time, however, several European countries have issued guidance to limit medical intervention in minors, prioritising psychological care.
Sweden
Socialstyrelsen – Care of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Summary (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2022-3-7799.pdf)
Contrary to your claims of a “moral panic”, actual clinicians are concerned by the rapid increase in referrals among girls:
For adolescents with gender incongruence, the NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases. This judgement is based mainly on three factors: the continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments [2], the new knowledge that detransition occurs among young adults [3], and the uncertainty that follows from the yet unexplained increase in the number of care seekers, an increase particularly large among adolescents registered as females at birth [4].
The suicide rate of sex reassigned persons in Sweden is 19x higher than sex-matched controls (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885):
The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9).
France
The French National Academy of Medicine (https://www.academie-medecine.fr/la-medecine-face-a-la-transidentite-de-genre-chez-les-enfants-et-les-adolescents/) concurs, suggests that social contagion is to blame for at least some of the increase in referrals:
Gender transidentity is the strong sense, for more than 6 months, of identification with a gender different from that assigned at birth. This feeling can cause a significant and prolonged suffering, which can lead to a risk of suicide (a). No genetic predisposition has been found....
The recognition of this disharmony is not new, but a very strong increase in the demand for physicians for this reason has been observed (1, 2) in North America, then in the countries of northern Europe and, more recently, in France, particularly in children and adolescents...
Whatever the mechanisms involved in adolescents - excessive engagement with social media, greater social acceptability, or influence by those in one’s social circle - this epidemic-like phenomenon manifests itself in the emergence of cases or even clusters of cases in the adolescents’ immediate surroundings (4). This primarily social problem is due, in part, to the questioning of an overly dichotomous view of gender identity by some young people....
“[T]here is no test to distinguish between persisting gender dysphoria and transient adolescent dysphoria. Moreover, the risk of over-diagnosis is real, as evidenced by the growing number of young adults wishing to detransition [c]. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the phase of psychological care as much as possible.
You understand that, as I've already mentioned, no-one's getting top surgery in the UK before the age of 18 (on the NHS), or maaaaybe in a few cases 17 privately?
Like how your "15-year-old" who was getting top surgery turned out not to be, as soon as I read the actual article you linked to?
And now we've gone down to 13-year-olds. They'll be 11-year-olds by the next mention!
I'm well aware that we're not quite as sick and depraved as the United States is on this subject, yeah. Thankfully the same financial incentives don't exist in Europe to sterilize children. The point is that giving 13 year olds mastectomies is just following the principle of "gender-affirming" (i.e. patient-led) care to its logical conclusion.
I'd be interested to hear, on what basis would you prohibit an 11 year old from getting a double mastectomy or indeed a hysterectomy? Who are you to deny their identity?
For you to equate a 13 year old girl expressing regret that she will never be able to breastfeed because she had a mastectomy, to treatment of gynecomastia in boys... I have no words.
It's a real shame there isn't a hell for you to go to.
-
It's a real shame there isn't a hell for you to go to.
Really? Get a grip and be civil.
-
We have Slab citing vanishingly rare intersex disorders to try to poke holes in the definition of biological sex, while proposing to replace it with something called "gender identity" that they cannot even begin to define.
You couldn't make this shit up.
And yet, you did make it up:
gender identity (the little internal sense that says "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" or "none of the above thank you").
But of course, you cannot define man or woman (a circular definition is not a definition).
Dude, I've literally been reading the documents you linked to and pointing out what they actually say.
Holy shit, you're caught in a lie and you just go on lying.
I will quote from my previous post. Again, people can decide for themselves if there is a consensus among clinicians.
The BMJ - Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement (https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382):
US medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features. At the same time, however, several European countries have issued guidance to limit medical intervention in minors, prioritising psychological care.
Sweden
Socialstyrelsen – Care of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Summary (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2022-3-7799.pdf)
Contrary to your claims of a “moral panic”, actual clinicians are concerned by the rapid increase in referrals among girls:
For adolescents with gender incongruence, the NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases. This judgement is based mainly on three factors: the continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments [2], the new knowledge that detransition occurs among young adults [3], and the uncertainty that follows from the yet unexplained increase in the number of care seekers, an increase particularly large among adolescents registered as females at birth [4].
The suicide rate of sex reassigned persons in Sweden is 19x higher than sex-matched controls (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885):
The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9).
France
The French National Academy of Medicine (https://www.academie-medecine.fr/la-medecine-face-a-la-transidentite-de-genre-chez-les-enfants-et-les-adolescents/) concurs, suggests that social contagion is to blame for at least some of the increase:
Gender transidentity is the strong sense, for more than 6 months, of identification with a gender different from that assigned at birth. This feeling can cause a significant and prolonged suffering, which can lead to a risk of suicide (a). No genetic predisposition has been found....
The recognition of this disharmony is not new, but a very strong increase in the demand for physicians for this reason has been observed (1, 2) in North America, then in the countries of northern Europe and, more recently, in France, particularly in children and adolescents...
Whatever the mechanisms involved in adolescents - excessive engagement with social media, greater social acceptability, or influence by those in one’s social circle - this epidemic-like phenomenon manifests itself in the emergence of cases or even clusters of cases in the adolescents’ immediate surroundings (4). This primarily social problem is due, in part, to the questioning of an overly dichotomous view of gender identity by some young people....
“[T]here is no test to distinguish between persisting gender dysphoria and transient adolescent dysphoria. Moreover, the risk of over-diagnosis is real, as evidenced by the growing number of young adults wishing to detransition [c]. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the phase of psychological care as much as possible.
You understand that, as I've already mentioned, no-one's getting top surgery in the UK before the age of 18 (on the NHS), or maaaaybe in a few cases 17 privately?
Like how your "15-year-old" who was getting top surgery turned out not to be, as soon as I read the actual article you linked to?
And now we've gone down to 13-year-olds. They'll be 11-year-olds by the next mention!
I'm well aware that we're not quite as sick and depraved as the United States is on this subject, yeah. Thankfully the same financial incentives don't exist in Europe to sterilize children. The point is that giving 13 year olds mastectomies is just following the principle of "gender-affirming" (i.e. patient-led) care to its logical conclusion.
I'd be interested to hear, on what basis would you prohibit an 11 year old from getting a double mastectomy or indeed a hysterectomy? Who are you to deny their identity?
For you to equate a 13 year old girl expressing regret that she will never be able to breastfeed because she had a mastectomy, to treatment of gynecomastia in boys... I have no words.
It's a real shame there isn't a hell for you to go to.
Wow.
I might not be (fully) team Slabs, but that’s a stunning piece of wilful misrepresentation and inverted understanding. I did have to review and check I hadn’t missed something.
Nope.
If you’re trying to actually convince the fence sitters, I would suggest quite a lot less froth, spittle and vomit, drenching your audience. Tends to undermine your credibility somewhat.
You have graduated from ranting to raving. Well done you.
Chin up Slabs.
-
In the 1980s it was that gay people are paedos, they'll let you marry dogs next, won't someone think of the children
Now it's that trans people are rapists, they'll let you identify as a cat next, won't someone think of the children
Pure reactionary bollocks
Unlike your midwit response, the science doesn’t have emotions when it comes to identifying sex, sexual and gender proclivity. If one thing is on the table, as evidenced by science, then there is no reason why another shouldn’t be.
Perhaps you could detail that science?
Also, didn’t you call it pseudoscience?
As for “emotional” and “midwit”(Gosh I bet you thought that up in the shower and then waited simply ages, for a half suitable moment to deploy, didn’t you?) responses, have you given anything else in all these pages?
I don’t do the Karma thing much, unless you’re Dan (who just pushes my buttons). However, trying to bully people out of a debate/forum is just too much.
Have a cold shower old chap, wash the spittle off your lips.
-
Do you have an argument?
To me equating a 13 year old girl expressing regret that she will never be able to breastfeed because she had a mastectomy, to treatment of gynecomastia in boys, is evil.
I believe that.
-
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462) -- "Initial Clinical Guidelines for Co-Occurring Autism Spectrum Disorder and Gender Dysphoria or Incongruence in Adolescents"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2020.1731817?scroll=top&needAccess=true (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2020.1731817?scroll=top&needAccess=true) -- "A Clinical Program for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Neurodiverse/Autistic Adolescents Developed through Community-Based Participatory Design"
I think both of the latter two are good on current best practice re: thoughtfully supporting young people who are both autistic and trans or gender-questioning, and should make it clear that the myth about "poor little helpless autistic girls being swept up and forced to be trans men against their will just because they're tomboys" is indeed a myth.
Just thought I’d point out more of Slab’s misrepresentations of the evidence…
This is just a straw man argument, as you doubtless know. Nobody claims that people are being “forced” to transition against their will. The actual claim is that i) the risk of misdiagnosis is higher in ASD people due to a higher susceptibility to rigid thinking e.g. gay autistic kids may incorrectly assume that they are trans and ii) ASD people may have greater difficulty understanding the long-term implications of treatments.
Both papers by Strang et al acknowledge these possibilities. I can only assume you didn't actually read them.
Here's a few choice quotes from Strang et al 2018 (the first paper linked to). Not sure I can be bothered to trawl through the 2021 paper too, it doesn't seem like people are really inclined to change their minds based on the evidence tbh.
“ASD-related evaluation can provide important information about the capacities of the adolescent, including cognitive level, executive function/future thinking-skills, communication abilities, social awareness, and self-awareness.”
ASD-related executive function deficits may result in concrete thinking and struggle with ambiguity and future thinking, which can make assessing an adolescent’s understanding of the long-term implications of gender transition/treatment challenging. In addition, ASD-related flexibility difficulties can limit a young person’s ability to embrace the concept of a gender spectrum or that gender can be fluid; adolescents with ASD may present with more “black-and-white” thinking about gender.
More caution may need to be taken in this population when deciding on medical treatments that may have irreversible effects given the presence of ASD-related deficits in future thinking and planning. Because it is often harder for an adolescent with ASD to comprehend the long-term risks and implications of gender-related medical interventions, consenting for treatment may be more complex in this population. It is important for the clinician to develop a specialized consenting plan for an adolescent with ASD and GD, with the benefits and risks presented in a concrete manner, appropriate for the young person’s cognitive and communication abilities.
The Delphi group could not achieve consensus on exact criteria for commencing medical treatments in this population, but several of the key considerations offered by the Delphi team are reviewed in the Discussion section (paras. 3–4).
...
Unrealistic thinking about the transformational possibilities of medical interventions may be followed by disappointment/hopelessness, when a young person’s expectations for their body (or others’ perceptions of them) fall short of reality
...
A majority of participants noted that in some cases gay or lesbian adolescents with ASD may concretely assume that their sexual attraction to the same gender implies that they are a different gender.
-
Do you have an argument?
To me equating a 13 year old girl expressing regret that she will never be able to breastfeed because she had a mastectomy, to treatment of gynecomastia in boys, is evil.
I believe that.
Yes.
She never made the comparison. Only you did.
She merely pointed out the you reached for ever younger examples to “prove” your righteousness, in a somewhat clumsy attempt to brow beat by provoking negative emotional responses (single examples do not a trend make, nor do they indicate a broader policy. Note my earlier comment around malpractice (not that there is sufficient evidence presented for the layman to judge the latter)).
I am quite sure you believe yourself.
At least two of us posting in this thread are, broadly speaking (and probably small “c” ) conservative, which often makes us look positively right wingers in the context of this community (not a statement of political support for a particular party), yet you appear to have lost both of them.
You are twisting the words of others into gross parodies, spitting them back with a thick coating of vitriol. This undermines any real point you are trying to make.
Further, I ‘m unclear as to the validity of your basic thrust, which appears to be advice of caution by professional bodies on the basis that “social contagion” might account for part of the increase in young people seeking medical intervention (no shit Sherlock, kids spent small fortunes on Fidget Spinners not so long ago).
Surely this amounts to “be careful” not “do not ever”?
Or are you arguing that the possibility of doubt or error should preclude any action?
Honestly, I’m not the least bit surprised that, even post transition, such a vilified group should have a high mortality rate from suicide. I can imagine how hard it must be. Christ, some people feel justified in mercilessly persecuting people for the crime of “having ginger hair”.
Note, nothing here describes what that suicide rate might have been, amongst the same individuals, if they had remained hidden and therefore not considered as a single group.
No, sorry, your arguments are not as strong as you assert and screaming them into our faces with added invective isn’t bolstering them.
That said, they are not invalid. Just not conclusive.
The invective is invalid and pointless.
-
I thought some of Alex's earlier challenges to Slab were interesting and added colour to the discussion, now though he's lost the plot and probably a bunch of respect. He's got every right to believe it and is free to say it, but sincerely wishing someone to go to hell and calling them evil, in the context of what was posted is way out of proportion imo and not a good way to engage unless trying to win over to the pitchfork-wielders. Ironically it makes him look a bit of a tit.
