Trans issues

[joeldering]

I think it's interesting to revisit Thatcher's pro-Section 28 speech from 1987 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?)

 

[abarro81]

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:

 

[joeldering]

Which social justice issue of the past couple hundred years do you think progressives got wrong?

 

[slab_happy]

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/

 

[abarro81]

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.

 

[Gritter]

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.

 

[Wellsy]

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

 

[wasbeen]

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.

 

[slab_happy]

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.

 

[slab_happy]

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

 

[wasbeen]

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.

 

[Gritter]

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.

 

[Alex B]

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:

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
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:

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 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.

 

[reeve]

It's a real shame there isn't a hell for you to go to.

Really? Get a grip and be civil.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

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:

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
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:

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 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.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

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.

 

[Alex B]

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.

 

[Alex B]

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.

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.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

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.

 

[petejh]

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.