-
He’s probably far right. Those guys can get a bit ‘Christian’ when they lose the plot.
-
Yes.
She never made the comparison. Only you did.
I posted a video of a teenage girl who underwent double mastectomy at 13 and has since detransitioned. Slab responded asking if I would be equally concerned by boys undergoing mastectomy for gynecomastia. How is that not comparing the two?
My mother had a double mastectomy for breast cancer. She was in constant pain and basically sofa bound for many months afterwards. So, yeah, I'm f****ing fuming to see people treating it with such levity.
The point I was making is that performing mastectomies on young girls with mental health issues would be considered monstrous and unconscionable in any other context. The same goes for any other irreversible medical procedure. Women with extreme period pain are generally not considered for hysterectomy until 35 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49510858)
But if you're an autistic girl who asserts that she's actually a boy because she's "not like the other girls", then come right up! That is pretty much how it works in the US.
This double standard is only possible if you accept the unfalsifiable concept of an innate gender identity which children can know with certainty. Once you accept that it becomes permissible -- indeed, an ethical duty -- to affirm that identity with hormonal and surgical interventions. This is what is referred to as "gender-affirming" care.
If you think this is a straw man argument, consider that the 2022 WPATH 8 guidelines removed minimum ages for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgery, instead requiring ‘Tanner Stage 2’ of puberty, which can be as young as nine years old. https://sex-matters.org/posts/healthcare/wpath/ (https://sex-matters.org/posts/healthcare/wpath/)
They are simply following their view to its logical conclusion.
She merely pointed out the you reached for ever younger examples to “prove” your righteousness, in a somewhat clumsy attempt to brow beat by provoking negative emotional responses (single examples do not a trend make, nor do they indicate a broader policy. Note my earlier comment around malpractice (not that there is sufficient evidence presented for the layman to judge the latter)).
I've only posted two examples of detransitioners. The first was a young woman, Jasmine (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/20/tavistock-transgender-patient-mastectomy-regret/), a patient at the Tavistock clinic whose story I heard on a recent ITV documentary. I came across a Telegraph article discussing her case, which I quickly skimmed for the relevant info. In my haste I missed the fact that she had a mastectomy after her second appointment at the adult clinic, not her second appointment ever. She had previously had 3 appointments at the youth clinic, so 5 appointments overall. This was a genuine error on my part.
To me that is still disturbingly little time in which to properly understand the patient -- and irreversible harm has resulted. The fact that she was discharged after she announced her intention to detransition is just hideous. She says: “I kind of feel a little bit mutilated and like an experiment gone wrong walking through society sometimes."
I had to attend 5 appointments with a multidisciplinary team of specialists just to get a diagnosis of ADHD as an adult. I had to discuss every aspect of my medical history in great detail. I had to complete a suite of psychometric tests including a full IQ test, memory tests, an evaluation to rule out autism, etc. Then once diagnosed I had to submit a *family medical history* to highlight any cardiovascular issues before I could be prescribed anything. I don't resent that -- that's how it ought to be done, imo.
How much more cautious should we be when the patients are children and the medical interventions are irreversible?
Further, I ‘m unclear as to the validity of your basic thrust, which appears to be advice of caution by professional bodies on the basis that “social contagion” might account for part of the increase in young people seeking medical intervention (no shit Sherlock, kids spent small fortunes on Fidget Spinners not so long ago).
I'm glad you agree, Slab does not. What is your view on prescribing puberty blockers to under 16s?
Surely this amounts to “be careful” not “do not ever”?
Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. My intention in this thread has been to show that there is no consensus supporting what is euphemistically referred to as "gender-affirming" care, basically that kids who think they're trans *are* and should be affirmed as such with hormonal and surgical interventions.
To be clear, I don't believe the state has any authority to prohibit adults from taking cross sex hormones or altering their bodies in any way they desire, provided they are mentally competent to understand the long-term implications. Even then I would hope that clinicians would take seriously their oath to do no harm and not rush things.
Children are another matter, imo.
Note, nothing here describes what that suicide rate might have been, amongst the same individuals, if they had remained hidden and therefore not considered as a single group.
No, sorry, your arguments are not as strong as you assert and screaming them into our faces with added invective isn’t bolstering them.
That said, they are not invalid. Just not conclusive.
The invective is invalid and pointless.
I'm not sure what you mean by remain hidden?
The comparison is not between trans-identified individuals who have undergone surgery vs those who didn't, if that's what you mean. But that was not my point. What the study does show is that reassignment surgery is not a silver bullet because suicide rates remain astronomically high in post-operative individuals.
The dichotomy many parents are presented with, namely "would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?" is therefore a false dichotomy.
-
He’s probably far right. Those guys can get a bit ‘Christian’ when they lose the plot.
I said it's a shame there isn't a hell ;)
Ok, maybe an eternal punishment is not quite deserved :)
If I point out the massive and permanent harms being done by too incautious an approach to treating GD, and someone responds along the lines of what's all the fuss about? and pretends that anyone expressing concern must be motivated by a "creepy (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,33540.msg678935.html#msg678935)" desire to control women's bodies. Because, after all, mastectomy in teenage girls with GD is really no different than treating gynecomastia in boys, and why am I not making a fuss about that?
To me this is clearly arguing in bad faith. The alternative is that Slab really does think the two cases are equivalent, in which case she is not evil, just interminably thick.
How come it's only people on Slab's side of the argument who are allowed to impute bad motives to others?
-
He’s probably far right. Those guys can get a bit ‘Christian’ when they lose the plot.
I said it's a shame there isn't a hell ;)
Ok, maybe an eternal punishment is not quite deserved :)
If I point out the massive and permanent harms being done by too incautious an approach to treating GD, and someone responds along the lines of what's all the fuss about? and pretends that anyone expressing concern must be motivated by a "creepy (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,33540.msg678935.html#msg678935)" desire to control women's bodies. Because, after all, mastectomy in teenage girls with GD is really no different than treating gynecomastia in boys, and why am I not making a fuss about that?
To me this is clearly arguing in bad faith. The alternative is that Slab really does think the two cases are equivalent, in which case she is not evil, just interminably thick.
How come it's only people on Slab's side of the argument who are allowed to impute bad motives to others?
How dare you deny the existence of our lord and saviour! Creator of the proto penis and neo vagina! Satan be gone!
See how it works yet?
-
Yes.
She never made the comparison. Only you did.
I posted a video of a teenage girl who underwent double mastectomy at 13 and has since detransitioned. Slab responded asking if I would be equally concerned by boys undergoing mastectomy for gynecomastia. How is that not comparing the two?
My mother had a double mastectomy for breast cancer. She was in constant pain and basically sofa bound for many months afterwards. So, yeah, I'm f****ing fuming to see people treating it with such levity.
The point I was making is that performing mastectomies on young girls with mental health issues would be considered monstrous and unconscionable in any other context. The same goes for any other irreversible medical procedure. Women with extreme period pain are generally not considered for hysterectomy until 35 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49510858)
But if you're an autistic girl who asserts that she's actually a boy because she's "not like the other girls", then come right up! That is pretty much how it works in the US.
This double standard is only possible if you accept the unfalsifiable concept of an innate gender identity which children can know with certainty. Once you accept that it becomes permissible -- indeed, an ethical duty -- to affirm that identity with hormonal and surgical interventions. This is what is referred to as "gender-affirming" care.
If you think this is a straw man argument, consider that the 2022 WPATH 8 guidelines removed minimum ages for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgery, instead requiring ‘Tanner Stage 2’ of puberty, which can be as young as nine years old. https://sex-matters.org/posts/healthcare/wpath/ (https://sex-matters.org/posts/healthcare/wpath/)
They are simply following their view to its logical conclusion.
She merely pointed out the you reached for ever younger examples to “prove” your righteousness, in a somewhat clumsy attempt to brow beat by provoking negative emotional responses (single examples do not a trend make, nor do they indicate a broader policy. Note my earlier comment around malpractice (not that there is sufficient evidence presented for the layman to judge the latter)).
I've only posted two examples of detransitioners. The first was a young woman, Jasmine (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/20/tavistock-transgender-patient-mastectomy-regret/), a patient at the Tavistock clinic whose story I heard on a recent ITV documentary. I came across a Telegraph article discussing her case, which I quickly skimmed for the relevant info. In my haste I missed the fact that she had a mastectomy after her second appointment at the adult clinic, not her second appointment ever. She had previously had 3 appointments at the youth clinic, so 5 appointments overall. This was a genuine error on my part.
To me that is still disturbingly little time in which to properly understand the patient -- and irreversible harm has resulted. The fact that she was discharged after she announced her intention to detransition is just hideous. She says: “I kind of feel a little bit mutilated and like an experiment gone wrong walking through society sometimes."
I had to attend 5 appointments with a multidisciplinary team of specialists just to get a diagnosis of ADHD as an adult. I had to discuss every aspect of my medical history in great detail. I had to complete a suite of psychometric tests including a full IQ test, memory tests, an evaluation to rule out autism, etc. Then once diagnosed I had to submit a *family medical history* to highlight any cardiovascular issues before I could be prescribed anything. I don't resent that -- that's how it ought to be done, imo.
How much more cautious should we be when the patients are children and the medical interventions are irreversible?
Further, I ‘m unclear as to the validity of your basic thrust, which appears to be advice of caution by professional bodies on the basis that “social contagion” might account for part of the increase in young people seeking medical intervention (no shit Sherlock, kids spent small fortunes on Fidget Spinners not so long ago).
I'm glad you agree, Slab does not. What is your view on prescribing puberty blockers to under 16s?
Surely this amounts to “be careful” not “do not ever”?
Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. My intention in this thread has been to show that there is no consensus supporting what is euphemistically referred to as "gender-affirming" care, basically that kids who think they're trans *are* and should be affirmed as such with hormonal and surgical interventions.
To be clear, I don't believe the state has any authority to prohibit adults from taking cross sex hormones or altering their bodies in any way they desire, provided they are mentally competent to understand the long-term implications. Even then I would hope that clinicians would take seriously their oath to do no harm and not rush things.
Children are another matter, imo.
Note, nothing here describes what that suicide rate might have been, amongst the same individuals, if they had remained hidden and therefore not considered as a single group.
No, sorry, your arguments are not as strong as you assert and screaming them into our faces with added invective isn’t bolstering them.
That said, they are not invalid. Just not conclusive.
The invective is invalid and pointless.
I'm not sure what you mean by remain hidden?
The comparison is not between trans-identified individuals who have undergone surgery vs those who didn't, if that's what you mean. But that was not my point. What the study does show is that reassignment surgery is not a silver bullet because suicide rates remain astronomically high in post-operative individuals.
The dichotomy many parents are presented with, namely "would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?" is therefore a false dichotomy.
Definitely better than before.
The second post not quite so…
My problem with your stance is:
Though at times you say are talking about caution and not denying the possibility of the existence of Trans children, you very much appear to believe that no child can ever know or understand such a thing? Do you know/work with/ have, young teenagers?
You very much appear to be starting from the point/belief that it never possible to be the right thing and then seeking evidence to support that position.
You seem to infer, from the examples you have found, that malpractice and railroading of children into this is both widespread, accepted and all but universal. Hence my comment on such examples not illustrating a trend or indicating a general policy.
My comment on the suicide. Because society has given these people the opportunity to voice their status, they have been identified and lumped into a group; subsequently should they commit suicide, they become a percentage of that group who did so. Had things remained as the were, socially, a couple of decades ago, it’s highly unlikely that even a small proportion of that group would have identified themselves. Unfortunately, I would expect that a good many would still have gone on to commit suicide.
Really, my point is that that particular statistic is not a good one to advance that argument. Because we cannot know the overlap between the two groups and even though one is hypothetical it is a reasonable postulate. Suicide is chronic within our western world, across all social and economic categories. Personally I see this as staying in to the “correlation/causation” equivalence argument and we simply do not posses anything like enough information to make the link. Each and every case will have been highly individual and unique.
How falsifiable is a diagnosis of ADHD or ASD? Is that question not why it took so many appointments with multidisciplinary clinicians for you to get a diagnosis? Does that make it less real?
You appear to assert that Trans status (for shorthand) is being handed out like leaflets on the street, yet even with the examples you have given, there simply isn’t enough evidence for us to reach that conclusion. Only a detailed investigation could establish that, even then, even if malpractice was proved in those cases; is simply does not indicate that every other case is similar .
On consensus.
Consensus does not equate to unanimity. Dissent from the consensus does not invalidate that consensus until the dissent becomes the consensus. It’s a majority vote.
Further, the dissent you have shown us, calls for caution and not the overthrow of the concept.
The position of identifying the condition as young as nine years old, represents dissent from the consensus and does not imply that the consensus will shift in the favour of that position.
You are assuming that an incautious approach IS the consensus, but your evidence for that position is weak. What you might have indicated is malpractice.
Unfortunately, something that occurs in all professions, sometimes with tragic consequences. However, we don’t stop building bridges when one collapses due to design flaws. We review the safeguards.
You appear to assert that no such process is in progress within this particular profession even as some of the evidence you posted yourself indicates that it is.
You see all hell breaking lose and I see individual tragedies leading to changes and development in practice.
However long the issue might have existed, dealing/treating it is a relatively new field. Decades are nothing in terms of human development.
It is a sad fact that we have been building bridges for thousands of years, some of such vintage still carrying our traffic today and yet, sometimes, bridges still collapse. Even as many, many, more do not.
As an aside, have you ever come across the phrase “Hysterical means historical”?
It was thrown at me some decades ago now. Absolutely no condescension intended, I have have found it a useful tool in understanding and managing my own, often visceral, responses to emotive circumstances and issues.
-
Research by James Cantor suggests pedophilia is innate and mostly seen in short left handed men of below average IQ. As a gay man he argues to add a P to the LGBTQIA+ based upon current scientific evidence indicating that pedophiles are a marginalised and stigmatised minority group who have no choice in their sexual preferences. I can see his point. Hence the distinction between the obvious moral panic and the real world implications of potential harm. Which in gender affirming surgery / pharmaceutical treatment for children is a very high risk indeed. Once an adult with capacity to make clear decisions I don’t believe anyone on here is saying that person should not be treated with dignity and respect etc.
James Cantor on transgender identity
https://youtu.be/q3Ub65CwiRI
And activism, extremism and being cancelled
https://youtu.be/_SGva6eWTDQ
-
Cantor, from a brief Google, had his testimony thrown out by a judge because it turns out he has no experience with treating gender dysphoria
Sounds like he's just another transphobe trotted out to back up spurious nonsense
-
Cantor, from a brief Google, had his testimony thrown out by a judge because it turns out he has no experience with treating gender dysphoria
Sounds like he's just another transphobe trotted out to back up spurious nonsense
Yes, and forced to apologise to a federal court for submitting as expert testimony a recycled report he’d been paid to write by a fundamental Christian group. Either expelled or forced to resign from almost every professional body in his field too, over a 20 year period. I’d never heard of him, but had a couple of hours free this morning, so looked him up. Not someone I’d have picked to back up my argument. Anyway, back to my point about dissent not invalidating consensus…
Edit.
I really wasn’t going to bother replying. After all, still nowt to change my mind and a bit too much University of “some bloke in the pub told me”. Any second, somebody’s going to start a post with “stands to reason “ and claim spokesmanship of “the silent majority “…
-
I have a phD and a Youtube channel, therefore you must listen to me!
I'm also still waiting for Alex to apologise to Slab for the personal attacks. Calling someone evil/thick is not how we behave on this forum, no matter how much our opinions differ.
-
Rather than carefully listen to what he (James Cantor) has to say, why not choose the easy option of an ad hominem argument generated by quick google searches?
In summary he suggests that transgender identity broadly fits into two categories - autogynophilia and latent / repressed homosexuality which may be caused* by internalised homophobia. He discusses two other areas of interest including rapid onset gender dysphoria associated with cultural contagion and also alludes to the metaphysical problem described earlier on in the thread. All in all he suggests compassion and a watchful waiting approach in the most part as trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
-
Rather than carefully listen to what he (James Cantor) has to say, why not choose the easy option of an ad hominem argument generated by quick google searches?
In summary he suggests that transgender identity broadly fits into two categories - autogynophilia and latent / repressed homosexuality which may be caused* by internalised homophobia. He discusses two other areas of interest including rapid onset gender dysphoria associated with cultural contagion and also alludes to the metaphysical problem described earlier on in the thread. All in all he suggests compassion and a watchful waiting approach in the most part as trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
Oh dear.
-
Cantor, from a brief Google, had his testimony thrown out by a judge because it turns out he has no experience with treating gender dysphoria
Sounds like he's just another transphobe trotted out to back up spurious nonsense
If you'd like the money quote, from a federal court ruling in 2022 (since I happen to have it on hand): https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cv0184-107
On cross examination, however, Dr. Cantor admitted that: (1) his patients are, on average, thirty years old; (2) he had never provided care to a transgender minor under the age of sixteen; (3) he had never diagnosed a child or adolescent with gender dysphoria; (4) he had never treated a child or adolescent for gender dysphoria; (5) he had no personal experience monitoring patients receiving transitioning medications; and (6) he had no personal knowledge of the assessments or treatment methodologies used at any Alabama gender clinic. Id. at 306–09. Accordingly, the Court gave his testimony regarding the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors very little weight.
I believe he may have treated adult patients -- he was a disciple of the infamous Ray Blanchard (who started the "autogynephilia" theory that trans women have a sexual fetish for the image of themselves as women).
But he has exactly zero experience or expertise regarding children with gender dysphoria, the subject he is most often pontificating on.
He's worked as a paid expert witness for the Alliance Defending Freedom, an extreme right-wing fundamentalist Christian group who, aside from their hate-on for trans people, want to overturn same-sex marriage, defend the criminalization of gay sex, and enact a total ban on abortion.
And, of course, as Gritter so helpfully reminded us, he thinks pedophiles belong in the LGBTQIA+ community. N.B. that this is an idea that people in the LGBTQIA+ community tend to regard as horrifying and deeply offensive.
On a more amusing note, apparently several years back Cantor was caught editing all the sexology articles on Wikipedia to praise Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker and himself, under the name "Marion the Librarian."
-
More as hominem unearthed from Google Search and that bastion of truth Wikipedia
-
In summary he suggests that transgender identity broadly fits into two categories - autogynophilia and latent / repressed homosexuality which may be caused* by internalised homophobia. He discusses two other areas of interest including rapid onset gender dysphoria associated with cultural contagion and also alludes to the metaphysical problem described earlier on in the thread. All in all he suggests compassion and a watchful waiting approach in the most part as trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
Not sure that does his case any favours.
More interestingly:
trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
1. Is this true?
2. If it is true, does that mean they're not transgender?
-
More as hominem unearthed from Google Search and that bastion of truth Wikipedia
Lmao you brought him up mate
-
More as hominem unearthed from Google Search and that bastion of truth Wikipedia
Slab-happy referenced a US court ruling on his ‘expertise’, from Alabama of all places. Hardly some randomly dug up ad hominem attack!
-
More as hominem unearthed from Google Search and that bastion of truth Wikipedia
Slab-happy referenced a US court ruling on his ‘expertise’, from Alabama of all places. Hardly some randomly dug up ad hominem attack!
Not to mention that it's a court ruling which summarized what Cantor himself admitted under oath -- namely that he has exactly zero experience treating kids with gender dysphoria.
It's not an "ad hominem" if he says it himself!
-
trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
1. Is this true?
Oh hey it's a topic I can info-dump about!
Short answer: no, it's not true that "trans identifying children" will grow up to be gay/lesbian rather than trans, because the handful of studies produced as "evidence" for this were done using the old criteria for "gender identity disorder", for which you could qualify if you were (for example) a boy who wanted to wear dresses and play with dolls, or a girl who hated dresses and wanted short hair -- you didn't have to identify as a different gender or want to be a different gender, just be gender-non-conforming.
In some of the studies, when asked what their gender was, more than 90% of the kids labelled as having "gender identity disorder" said it was the gender they were assigned at birth.
So on follow-up, they found that a lot of kids with that diagnosis didn't grow up to be trans -- which is not fucking surprising because they weren't ever trans in the first place.
(There's also data dodginess in various studies like assuming that any kids they couldn't find for follow-up -- and there were huge numbers of them -- must have "desisted.")
By contrast, the modern "gender dysphoria" diagnosis does require that you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. Which has, strangely enough, been found in studies to be a key predictor of whether GNC kids are likely to grow up to be trans or not.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
So it's weird and nonsensical for people like Cantor to present being trans as something people do instead of being gay, or imply that being trans must be caused by "internalized homophobia."
Anyway, a really good article if you want to go into this in depth:
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/transgender-children-desistance-a5caf61fc5c6/
Also good:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/01/what-alarmist-articles-about-transgender-children-get-wrong.html
-
More as hominem unearthed from Google Search and that bastion of truth Wikipedia
Where, pray tell, did you find him?
Do you think that checking your sources is, I don’t know, cheating?
I know I wrote that I’d spent “a couple of hours “ looking into it/ him, but it was actually a little over six hours.
I mean, why? Why is this view point, supposedly advocated by and expert in the field, so far removed from the consensus of his peers?
So I skimmed (read the abstract/conclusion) a couple of his published papers, then had a look for rebuttals and peer commentary; which is when it became apparent he was not the most reliable source. To put it mildly.
Go look for yourself.
Seriously, posting links to YouTube clips as evidence to support an assertion, around here (this forum) is like painting a target on your forehead. Peer reviewed at least and Meta is betta. Or prepare to be eviscerated.
This is a humorous comment, not to be taken too seriously.
Though the “most trans kids turn out to “ just” be gay thing. Citation? Evidence?
Over to you.
Edit: sorry Slabs, posts crossed. I still would have liked to see Gritter back up his own assertion.
-
You're 'playing the player not the ball' which is Ad Hominem or alternatively the 'appeal to authority', just like the antisemitic ADL stuff was nonsense. Neither of them are arguments which dispute the points made in the interviews which are the same points made by others such as Ray Blanchard. It's really a straightforward point that a watchful waiting approach to gender dysphoria in 99.99999% of cases is preferable to blocking puberty, starting hormone therapy and ultimately removing sexual organs and breasts. One of many good reasons for this is the high incidence of complex mental health problems in gender dysphoric children stemming from childhood abuse including violence, sexual trauma, bullying, neglect and isolation. These mental health problems include complex PTSD, dissociative disorders, personality disorder including borderline and fragile narcissism, and various forms of anxiety and depressive disorders. This is without going into the cultural contagion aspects of the problem during teenage years when developing identities in a increasingly complex world is a total minefield, leading to vulnerable people being exposed to many different influences including online grooming by adults taking an interest in gender dysphoric and lonely youths. This is a common sense article from 2016 which pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
https://cplaction.com/wp-content/uploads/cretella-GenderDysphoriaInChildren.pdf
-
trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
1. Is this true?
Oh hey it's a topic I can info-dump about!
Short answer: no, it's not true that "trans identifying children" will grow up to be gay/lesbian rather than trans, because the handful of studies produced as "evidence" for this were done using the old criteria for "gender identity disorder", for which you could qualify if you were (for example) a boy who wanted to wear dresses and play with dolls, or a girl who hated dresses and wanted short hair -- you didn't have to identify as a different gender or want to be a different gender, just be gender-non-conforming.
In some of the studies, when asked what their gender was, more than 90% of the kids labelled as having "gender identity disorder" said it was the gender they were assigned at birth.
So on follow-up, they found that a lot of kids with that diagnosis didn't grow up to be trans -- which is not fucking surprising because they weren't ever trans in the first place.
(There's also data dodginess in various studies like assuming that any kids they couldn't find for follow-up -- and there were huge numbers of them -- must have "desisted.")
By contrast, the modern "gender dysphoria" diagnosis does require that you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. Which has, strangely enough, been found in studies to be a key predictor of whether GNC kids are likely to grow up to be trans or not.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
So it's weird and nonsensical for people like Cantor to present being trans as something people do instead of being gay, or imply that being trans must be caused by "internalized homophobia."
Anyway, a really good article if you want to go into this in depth:
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/transgender-children-desistance-a5caf61fc5c6/
Also good:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/01/what-alarmist-articles-about-transgender-children-get-wrong.html
All your links are opinion pieces mixing up anecdotes, views of charitable organisations, surveys and identity politics.
-
Hang on Slab..
trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
1. Is this true?
Short answer: no, it's not true that "trans identifying children" will grow up to be gay/lesbian rather than trans, ...
By contrast, the modern "gender dysphoria" diagnosis does require that you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. Which has, strangely enough, been found in studies to be a key predictor of whether GNC kids are likely to grow up to be trans or not.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
Is this not saying the same as what Gritter said, which you say isn't true? 'A trans-identifying child if left untreated will usually grow up to be a homosexual adult'?
No angle, except curiosity.
-
trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
1. Is this true?
Oh hey it's a topic I can info-dump about!
Short answer: no, it's not true that "trans identifying children" will grow up to be gay/lesbian rather than trans, because the handful of studies produced as "evidence" for this were done using the old criteria for "gender identity disorder", for which you could qualify if you were (for example) a boy who wanted to wear dresses and play with dolls, or a girl who hated dresses and wanted short hair -- you didn't have to identify as a different gender or want to be a different gender, just be gender-non-conforming.
In some of the studies, when asked what their gender was, more than 90% of the kids labelled as having "gender identity disorder" said it was the gender they were assigned at birth.
So on follow-up, they found that a lot of kids with that diagnosis didn't grow up to be trans -- which is not fucking surprising because they weren't ever trans in the first place.
(There's also data dodginess in various studies like assuming that any kids they couldn't find for follow-up -- and there were huge numbers of them -- must have "desisted.")
By contrast, the modern "gender dysphoria" diagnosis does require that you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. Which has, strangely enough, been found in studies to be a key predictor of whether GNC kids are likely to grow up to be trans or not.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
So it's weird and nonsensical for people like Cantor to present being trans as something people do instead of being gay, or imply that being trans must be caused by "internalized homophobia."
Anyway, a really good article if you want to go into this in depth:
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/transgender-children-desistance-a5caf61fc5c6/
Also good:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/01/what-alarmist-articles-about-transgender-children-get-wrong.html
All your links are opinion pieces mixing up anecdotes, views of charitable organisations, surveys and identity politics.
All your links are opinion pieces (by widely discredited sources), mixing up anecdotes, views of extremist organisations and heavily influenced by identity politics and where you haven’t “supported “ your case with such; your posts have been Ad Hominem and insulting of other posters.
-
Hang on Slab..
trans identifying children when left untreated by medical means will usually be homosexual in adulthood.
1. Is this true?
Short answer: no, it's not true that "trans identifying children" will grow up to be gay/lesbian rather than trans, ...
By contrast, the modern "gender dysphoria" diagnosis does require that you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. Which has, strangely enough, been found in studies to be a key predictor of whether GNC kids are likely to grow up to be trans or not.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
Is this not saying the same as what Gritter said, which you say isn't true? 'A trans-identifying child if left untreated will usually grow up to be a homosexual adult'?
No angle, except curiosity.
No Pete, it’s not. Because there is a difference in the way way a trans identifying child is defined initially, to sort them from those who were simply (bad word, not simple at all) gender nonconformist, from the older criteria. That first paragraph you edited out in the quote was kinda critical to the overall point of her statement.
Still, the complexity of the issue, just pushes me further into the “ leave it to the experts and the consensus” category I was already in.
Edit. The fact that the majority of Trans people are not heterosexual is a separate statement, as in they are both Trans and not heterosexual.
-
Just trying to get my head around gender dysphoria not being gender dysphoria :alky:
'By contrast, the modern "gender dysphoria" diagnosis does require that you identify as a different gender from the one you were assigned at birth. Which has, strangely enough, been found in studies to be a key predictor of whether GNC kids are likely to grow up to be trans or not.'
-
Hang on Slab..
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
Is this not saying the same as what Gritter said, which you say isn't true? 'A trans-identifying child if left untreated will usually grow up to be a homosexual adult'?
No angle, except curiosity.
Ah, this is probably my fault (I vaguely saw it coming) for not clarifying whether the question was about being homosexual before or after transition.
I believe what Cantor was apparently asserting is that trans-identifying people would grow up to be homosexual-to-their-biological-gender (which, as they didn't transition, would also be their current gender, with then a leap of faith to "they were just gay, they were never truly TG after all", which seems to ignore the possibility they're still latently TG and still living the biological gender lie).
And I suspect what slab_happy is referring to is post-transition TGs being homosexual-to-their-current-gender, i.e. actually heterosexual-to-their-biological-gender, which would refute that.
-
The paper Gritter linked to is interesting, possibly not in the way he hoped.
Referring to “affirming the child’s false belief” in reference to certain treatment protocols, without, as far as I could see, any evidence that the belief was false; merely assuming it was.
Lots of talk about the effects or potential effects of drug/ hormone intervention and an implication that it is or is about to be used on very young children, yet (almost quietly) admits that such treatment is prohibited for anyone under 16 years of age (pretty late into puberty, surely? Most males and almost all females have passed through by 16, surely).
Worth a read.
Plus, it is wholly in reference to the US policies and regimes, not the UK.
-
For an alternative perspective the Reddit Detrans community is a good read, lots of interesting stories.
https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/
Ritchie Herron is an outspoken voice for those going through de-transition in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYL7eiPM-E
-
Hang on Slab..
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
Is this not saying the same as what Gritter said, which you say isn't true? 'A trans-identifying child if left untreated will usually grow up to be a homosexual adult'?
No angle, except curiosity.
Ah, this is probably my fault (I vaguely saw it coming) for not clarifying whether the question was about being homosexual before or after transition.
I believe what Cantor was apparently asserting is that trans-identifying people would grow up to be homosexual-to-their-biological-gender (which, as they didn't transition, would also be their current gender, with then a leap of faith to "they were just gay, they were never truly TG after all", which seems to ignore the possibility they're still latently TG and still living the biological gender lie).
And I suspect what slab_happy is referring to is post-transition TGs being homosexual-to-their-current-gender, i.e. actually heterosexual-to-their-biological-gender, which would refute that.
It all gets a bit “Who’s on first” doesn’t it?
Like Gritter missing the point the that “Gender identity disorder “ has different criteria to “Gender Dysphoria” and is therefore not the same thing.
-
I believe what Cantor was apparently asserting is that trans-identifying people would grow up to be homosexual-to-their-biological-gender (which, as they didn't transition, would also be their current gender ...
And I suspect what slab_happy is referring to is post-transition TGs being homosexual-to-their-current-gender, i.e. actually heterosexual-to-their-biological-gender, which would refute that.
Ah, that would make sense - me being dumb. Derivatives are far easier than this shit.
-
I believe what Cantor was apparently asserting is that trans-identifying people would grow up to be homosexual-to-their-biological-gender (which, as they didn't transition, would also be their current gender ...
And I suspect what slab_happy is referring to is post-transition TGs being homosexual-to-their-current-gender, i.e. actually heterosexual-to-their-biological-gender, which would refute that.
Ah, that would make sense - me being dumb. Derivatives are far easier than this shit.
There you go..... you just needed to tune into the Newspeak delivered by the Ministry of Truth's pr0nosec Division. Emitted from the Telescreen, Newspeak aids in developing your capacity for Doublethink and reduces the likelihood of committing Thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime will not go unnoticed by the Inner-party, repeated offences will lead to you being Unpersoned.
-
Hang on Slab..
Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority of trans people are not heterosexual anyway:
https://www.thetaskforce.org/news/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-and-sexual-orientation/
Is this not saying the same as what Gritter said, which you say isn't true? 'A trans-identifying child if left untreated will usually grow up to be a homosexual adult'?
No angle, except curiosity.
Ah, this is probably my fault (I vaguely saw it coming) for not clarifying whether the question was about being homosexual before or after transition.
I believe what Cantor was apparently asserting is that trans-identifying people would grow up to be homosexual-to-their-biological-gender (which, as they didn't transition, would also be their current gender, with then a leap of faith to "they were just gay, they were never truly TG after all", which seems to ignore the possibility they're still latently TG and still living the biological gender lie).
And I suspect what slab_happy is referring to is post-transition TGs being homosexual-to-their-current-gender, i.e. actually heterosexual-to-their-biological-gender, which would refute that.
Bingo!
The theory being pushed is that (for example) a kid assigned female at birth who says they're a boy is really just a "tomboy" who's "meant" to grow up to be a lesbian woman, and will naturally do that if they're prevented from transitioning.
So transitioning would make them into a straight trans man rather than a lesbian woman.
This is what people are claiming when they talk about "trans-ing the gay away" -- the idea is that it's making straight trans people out of kids who were "meant" to be gay/lesbian instead.
Sometimes the theory is that it's propelled by homophobia, internalized and otherwise -- the kid knows that they're attracted to girls, so they think this means they must "really" be a boy. And then the evil professionals enable them to transition because they hate lesbians.
However, as a matter of empirical fact, a huge number of trans men are not straight. Quite a lot of them are gay -- i.e. they're attracted to other men and not to women at all. If they identified as women, they'd be "straight women"; by transitioning, they become gay men.
And I suspect what slab_happy is referring to is post-transition TGs being homosexual-to-their-current-gender, i.e. actually heterosexual-to-their-biological-gender, which would refute that.
Also a very substantial percentage are bisexual, so they're non-straight whatever you think their gender is.
-
However, as a matter of empirical fact, a huge number of trans men are not straight. Quite a lot of them are gay -- i.e. they're attracted to other men and not to women at all. If they identified as women, they'd be "straight women"; by transitioning, they become gay men.
If you want the full digression here, Google "Lou Sullivan", because historically, gay trans men had to fight a hell of a battle to be allowed to transition.
For many decades, you were only allowed to transition if you were going to fit a nice stereotypical heterosexual and gender-conforming role afterwards.
As I mentioned before, the medical narrative presented by doctors for ages was that (for example) a "true transsexual" woman is someone who was always stereotypically extremely feminine and sexually attracted only to men and not to women at all, so transition tidies up the gender categories and makes them into a nice "normal" straight woman.
At some clinics, the criteria for treatment involved whether the clinician thought they'd make an attractive woman or not. Literally, if the doctor didn't think you looked fuckable enough, you didn't get treatment.
It's trans people who went "yeah, no, this is bullshit."
-
The paper Gritter linked to is interesting, possibly not in the way he hoped.
Referring to “affirming the child’s false belief” in reference to certain treatment protocols, without, as far as I could see, any evidence that the belief was false; merely assuming it was.
Lots of talk about the effects or potential effects of drug/ hormone intervention and an implication that it is or is about to be used on very young children, yet (almost quietly) admits that such treatment is prohibited for anyone under 16 years of age (pretty late into puberty, surely? Most males and almost all females have passed through by 16, surely).
Worth a read.
Plus, it is wholly in reference to the US policies and regimes, not the UK.
Also, it's by Michelle Cretella.
When she wrote this, she was the president of the American College of Pediatricians — not to be confused with the mainstream group the American Academy of Pediatrics, though they named themselves so as to cause maximum confusion and sound like a reputable group.
Instead, they're a tiny splinter group who broke away in protest when the AAP endorsed allowing gay people to adopt children, because they're so virulently homophobic they believe that gay people will corrupt and damage any children they bring up.
When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, Cretella called it "a tragic day for America's children."
They maintain that being gay is linked to pedophilia, and claim that gay and lesbian people can be “cured” by conversion therapy. They're also extreme "pro-lifers" who are heavily involved in the attempt to ban mifepristone.
The Southern Poverty Law Center officially classify them a hate group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-college-pediatricians
Now, I personally think that all speaks rather directly to their credibility.
This is like someone linking to an article and saying it's a "common sense" view of immigration, and then you look and it's written by Tommy Robinson.
-
You're 'playing the player not the ball' which is Ad Hominem or alternatively the 'appeal to authority', just like the antisemitic ADL stuff was nonsense. Neither of them are arguments which dispute the points made in the interviews which are the same points made by others such as Ray Blanchard. It's really a straightforward point that a watchful waiting approach to gender dysphoria in 99.99999% of cases is preferable to blocking puberty, starting hormone therapy and ultimately removing sexual organs and breasts. One of many good reasons for this is the high incidence of complex mental health problems in gender dysphoric children stemming from childhood abuse including violence, sexual trauma, bullying, neglect and isolation. These mental health problems include complex PTSD, dissociative disorders, personality disorder including borderline and fragile narcissism, and various forms of anxiety and depressive disorders. This is without going into the cultural contagion aspects of the problem during teenage years when developing identities in a increasingly complex world is a total minefield, leading to vulnerable people being exposed to many different influences including online grooming by adults taking an interest in gender dysphoric and lonely youths. This is a common sense article from 2016 which pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
https://cplaction.com/wp-content/uploads/cretella-GenderDysphoriaInChildren.pdf
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi, it is this - what is the best possible care pathway for a child presenting with gender dysphoria / gender non conformity. Taking into account two important points, firstly they are a child and secondly the health professions have a duty of care part of which is to 'do no harm'. (I think we're agreed that adults have bodily autonomy and can do what the medical profession and society allows with in the bounds of ethics and in a compassionate model of care)
If my 8 year old son / daughter comes to me and says 'I think I may be a boy / girl' what should the ideal care pathway lookalike?
-
You started posting on this thread 9 days ago, and it's taken you until now via multiple shit-posts to ask a half-decent question. Well done champ.
-
For an alternative perspective the Reddit Detrans community is a good read, lots of interesting stories.
https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/
Ritchie Herron is an outspoken voice for those going through de-transition in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYL7eiPM-E
You just bounce on to a new thing each time your previous one gets discredited, don't you?
Some useful context on the subject of detransitioners, incidentally:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/02/detransition-movement-star-ex-gay-explained.html
https://xtramagazine.com/power/detransition-terf-movement-elisa-shupe-247592
-
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi, it is this - what is the best possible care pathway for a child presenting with gender dysphoria / gender non conformity.
And apparently you think that someone like Cantor (who has admitted under oath that he has exactly zero relevant experience) or Michelle Cretella (who is a virulent homophobe ideologue who thinks gay people are a danger to children) is a trustworthy and reputable source to advise on this.
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi
Dunno about you, but I think it matters just a teensy bit if someone's a Nazi or not.
If all the sources you cite are discredited and/or extremist bigots, that doesn't do a lot for your case.
-
what is the best possible care pathway for a child presenting with gender dysphoria / gender non conformity.
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi, it is this - what is the best possible care pathway for a child presenting with gender dysphoria / gender non conformity.
And apparently you think that someone like Cantor (who has admitted under oath that he has exactly zero relevant experience) or Michelle Cretella (who is a virulent homophobe ideologue who thinks gay people are a danger to children) is a trustworthy and reputable source to advise on this.
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi
Dunno about you, but I think it matters just a teensy bit if someone's a Nazi or not.
If all the sources you cite are discredited and/or extremist bigots, that doesn't do a lot for your case.
Also "gender dysphoria" and "gender non-conformity" are two very different things. This is rather an important distinction.
The fact that you don't grasp this suggests you may not have been paying much attention.
-
You're 'playing the player not the ball' which is Ad Hominem or alternatively the 'appeal to authority', just like the antisemitic ADL stuff was nonsense. Neither of them are arguments which dispute the points made in the interviews which are the same points made by others such as Ray Blanchard. It's really a straightforward point that a watchful waiting approach to gender dysphoria in 99.99999% of cases is preferable to blocking puberty, starting hormone therapy and ultimately removing sexual organs and breasts. One of many good reasons for this is the high incidence of complex mental health problems in gender dysphoric children stemming from childhood abuse including violence, sexual trauma, bullying, neglect and isolation. These mental health problems include complex PTSD, dissociative disorders, personality disorder including borderline and fragile narcissism, and various forms of anxiety and depressive disorders. This is without going into the cultural contagion aspects of the problem during teenage years when developing identities in a increasingly complex world is a total minefield, leading to vulnerable people being exposed to many different influences including online grooming by adults taking an interest in gender dysphoric and lonely youths. This is a common sense article from 2016 which pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
https://cplaction.com/wp-content/uploads/cretella-GenderDysphoriaInChildren.pdf
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi, it is this - what is the best possible care pathway for a child presenting with gender dysphoria / gender non conformity. Taking into account two important points, firstly they are a child and secondly the health professions have a duty of care part of which is to 'do no harm'. (I think we're agreed that adults have bodily autonomy and can do what the medical profession and society allows with in the bounds of ethics and in a compassionate model of care)
If my 8 year old son / daughter comes to me and says 'I think I may be a boy / girl' what should the ideal care pathway lookalike?
Go back. Read through again, because that’s all been covered, you just refuse to listen/read.
Oh, and yes, yes it does matter that your “evidence” comes from those sources. Not to mention, you have failed to show that any of these treatments are being or will be applied to anyone inappropriately, except in cases of malpractice. The rest of your shtick is scaremongering.
-
Yep, if you are serious that you think trans people and their rights should be respected and are willing to stand up when those rights are under attack then the term is "trans rights activist".
People attending a Trans Pride picnic in Bristol were attacked yesterday (https://twitter.com/BristolPride/status/1675799823893536768). Thankfully no serious injuries, but this is the unfortunate reality of being publicly trans in the UK right now.
-
Going back to the beginning of the thread and reading through, I notice even the mighty Sean Kenny ran for the hills :lol:
I'll keep you updated when if I find a bit that answers this question
The question, for me, isn't whether this or that person is a transphobic far right christian antisemitic jewish nazi, it is this - what is the best possible care pathway for a child presenting with gender dysphoria / gender non conformity. Taking into account two important points, firstly they are a child and secondly the health professions have a duty of care part of which is to 'do no harm'. (I think we're agreed that adults have bodily autonomy and can do what the medical profession and society allows with in the bounds of ethics and in a compassionate model of care)
If my 8 year old son / daughter comes to me and says 'I think I may be a boy / girl' what should the ideal care pathway lookalike?
-
Three pages in and as far as I can tell no one has argued about anything of substance, just argued about the people arguing :lol:
Some people will hate the following anecdote, but still... The only child/adolescent mental health professional that I've ever had a conversation with where this topic popped up was convinced that all the young trans people they had interacted with had significant other underlying issues. But they essentially said that the conversation around this was something most wouldn't go near because of how toxic it is. It would be interesting to know how widely that view is shared, but I doubt it's easy to get many people to talk openly. (I obviously have have no view on the substance of what they said)
Abarro81 then called it on page 3
-
If my 8 year old son / daughter comes to me and says 'I think I may be a boy / girl' what should the ideal care pathway lookalike?
It's manipulative framing to talk in terms of a "care pathway" as if it's some inexorable medical track kids get placed on.
You know what hormonal or other medical treatment an 8-year-old who thinks they might be trans will get at that age?
ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Kids don't get prescribed puberty blockers until they've actually started puberty (at the very earliest), because before that there's nothing to block.
(Unless they've already hit Tanner stage 2 of puberty by age 8, in which case they'd qualify for a diagnosis of "precocious puberty", which is a whole separate problem, and they’d potentially be prescribed puberty blockers for that.)
There is no "ideal pathway" because it's going to depend on the individual child, what they need, what they want, and what they figure out about who they are.
The only "ideals" you can specify are things like providing them with support and acceptance, and giving them a safe space to explore who they are and try out different possibilities at their own pace, without feeling any pressure in any direction.
There are rules of thumb, like seeing if kids are "insistent, consistent and persistent" about their gender as an indicator about whether social transition might be appropriate, if that’s something they want.
But basically, it should be led by their needs. There is no one-size-fits-all "care pathway" they should be "put on".
That's the point.
-
So in summary, the consensus from the thread is, when a child presents with the modern form of gender dysphoria, they should be assessed by healthcare professionals with expertise in that area, and if appropriate they should begin a slow process of social and biological transition with the opportunity for a window in care of about a year when nearing puberty. During this window they will come off puberty blockers before beginning hormone therapy. This will reduce the risk of any lasting effects of puberty blockers such a underdeveloped genitalia and sterility, should the child wish to desist?
-
Ah right, they must begin puberty before starting on the blockers. gotcha
-
This appear to be a good resource from the University of California, well written, informative and evidenced. I've not found the bit on care of children yet, but I think it answers all my questions about what the ideal service might look like. I don't particularly agree with medical transition, but then it's up to the individuals and their significant others to work that out.
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines
plus child and adolescent section
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/clinics/child-and-adolescent-gender-center
-
This appear to be a good resource from the University of California, well written, informative and evidenced. I've not found the bit on care of children yet, but I think it answers all my questions about what the ideal service might look like. I don't particularly agree with medical transition, but then it's up to the individuals and their significant others to work that out.
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines
plus child and adolescent section
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/clinics/child-and-adolescent-gender-center
Again, there’s a bit of ocean in there you keep forgetting, though, possibly you are just as bright as you appear?
Have you not clicked that everybody finds you a bit too silly to keep arguing with? I’m just a bit bored, so thought I’d give you the excuse to dig yourself deeper into your little hole.
Fascinating really, a bluebottle bouncing off a closed window, gradually getting more incensed and less coherent as it thrashes out it’s little life.
Oblivious, of course, to the many hands trying to waft it towards the open window, so close by.
Well done, congratulations, you have won.
Quite sure you have convinced everyone and we’re all really grateful for your wisdom and thoughtful insight.
I, for one, shall now run for the hills.
Sn**ger.
-
Ah right, they must begin puberty before starting on the blockers. gotcha
Yup. Before puberty starts, there literally isn't anything to block, so puberty blockers wouldn't do anything.
As I understand it, clinics will typically wait at least until they see initial physical signs of puberty (Tanner stage 2) before they consider prescribing blockers, both so they know there's something to block, and so they can see how the child feels about everything at that point.
This will reduce the risk of any lasting effects of puberty blockers such a underdeveloped genitalia and sterility, should the child wish to desist?
If the child "desists" and stops taking the puberty blockers without going onto cross-sex hormones, they'll go through their natal puberty, which just got put on hold. That's how it works.
This is why they've been used since the early '80s to treat kids with precocious puberty, without anyone batting an eyelid. None of those kids ended up with "underdeveloped genitalia or sterility"!
For kids who do want to transition and who went on puberty blockers very early on in puberty (so their sperm/ova haven't had time to mature), then I gather some clinics are experimenting with a planned window in which you stop puberty blockers and then wait for a year (IIRC) before starting cross-sex hormones, in order to enable them to retain fertility.
As I understand it, this is new and experimental, and I'm not an endocrinologist so can't in any way judge the potential pros and cons, but it's an attempt to solve the problem.
But if kids just want to desist, it's not an issue -- they stop the puberty blockers and go through their natal puberty.
-
This appear to be a good resource from the University of California, well written, informative and evidenced. I've not found the bit on care of children yet, but I think it answers all my questions about what the ideal service might look like. I don't particularly agree with medical transition, but then it's up to the individuals and their significant others to work that out.
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines
plus child and adolescent section
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/clinics/child-and-adolescent-gender-center
Again, there’s a bit of ocean in there you keep forgetting, though, possibly you are just as bright as you appear?
Have you not clicked that everybody finds you a bit too silly to keep arguing with? I’m just a bit bored, so thought I’d give you the excuse to dig yourself deeper into your little hole.
Fascinating really, a bluebottle bouncing off a closed window, gradually getting more incensed and less coherent as it thrashes out it’s little life.
Oblivious, of course, to the many hands trying to waft it towards the open window, so close by.
Well done, congratulations, you have won.
Quite sure you have convinced everyone and we’re all really grateful for your wisdom and thoughtful insight.
I, for one, shall now run for the hills.
Sn**ger.
Hey, the thing he's linked to does actually endorse puberty-blockers and then cross-sex hormones for trans kids (when it's considered appropriate for a particular child, naturally).
I don't know if Gritter might be moderating his views, but this is different from some of his previous links.
-
If my 8 year old son / daughter comes to me and says 'I think I may be a boy / girl' what should the ideal care pathway lookalike?
It's manipulative framing to talk in terms of a "care pathway" as if it's some inexorable medical track kids get placed on.
You know what hormonal or other medical treatment an 8-year-old who thinks they might be trans will get at that age?
ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Kids don't get prescribed puberty blockers until they've actually started puberty (at the very earliest), because before that there's nothing to block.
(Unless they've already hit Tanner stage 2 of puberty by age 8, in which case they'd qualify for a diagnosis of "precocious puberty", which is a whole separate problem, and they’d potentially be prescribed puberty blockers for that.)
There is no "ideal pathway" because it's going to depend on the individual child, what they need, what they want, and what they figure out about who they are.
The only "ideals" you can specify are things like providing them with support and acceptance, and giving them a safe space to explore who they are and try out different possibilities at their own pace, without feeling any pressure in any direction.
There are rules of thumb, like seeing if kids are "insistent, consistent and persistent" about their gender as an indicator about whether social transition might be appropriate, if that’s something they want.
But basically, it should be led by their needs. There is no one-size-fits-all "care pathway" they should be "put on".
That's the point.
He’s not going to listen and every time you respond he will, selectively, find something that you have written to misrepresent.
In the above, you have tried to explain the individuality and uniqueness of each case etc etc. He will think you just admitted he was right.
Nothing you say, ever, will convince him that there are not hundreds of children being put on puberty blockers or whatever, everyday, by an evil cabal of mad scientists and doctors.
For what it’s worth, I have learned a lot from this thread.
Considering I’m a bald, middle aged, male, middle class, former military, former Conservative Party member; who should by all stereotypical measures be a Telegraph reading, swivel eyed loon and firmly behind him, I’d not hesitate to talk to you, should one of my teens have any issues in this area.
Thank you for trying. Thank you for the effort.
Illegitimi non carborundum and all that.
-
This appear to be a good resource from the University of California, well written, informative and evidenced. I've not found the bit on care of children yet, but I think it answers all my questions about what the ideal service might look like. I don't particularly agree with medical transition, but then it's up to the individuals and their significant others to work that out.
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines
plus child and adolescent section
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/clinics/child-and-adolescent-gender-center
Again, there’s a bit of ocean in there you keep forgetting, though, possibly you are just as bright as you appear?
Have you not clicked that everybody finds you a bit too silly to keep arguing with? I’m just a bit bored, so thought I’d give you the excuse to dig yourself deeper into your little hole.
Fascinating really, a bluebottle bouncing off a closed window, gradually getting more incensed and less coherent as it thrashes out it’s little life.
Oblivious, of course, to the many hands trying to waft it towards the open window, so close by.
Well done, congratulations, you have won.
Quite sure you have convinced everyone and we’re all really grateful for your wisdom and thoughtful insight.
I, for one, shall now run for the hills.
Sn**ger.
"A zealot is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the conversation"
-
Could one of you midwit cunts give me another -ve Karma? I'm feeling all out of balance
-
Just trying to get my head around gender dysphoria not being gender dysphoria :alky:
So:
"gender identity disorder" = old label, from old edition of the diagnostic manual (DSM), no longer used, specific set of diagnostic criteria
"gender dysphoria" = new label, SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT set of criteria
The old category of "gender identity disorder" scooped up a lot of kids who were gender non-conforming, even if they identified as the gender they were assigned at birth -- e.g. a kid who was assigned male at birth and who identifies as a boy, but who also wants to wear dresses and play with dolls. That could be more than enough to earn you a GID diagnosis.
And kids absolutely did get put into intensive therapy or even hospitalized to try to "cure" this sort of "gender variant behaviour". The treatment accounts are horrific.
But the new category's criteria require that you have to actually identify as a gender different from the one you were assigned at birth.
As explained by the APA in covering the changes between DSM-IV and DSM-V, this "makes the diagnosis more restrictive and conservative."
So the criteria now aim to exclude kids who are gender non-conforming but not trans.
The shift from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” is also a change in framing.
The old position was that “displaying gender-variant behaviour is a mental illness, even if someone is totally fine and happy with how they are.” The new position is “the problem is when someone is experiencing suffering ('dysphoria') because their gender identity doesn’t match the one they were assigned at birth.”
Because the psychiatric consensus now is that being trans in itself doesn’t seem to be a “mental illness” as we understand that term. What causes suffering is the mismatch, and it’s typically relieved by allowing people to transition.
-
For what it’s worth, I have learned a lot from this thread.
I'm really glad! Honestly, that's why I engage on stuff like this, when I have the energy -- I figure someone might be listening, even if it's not necessarily the person I'm arguing with.
Considering I’m a bald, middle aged, male, middle class, former military, former Conservative Party member; who should by all stereotypical measures be a Telegraph reading, swivel eyed loon and firmly behind him, I’d not hesitate to talk to you, should one of my teens have any issues in this area.
If that were to be the case, I'd recommend finding actual trans people and parents of trans kids to talk to over me, because they're the real experts; as mentioned, I am just a nerd with a bunch of trans/nb friends.
But I'll take the compliment, thank you!
-
Article about Mermaids’ failed litigation against the LGB Alliance
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/09/no-law-says-charity-cant-hold-views-you-disagree-with-transgender-mermaids-lgb-alliance
-
A few relevant points here:
1) Sonia Sodha is an obsessive anti-trans campaigner who's one of the people lobbying for the Equality Act to be rewritten to remove some of trans people's existing legal rights and forcibly exclude them from single-sex spaces.
(Fun game: check her previous columns and see how few of them don't have some kind of anti-trans bit in them, even when the column's about something completely unrelated.)
2) The court ruling was based on the technical point that Mermaids didn't have standing to bring the case, with no finding made on whether or not the LGB Alliance should have been given charitable status.
The court did however note that Mermaids "may well have valid cause for complaint as to what LGBA and its activists have said in the past," and agreed that they had "well-founded" concerns that the LGB Alliance "has gone beyond the bounds of civilized debate."
https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1676895105754488832
3) The LGB Alliance does fuck-all except campaign against trans rights, including inciting harassment of trans-inclusive organizations:
https://transsafety.network/posts/profiled-lgb-alliance/
This includes inciting harassment of rape crisis services.
When asked during the tribunal what they actually did for L, G or B people, they explained they would "get round to it".
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/mermaids-appeals-charity-commission-lgb-alliance-status
(They may have once contributed to an ECHR court case trying to get Russia to recognize same sex marriage, but that's literally the only example I can find of them ever doing anything for L, G or B people's benefit.)
4) Among their many highlights, they've suggested that "adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality -- and more -- to all be part of one big happy 'rainbow family'" (which was removed by Twitter as hate speech), they've opposed the ban on conversion therapy and supported conversion therapy for trans kids, claimed it isn't homophobic to oppose gay marriage, claimed that LGB children don't exist, opposed laws on hate crime, and claimed that if a woman is raped by a cis woman it's not really rape because there isn't a penis involved so it doesn't count.
One of their co-founders has opposed LGBT+ clubs in schools because of the alleged risk of "predatory gay teachers."
They are utterly vile people.
5) Oh, and they're based at 55 Tufton Street, with all the other dark money right wing lobby groups:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/lgb-alliance-55-tufton-street-think-tanks/
-
Yeah Sodha pumps out nonsense like this on the reg
-
I thought that might stir it a bit but interested to read Slabs’s rebuttal.
-
‘ and claimed that if a woman is raped by a cis woman it's not really rape because there isn't a penis involved so it doesn't count.’
Just trying to get my head around this, do you mean a woman with a penis can be raped by a woman who was born with female body parts still present?
Edit - it does seem that ‘penile penetration’ is a defining characteristic of rape in the U.K. legal system.
https://www.blmsolicitors.co.uk/2021/02/can-a-woman-rape-a-man/
Further edit: do the vile left wing hate lobby groups also have a place where they hang out and devise ways to make people’s lives miserable or is that just reserved for the ‘right’ aka an increasingly large proportion of the population?
-
‘ and claimed that if a woman is raped by a cis woman it's not really rape because there isn't a penis involved so it doesn't count.’
Just trying to get my head around this, do you mean a woman with a penis can be raped by a woman who was born with female body parts still present?
Edit - it does seem that ‘penile penetration’ is a defining characteristic of rape in the U.K. legal system.
https://www.blmsolicitors.co.uk/2021/02/can-a-woman-rape-a-man/
Further edit: do the vile left wing hate lobby groups also have a place where they hang out and devise ways to make people’s lives miserable or is that just reserved for the ‘right’ aka an increasingly large proportion of the population?
You didn’t read that very well. There is “ no penis involved”.
Not a huge surprise that you didn’t read it properly.
Why do extreme right wingers always believe they are in a majority?
I have a large friend, family, work and acquaintance group. Mostly they are quite “middle of the road”, there are only a couple of people that express extreme view (on both wings), yet they blurt out their crap as if they think we all agree with them. Even after being called out, it doesn’t sink in that they are not in alignment with the room. Always we’re “just too scared to say it”.
The military is particularly bad for this. For me, being stuck on a ship with “Mr Everybody Knows” was particularly torturous. Almost always “old in rank”, if you can work out the implication in that statement. Once sat through an excruciating rant, by a particularly unaware new joiner, about how “gays were ruining the service” directed at his boss, who was married to another woman.
How he didn’t pick up on the sn**gering and and glances around him, is quite amazing.
Bloke spent most of the deployment moaning that there was no social life in the service anymore etc. He was not invited into the WhatsApp group (which was used to organise our “social life”).
-
Edit - it does seem that ‘penile penetration’ is a defining characteristic of rape in the U.K. legal system.
https://www.blmsolicitors.co.uk/2021/02/can-a-woman-rape-a-man/
Yes, that's true as rape is currently defined in English law. With the consequence that if you forcibly shove an object other than a penis into someone, it doesn’t count as “rape” in legal terms, it’s “sexual assault by penetration” (which has the same sentencing guidelines).
Of course, until 1994, the law specifically required penetration of the vagina, so if you non-consensually stuck a penis into someone’s anus, that didn’t count as “rape” either. Forcing it into their mouth didn’t count until 2003.
(If you find my phrasing here shocking: good.)
And until 1991 (court case that reached the Lords, then consolidated into law in 2003), it wasn’t legally “rape” if the rapist and victim were married. There was a huge amount of feminist campaigning to change that one in particular.
A lot of people will use rape to refer to any non-consensual sex, and consider that it’s utterly grotesque nit-picking to go “yeah well it doesn’t meet the exact current legal definition in this particular country so it doesn’t really count.”
‘ and claimed that if a woman is raped by a cis woman it's not really rape because there isn't a penis involved so it doesn't count.’
Just trying to get my head around this, do you mean a woman with a penis can be raped by a woman who was born with female body parts still present?
As explained in the Trans Safety Network report I linked to: the LGB Alliance were responding to a survey in which a lesbian talked painfully about struggling to get support as someone who had been assaulted by another woman:
"We do not report it as we are so used to homophobic behaviour that we keep our mouths shut. We are afraid of the police laughing at us. We are afraid of the humiliation of having to say we were raped by another woman. We are afraid that no-one will take us seriously"
The LGB Alliance’s response was to cite this as an example of “confusion” because if there wasn’t a penis involved, it didn’t legally count as rape, so either this woman’s attacker had to be a trans woman with a penis, or it didn’t count because it wasn’t really rape.
That’s their response to a survivor of sexual violence who’s struggling to access support, that it doesn’t really count. That’s how much they give a shit about the wellbeing of lesbians (or anyone else). "Well it’s not technically rape —"
(For logical consistency, of course, they’d have to also insist that any woman who was raped by her husband before 1991 wasn’t “really” raped etc. etc..)
Honestly, I find it hard to imagine a more inhuman, ghoulish response.
-
3) The LGB Alliance does fuck-all except campaign against trans rights, including inciting harassment of trans-inclusive organizations:
https://transsafety.network/posts/profiled-lgb-alliance/
This includes inciting harassment of rape crisis services.
When asked during the tribunal what they actually did for L, G or B people, they explained they would "get round to it".
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/mermaids-appeals-charity-commission-lgb-alliance-status
(They may have once contributed to an ECHR court case trying to get Russia to recognize same sex marriage, but that's literally the only example I can find of them ever doing anything for L, G or B people's benefit.)
To expand a bit, because I've realized I'm assuming background knowledge re: the third sector which people may not have if you're not in that field: this is relevant because in order to be registered as a charity, you do have to do something which is in some way providing benefit to others, even if the requirements for that are very loose (see: private schools having charitable status):
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-benefit-rules-for-charities
Charities are allowed to do some political lobbying, when it's considered to support their charitable purpose. So, for example, the National Autistic Society can lobby the government for improved services and changes in laws that affect autistic people.
But if something is solely or primarily a political lobbying group, it shouldn’t be possible to register it as a charity:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities-cc9/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities
"a charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad."
Anyway, the court didn't rule on the issue of whether the LGB Alliance should ever have been allowed to register as a charity in the first place, but given that their purpose is very clearly and overtly opposing trans rights ("securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions") and they don't actually do anything else, I think the answer is fairly clear.
Contrary to what Sodha's trying to claim, the issue in the court case is not that people running a charity have "gender-critical" views, the issue is that they're an anti-trans lobbying group pretending to be a charity because it gives them false credibility.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/09/trans-pride-defends-activist-who-told-crowd-to-punch-terfs/
Lovely people.
-
This was quite a good one too, men identifying as women assaulting women....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o878GLGcGYs
-
I think it's pretty obvious there will be rotten eggs on the right side as well as the wrong side?? And they should be condemned for both their actions and for being detrimental to an otherwise good cause??
-
I think it's pretty obvious there will be rotten eggs on the right side as well as the wrong side?? And they should be condemned for both their actions and for being detrimental to an otherwise good cause??
Obviously, all Trans people are violent/predatory and should be outlawed. These are clear examples of how they behave.
Next, of course, are the Football fans, all of them, because they’re an even bigger source of violence and far more frequently so.
What should be the lowest number of individuals involved before we outlaw an entire group/subset of the population?
If we make it one, then we can outlaw all White people, because (take your pick here) Timothy McVeigh/Anders Breivik/Et Al did something unspeakable.
If you think what I just wrote makes sense/is the right thing to do, please go and take yourself for a cold shower and then make an appointment with a good Psychiatrist.
-
I think it's pretty obvious there will be rotten eggs on the right side as well as the wrong side?? And they should be condemned for both their actions and for being detrimental to an otherwise good cause??
The right and wrong side of what? Freedom of speech and the right to question something that is so clearly harmful to a significant proportion of young people involved? You could clearly argue the case for or against this ideology (cue Slabs 30+ links to trans rights pages with anecdotes, logical fallacy and rhetoric) but ideology is what it is.
-
I think it's pretty obvious there will be rotten eggs on the right side as well as the wrong side?? And they should be condemned for both their actions and for being detrimental to an otherwise good cause??
The right and wrong side of what? Freedom of speech and the right to question something that is so clearly harmful to a significant proportion of young people involved? You could clearly argue the case for or against this ideology (cue Slabs 30+ links to trans rights pages with anecdotes, logical fallacy and rhetoric) but ideology is what it is.
As opposed to your YouTube links ?
Dude, you are merely pushing propaganda.
Actually, I think you have done more to incline me towards Slabs point of view than anything Slabs has posted. It’s all been so obviously refutable. Lead me to read and search for more reputable and reliable evidence and all I’ve discovered is that your claims are unsubstantiated. Thanks. I guess, as I said to Slabs, I’ve learned a lot these past few weeks and in fairness you deserve some credit for making me ask the questions. Cheers.
-
I see we've now progressed to the "here's a random story about a trans person who did or said a bad thing" stage of the "debate".
When people obsessively collect and post stories about any time a "migrant" is accused of committing a crime or doing something harmful -- or any time a Muslim does, for example -- I think most of us wouldn't have a problem recognizing this as xenophobic bullshit.
Every single demographic of human beings on the planet contains some shitty people.
But it's only with certain minority groups that we think it's reasonable to treat one person's actions as a judgement on the entire group, and demand that either everyone in the group is a pure and perfect paragon of sainthood, or the whole group should be punished and treated as inherently dangerous and suspicious.
-
I wanted to post that Slab needn't waste her time writing a rebuttal of the lamest arguments ever made, but I see I am too late.
-
It seemed those were the rules you were operating by, anyone who questions the trans ideology is a vile right wing bigoted nazi etc etc as opposed to a vile left wing authoritarian.....
At this rate OMM will be transitioning by the end of the thread 'oldthemmatt'
1. The trans movement is ideological, not based on scientific evidence
2. It is not the same as homosexuality and involves the use of drugs and surgery to permanently change a body
3. In a significant minority of people this appears to be doing harm
4. Trans in pubescent teens appears to be associated with complex mental health problems
5. This is a dead end discussion because the trans movement will win in the end, trans children will begin social transition in school and begin physical transition at puberty.
6. Neither you nor I or anyone knows if this is going to be a 'good' thing by any measure.
-
At this rate OMM will be transitioning by the end of the thread 'oldthemmatt'
Yes, jeering at someone you disagree with by making jokes about how they're probably trans definitely makes you look like a rational and civilized person who is not motivated by transphobia in any way.
-
Lol sorry I forgot about the psychotic humour vacuum.....
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsw3pdpxf64
If it's just "rotten eggs", why do the crowd cheer?
Are there any cases of TERFs applauding someone for saying "If you see a tranny, punch them in the face"?
Why did the Trans Pride organisers condone this incitement to violence, claiming it was a legitimate expression of free speech? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/09/trans-pride-defends-activist-who-told-crowd-to-punch-terfs/
Matt, if you find Slab's arguments persuasive then there was probably never much hope for you tbh
Like half her responses are "you can't trust this source, this organization is transphobic, here's a reliable article from the Gay Times".
P.S. Is there any way to not embed youtube vids
-
Lol sorry I forgot about the psychotic humour vacuum.....
So tragic that I lack the sophistication to appreciate this witty banter.
-
I wanted to post that Slab needn't waste her time writing a rebuttal of the lamest arguments ever made, but I see I am too late.
I am nothing if not predictable.
-
It seemed those were the rules you were operating by, anyone who questions the trans ideology is a vile right wing bigoted nazi etc etc as opposed to a vile left wing authoritarian.....
At this rate OMM will be transitioning by the end of the thread 'oldthemmatt'
1. The trans movement is ideological, not based on scientific evidence
2. It is not the same as homosexuality and involves the use of drugs and surgery to permanently change a body
3. In a significant minority of people this appears to be doing harm
4. Trans in pubescent teens appears to be associated with complex mental health problems
5. This is a dead end discussion because the trans movement will win in the end, trans children will begin social transition in school and begin physical transition at puberty.
6. Neither you nor I or anyone knows if this is going to be a 'good' thing by any measure.
Jesus, I’ve been trying avoid allowing myself to reach this conclusion. Asking for reasoned argument ti substantiate your position etc. However, you appear to be little more than a bigot.
bigot
/ˈbɪɡət/
noun
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
In the absence of credible evidence to support your position, why should I believe otherwise?
On all 6 points?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsw3pdpxf64
If it's just "rotten eggs", why do the crowd cheer?
Are there any cases of TERFs applauding someone for saying "If you see a tranny, punch them in the face"?
Why did the Trans Pride organisers condone this incitement to violence, claiming it was a legitimate expression of free speech? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/09/trans-pride-defends-activist-who-told-crowd-to-punch-terfs/
Matt, if you find Slab's arguments persuasive then there was probably never much hope for you tbh
Like half her responses are "you can't trust this source, this organization is transphobic, here's a reliable article from the Gay Times".
P.S. Is there any way to not embed youtube vids
Ah, but you see I did not simply succumb to Slabs arguments. I’ve stated my opinion and the worth of it, clearly, and not moved much from that position. What I’ve been saying and arguing and reiterating is that neither you nor Gritter have made any sort of reasonable case for your positions.
In fact, I looked into it far more than I ever intended and discovered that it was even more complicated and complex than I had actually imagined. The biological aspect, in particular. I hadn’t realised the plethora of chromosomal arrangements possible, for instance. That alone should have been enough to scare even a half witted layman out of taking a stance like “There’s no biological basis for Trans people! It’s purely ideological!”
You don’t know that. If you take such a position, you are making an assumption based solely on preconceived notions.
I dutifully watched your clips and followed your links, then checked their credibility and sources.
Frankly, this kind of shit is what I do, you know, for a living.
I was unable to find any grounds for your assertions.
If you think arguing with me is arguing with Slabs, you are sadly misinformed.
This is starting to feel like some of the debates I’ve had with various Clergy over the years, on the existence of the big man.
“Dude, show me the evidence. Stop pointing at your book, because that is not evidence of god.”
As I have already stated, and much as Gritter has observed (though from an (imo) odd perspective) this is a waste of time. You can only find “more of the same” when challenged to prove or even ground, your arguments.
I’m struck to a mild awe by your fervent beliefs, however you have yet to rise above the level of a Jehovah’s Witness, standing on my doorstep; in terms of convincing argument.
Edit:
What has the Trans pride organisers defence of an incitement to punch TERFs in the face (or whatever) got to do with the existence or otherwise of Trans people or children? Am I supposed to conclude that all Trans people are violent extremists ?
Umm…
Nah.
-
It seemed those were the rules you were operating by, anyone who questions the trans ideology is a vile right wing bigoted nazi etc etc as opposed to a vile left wing authoritarian.....
At this rate OMM will be transitioning by the end of the thread 'oldthemmatt'
1. The trans movement is ideological, not based on scientific evidence
2. It is not the same as homosexuality and involves the use of drugs and surgery to permanently change a body
3. In a significant minority of people this appears to be doing harm
4. Trans in pubescent teens appears to be associated with complex mental health problems
5. This is a dead end discussion because the trans movement will win in the end, trans children will begin social transition in school and begin physical transition at puberty.
6. Neither you nor I or anyone knows if this is going to be a 'good' thing by any measure.
Again...
Who the fuck are you to tell other people how to live their lives.
It's quite frankly not your business how others choose to live.
1. Religion and ideology are ideological and not science based. Should we ban religious education? Faith schools? Sunday school?
2. So what if people change their bodies? Do you want to ban tattoos? Tit jobs? Hair dye? If I want to cut my dick off that's between me and my dick. Again. Why do you get off on telling me what I can do with my body?
3. So what if people regret their choices? That is life. People make crap choices all the time. I tossed it off at school and rather than working at Goldman Sachs before retiring at 35 I'm still at work. I fucked up climbing as a young person and was in a wheelchair for about six months. Surely I should have been banned from making my unwise choices.
4. People with mental health issues still have agency
5. So?
6. Who cares if it's a "good thing". It's freedom. Put the nanny state ballshit down and leave people alone to fuck up in their own way. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “the Most Terrifying Words are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ stop trying to help people.
The religious right is pulling a nany state act far worse than the pious left ever managed.
-
Sounding a bit authoritarian there Potash
-
When people obsessively collect and post stories about any time a "migrant" is accused of committing a crime or doing something harmful -- or any time a Muslim does, for example -- I think most of us wouldn't have a problem recognizing this as xenophobic bullshit.
As an aside.
I think about this quite often.
I have felt quite anti-Muslim, from time to time, in the past. I had fair grounds to do so.
But I could never convince myself, not really. So, I did what I try to do when I can’t understand my gut. I thought about it, read up a bit.
Didn’t take much to realise I was biased. First off, as I have just repeated, I wondered how many Muslims lived around me (in the UK, then). It’s just under 4 million.
Big number, but only 6.7% of the UK population.
Let’s face it, even if only 2.5 or 3 million were adults, if then, only 10% of them were radical, suicidal Jihadists we’d be fucked.
The scale of the “problem” doesn’t add up. It’s not a Muslim problem or an Islam problem, it’s a fucking idiot problem.
You don’t need many fucking idiots to make a minor issue painful for everyone else, of course.
But, suddenly, I could negate my own bias. It’s unfounded. An irrational fear.
I’m getting the same vibes from this line of the discussion.
Which is just fascinating.
-
Sounding a bit authoritarian there Potash
Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance
-
Jesus Potash, that's pretty weak even for you anarchists. I can't quite see that argument passing the medical ethics cross examination.
Judge 'So..... Dr Potash, why exactly did you remove the testicles of this 16 year old boy?'
Dr Potash 'Fack you judge fascist Nazi pig, he fackin wanted it didn't he, now he's whining, fackin' live with it, so what? Paradox ov fuckin intolerance innit!'
-
Jesus Potash, that's pretty weak even for you anarchists. I can't quite see that argument passing the medical ethics cross examination.
Judge 'So..... Dr Potash, why exactly did you remove the testicles of this 16 year old boy?'
Dr Potash 'Fack you judge fascist Nazi pig, he fackin wanted it didn't he, now he's whining, fackin' live with it, so what? Paradox ov fuckin intolerance innit!'
Aaand… now you’re inventing scenarios to be angry and offended about.
Again.
This is the old “ playing chess with a pigeon “ cliché isn’t it? The pigeon is just going to knock the pieces over and shit on the board.
-
Susie Green ex head (2022) of U.K. Charity Mermaids, took her 16 year old son to Thailand to have his genitals removed aged 16.
https://youtu.be/ppzgLqWAOTc
-
Susie Green ex head (2022) of U.K. Charity Mermaids, took her 16 year old son to Thailand to have his genitals removed aged 16.
https://youtu.be/ppzgLqWAOTc
Given you're trying to argue that these people might regret their decision, and that this happened in 2009 and the person in question is still happily trans, this seems like a pathetically weak example to use.
-
Susie Green ex head (2022) of U.K. Charity Mermaids, took her 16 year old son to Thailand to have his genitals removed aged 16.
https://youtu.be/ppzgLqWAOTc
Given you're trying to argue that these people might regret their decision, and that this happened in 2009 and the person in question is still happily trans, this seems like a pathetically weak example to use.
And they literally waited until they were 16 and had legal agency.
-
Gritter, do you really not see that you have put your own spin on a piece of information, that largely refutes many of your claims?
A spin almost instantly shot down by two people, who simply looked beyond your “headline”.
Did you not notice the dates?
Does it not matter if the individual concerned is happy with the situation?
You are winding yourself up.
You go looking for some bit of self affirmation, half read or don’t check it’s veracity and throw it up here.
Then you get shot down, so you throw out insults instead of cogent argument (sorry, sorry, they’re “jokes” not insults. Unknot yer knickers).
And repeat.
Edit:
Did anyone else get thrown a load of obviously anti trans and homophobia “recommendations “ by YouTube at the end of that clip?
-
Ah, but you see I did not simply succumb to Slabs arguments. I’ve stated my opinion and the worth of it, clearly, and not moved much from that position. What I’ve been saying and arguing and reiterating is that neither you nor Gritter have made any sort of reasonable case for your positions.
In fact, I looked into it far more than I ever intended and discovered that it was even more complicated and complex than I had actually imagined. The biological aspect, in particular. I hadn’t realised the plethora of chromosomal arrangements possible, for instance. That alone should have been enough to scare even a half witted layman out of taking a stance like “There’s no biological basis for Trns people! It’s purely ideological!”
You don’t know that. If you take such a position, you are making an assumption based solely on preconceived notions.
This is deliciously ironic. I wasn't going to mention it because I don't like arguments from authority but I'm actually a geneticist. That was my gateway into this subject. It's why I know it's all a load of bollox. Your thinking is so muddled (great work Slab!) that it's not even wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
1) Being intersex has nothing whatsoever to o with being transgender. Totally different thing. I would actually argue that you cannot be both. The very prefix trans implies an opposition, two things being at odds, in this case sex and "gender identity". You cannot have a "gender identity" at odds with your sex if your sex is indeterminate.
What exactly is the argument here?
1. 2 in 100,000 people are intersex (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139)
2. ????
3. Therefore, 5% of the population identifies as transgender (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/)
4. ????
5. Therefore, 5% of people actually have a little homunculus in their brain that is opposite to the sex of their body, presumably because they inherited the "male body" gene alongside the "female brain" gene or vice-versa.
Please explain what exactly it is that you believe.
2. The idea that biological sex is a spectrum, or anything other than binary, is a lunatic fringe idea. Don't take my word for it. Try to find a single peer-reviewed article in a relevant journal that argues for sex being a spectrum. They don’t exist because they would never pass peer review. (Scientific American is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal). Jerry Coyne (https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/04/sf-chronicle-sex-and-gender-are-not-binaries/) (a world expert on speciation) is representative of mainstream thinking on the subject.
3. Regarding sex chromosomes...47,XYY males and 47,XXX females account for the vast majority of sex chromosome aneuploidies. Phenotypically, they are indistinguishable from normal 46,XY males and 46,XX females. Most of them don't know they have the condition. The remainder are mostly 45,X0 (Turner syndrome) and 47,XXY (Klinefelters), the vast majority of whom are infertile.
4. There is almost certainly a genetic predisposition to experiencing gender dysphoria. What us "gender-critical" types dispute is 1) that this subjective (but very real) feeling of distress is explained by people having a brain trapped in the "wrong" body and 2) that this should be treated by bringing the body into alignment with the ailing mind. Gender dysphoria is the only mental illness we treat this way. We don't treatment anorexia with liposuction; we don't treat OCD with hand-washing.
If you have an open mind, give this a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG9_lcln7FU
-
Ah, but you see I did not simply succumb to Slabs arguments. I’ve stated my opinion and the worth of it, clearly, and not moved much from that position. What I’ve been saying and arguing and reiterating is that neither you nor Gritter have made any sort of reasonable case for your positions.
In fact, I looked into it far more than I ever intended and discovered that it was even more complicated and complex than I had actually imagined. The biological aspect, in particular. I hadn’t realised the plethora of chromosomal arrangements possible, for instance. That alone should have been enough to scare even a half witted layman out of taking a stance like “There’s no biological basis for Trns people! It’s purely ideological!”
You don’t know that. If you take such a position, you are making an assumption based solely on preconceived notions.
This is deliciously ironic. I wasn't going to mention it because I don't like arguments from authority but I'm actually a geneticist. That was my gateway into this subject. It's why I know it's all a load of bollox. Your thinking is so muddled (great work Slab!) that it's not even wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
1) Being intersex has nothing whatsoever to o with being transgender. Totally different thing. I would actually argue that you cannot be both. The very prefix trans implies an opposition, two things being at odds, in this case sex and "gender identity". You cannot have a "gender identity" at odds with your sex if your sex is indeterminate.
What exactly is the argument here?
1. 2 in 100,000 people are intersex (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139)
2. ????
3. Therefore, 5% of the population identifies as transgender (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/)
4. ????
5. Therefore, 5% of people actually have a little homunculus in their brain that is opposite to the sex of their body, presumably because they inherited the "male body" gene alongside the "female brain" gene or vice-versa.
Please explain what exactly it is that you believe.
2. The idea that biological sex is a spectrum, or anything other than binary, is a lunatic fringe idea. Don't take my word for it. Try to find a single peer-reviewed article in a relevant journal that argues for sex being a spectrum. They don’t exist because they would never pass peer review. (Scientific American is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal). Jerry Coyne (https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/04/sf-chronicle-sex-and-gender-are-not-binaries/) (a world expert on speciation) is representative of mainstream thinking on the subject.
3. Regarding sex chromosomes...47,XYY males and 47,XXX females account for the vast majority of sex chromosome aneuploidies. Phenotypically, they are indistinguishable from normal 46,XY males and 46,XX females. Most of them don't know they have the condition. The remainder are mostly 45,X0 (Turner syndrome) and 47,XXY (Klinefelters), the vast majority of whom are infertile.
4. There is almost certainly a genetic predisposition to experiencing gender dysphoria. What us "gender-critical" types dispute is 1) that this subjective (but very real) feeling of distress is explained by people having a brain trapped in the "wrong" body and 2) that this should be treated by bringing the body into alignment with the ailing mind. Gender dysphoria is the only mental illness we treat this way. We don't treatment anorexia with liposuction; we don't treat OCD with hand-washing.
If you have an open mind, give this a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG9_lcln7FU
You are absolutely correct that this is deliciously ironic!
Because you didn’t actually read what I wrote, did you?
Because I summed up:
That alone should be enough to scare even a half witted layman out of taking a stance…
My stance, which I have already made clear, is (I believe) the only correct stance for the layman.
I’m fully aware that my thinking is “not even wrong” and quite carefully didn’t state what it was I was thinking. I did not say that it was the cause of gender dysphoria.
Well done for finally putting up. I know I asked you, directly, from whence you derived your asserted opinion (education or experience) many posts ago.
If, you had an actual point to make, why undermine your own position posting so much drivel?
Do you imagine (setting aside you (second) point 4 of the post) that what you just wrote differs from what I have read?
I have run down similar rabbit holes in the past, cancer(s), decompression sickness (amongst others) because I can’t stand not understanding “why” (I’m a “high functioning” autistic Engineer. Note nested clauses and general mode of speech).
At base, it usually turns out that “why” is still elusive.
Frustrating. A term and position that is significant for someone like me (and I suspect you also. Which is why I take different tone with you than with Gritter).
Which brings me back to your second point 4 of the last post. That there are “genetic predispositions” for all of these things mentioned (and many others besides) for which the predictors remain (as yet) unidentifiable.
So, “treatment” of these various things, remains the preserve of those “doing what appears to work in a majority of cases”. Or, in short, imperfect.
If I, for some bizarre reason, was forced to make a decision on what was the best course of action, in the case of such gender dysphoria, I would probably go with the following:
Humans habitually modify their phenotype and extended phenotype, from making holes in their ears to hang jewellery from, to shoving bags of fluid under their skin to change their shape. Body building, choosing friend groups or building entire civilisations, painting their faces, permanently making their skin. Using mechanical contrivances to make themselves fly or move faster and further than the body could alone. Simply picking different clothing to display their perceived personality or status or profession or whatever. Using quite dangerous compounds to alter their mental state.
And on and on.
How about undertaking high risk, illogical, activities for no other reason than the pleasure they give to the individual? I’m thinking of climbing here.
So, gender dysphoria, what have we got? Looks from the outside to be, do nothing (rarely helps in any matter, seems true of the matter in hand), try to talk people around to a place where they feel comfortable (well, it can work for other things. On the other hand, note the existence of the last 12 pages of this thread) or make physical changes to alleviate the issue.
So, I choose letting the professional dealing with the individual cases using the best available knowledge at the time, in consultation with the individual, to choose the (hoped for) best course of action.
Again, the main thrust of much of this debate has been that people are being coerced or forced to choose radical pathways or that vulnerable children are being systematically bullied into such. However, I have not seen anything to support that. I have only seen individual cases that might, prima facie, fall into such a category, which seems more appropriate to classify as malpractice.
Alex, in your own words, the “problem” clearly exists, your expertise and the combined expertise of your field, cannot (as yet) provide an identifiable cause, much less a “solution”. If I was to presume to know your field, as well as, let alone better than, you; you would rightly feel inclined to dismiss me. So to would any thoughtful observer. Yet, that is what you are doing.
If I was to sum it, brutally, your position amounts to “I don’t have an answer so you can’t either”.
Thanks for finally sharing your expertise, more please.
Forgive me for trying to separate your opinions from your knowledge. I hope you can understand why.
-
Edit:
Did anyone else get thrown a load of obviously anti trans and homophobia “recommendations “ by YouTube at the end of that clip?
Not surprising since it's from Graham Linehan's YouTube channel. He's been repeatedly kicked off Twitter for hate speech -- including "joking" about killing protestors at a Posie Parker rally -- and is currently facing libel proceedings from one of the many people he's accused of being a "groomer".
-
The comedy writer Graham Linehan? He just plummeted in my estimation considerably.
-
4. There is almost certainly a genetic predisposition to experiencing gender dysphoria. What us "gender-critical" types dispute is 1) that this subjective (but very real) feeling of distress is explained by people having a brain trapped in the "wrong" body and 2) that this should be treated by bringing the body into alignment with the ailing mind. Gender dysphoria is the only mental illness we treat this way. We don't treatment anorexia with liposuction; we don't treat OCD with hand-washing.
That's a useful explanation of the stance.
1) that this subjective (but very real) feeling of distress is explained by people having a brain trapped in the "wrong" body
1. Is there convincing and extensive evidence either way??
2. If there isn't convincing and evidence to support your doubts that it's "having a brain trapped in the wrong body", then it seems sensible to default to the viewpoint of the people who actually matter, i.e. the people who say they "have a brain trapped in the wrong body".
2) that this should be treated by bringing the body into alignment with the ailing mind. Gender dysphoria is the only mental illness we treat this way. We don't treatment anorexia with liposuction; we don't treat OCD with hand-washing.
1. Again, it seems sensible to refer to the people actually in question, who want their body brought in alignment with their mind - and would probably reject it being called "ailing". It seems that they are often very specifically asking to transition, and it seems that once transitioned, they are generally happier with their gender situation. Therefore, subject to the nitty gritty about how to treat minors, it might be the way it should be treated.
(OBVIOUSLY there should be further research and IF it turns out that the net happiness (number of people X
"amount of happiness") of satisfied transitioned TGs is less than the net unhappiness of regretful "buyer's regret" transitioned TGs, then that would have to be reconsidered)
2. I suspect it's possible that Gender Dysphoria, due to what area of existence it concerns, is pretty different to other mental differences (again I suspect TGs would probably reject it being called "mental illness"), particularly because the TG perspective is "align my body to what my mind believes" rather than "cure me of what my mind believes" (I'm guessing the latter is more common with some other mental differences). I don't believe that with the vast array of mental differences in modern society that they should all be treated the same i.e. "Cure the mental difference".
It would be interesting to ask some transitioned TG people - again the people who actually matter in this discussion - "How should we have treated you? Should we have facilitated your transition? Or should we have cured your mental difference instead?". Maybe someone could PM Taylor Parsons?
-
The comedy writer Graham Linehan? He just plummeted in my estimation considerably.
Yup, the Father Ted and IT Crowd guy! If you didn't know, I am sorry to be the bearer of this deeply depressing news.
He disappeared fully down the rabbit hole circa 2018 and has become an obsessive anti-trans activist.
A few days ago he was calling David Tennant "disgusting" and an "abusive groomer" because Tennant wore a t-shirt supporting trans kids at a press event.
-
Damn.
-
Feck. Arse. :'(
-
Interesting short video from a transgender Orthodox Jewess
https://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2023/sep/07/trans-and-orthodox-jewish-the-struggle-for-acceptance-in-conservative-religion-video
-
This is totally off topic so feel free to delete or move to another thread but it sparked a memory in my brain. No diss intended MrJR as from memory of some of your other posts you are either jewish/knowledgeable about Judaism and either way incredibly unlikely to want to cause offence, but is 'jewess' considered acceptable? All the online dictionaries seem to consider it either dated or offensive. Its not a word one reads very often.
-
You definitely can’t and shouldn’t call a Jewish women “jewess” :lol:
-
Is it? Not up to date on that tbh. I have some Jewish heritage, you are correct on that. Was used to specify gender despite being very old fashioned, but according to google you have a point. Other posters may know more. Thanks for pointing out!
-
What us "gender-critical" types dispute is 1) that this subjective (but very real) feeling of distress is explained by people having a brain trapped in the "wrong" body and 2) that this should be treated by bringing the body into alignment with the ailing mind. Gender dysphoria is the only mental illness we treat this way. We don't treatment anorexia with liposuction; we don't treat OCD with hand-washing.
To me the whole point is that trans people often find that they benefit from gender affirmation treatment and go on to live happily. By contrast my impression is that anorexia and OCD cause ever greater mental and physical distress/danger if their impulses are re-enforced. A mental health practitioner told me that the be-all-end-all of mental health care was to enable people to live well -that was all that mattered.
You seem to be saying that because you can't get your head around why trans people want to be as they are, that is reason enough to give them a hard time. I disagree. It's their lives to live as they wish and we should respect and cherish them as they choose to be IMO. I don't really care whether some theory behind their identity is or isn't sound -and even if I did I would still think that my opinion about that was immaterial. Perhaps it is a bit like how I think religious freedom is really important to defend even though I'm an atheist myself.