The Gender Debate

[carpetmonster]

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

No child under the age of 18 should ever be allowed to undergo surgical changes to their sex organs and nobody should be telling them or suggesting to them that maybe their feelings are because they have the wrong sex organs. Protecting children should be a given.

I have no idea where the trans stuff comes from. There's not enough evidence IMO to rule out a lot of this stuff being psychological and we desperately need people to be free to research and talk about this aspect - the consequences of getting this wrong are too often seen. There's no shortage of regret when it comes to sex changes. This is completely different to the situation with homosexuality where the same question was being asked and it's a shame to hear people using that as an argument against questioning things.

Ironically, as with everything, it's extreme trans-activists and the Woke Folk who are getting in the way, holding things back and causing a backlash amongst large portions of the public.

No children under 18 are ever allowed to undergo surgical changes. 'They're sterilizing kids' is deliberate misinformation spread by transphobes. Unfortunately there's a load of places you could have picked up that idea from, but don't give it any more legs, it's nonsense. 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

Edited July 29, 2022 by carpetmonster

[BFTD]

Large portions of the public.

[scottsdad]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

No child under the age of 18 should ever be allowed to undergo surgical changes to their sex organs and nobody should be telling them or suggesting to them that maybe their feelings are because they have the wrong sex organs. Protecting children should be a given.

I have no idea where the trans stuff comes from. There's not enough evidence IMO to rule out a lot of this stuff being psychological and we desperately need people to be free to research and talk about this aspect - the consequences of getting this wrong are too often seen. There's no shortage of regret when it comes to sex changes. This is completely different to the situation with homosexuality where the same question was being asked and it's a shame to hear people using that as an argument against questioning things.

Ironically, as with everything, it's extreme trans-activists and the Woke Folk who are getting in the way, holding things back and causing a backlash amongst large portions of the public.

Trans people have been around for a long, long time. There is a huge body of research both in terms of biology and psychology on this subject. 

The idea that we need to put a stop to all this and wait on "the research" to reach a level of understanding that is, in practice, unattainable is the very argument that anti-vaxxers have been using for 18 months now. 

[ICTChris]

12 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Trans people have been around for a long, long time. There is a huge body of research both in terms of biology and psychology on this subject. 

The idea that we need to put a stop to all this and wait on "the research" to reach a level of understanding that is, in practice, unattainable is the very argument that anti-vaxxers have been using for 18 months now. 

Hilary Cass, the author of the review that recommended closing the clinic at Tavistock has written a letter on how to replace the clinic, what should be done in the regional centres etc.  In that she is very specific about the research that needs to be done:

Quote

As already highlighted in my interim report, the most significant knowledge gaps are in relation to treatment with puberty blockers, and the lack of clarity about whether the rationale for prescription is as an initial part of a transition pathway or as a ‘pause’ to allow more time for decision making. For those who will go on to have a stable binary trans identity, the ability to pass in later life is paramount, and many will decide that the trade-offs of medical treatment are a price that is fully justified by the ability to live confidently and comfortably in their identified gender. The widely understood challenge is in determining when a point of certainty about gender identity is reached in an adolescent who is in a state of developmental maturation, identity development and flux.

It is the latter option regarding a ‘pause’ for decision making about which we have the least information. The rationale for use of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 of development was based on data that demonstrated that children, particularly birthregistered boys who had early gender incongruence, were unlikely to desist once they reached early puberty; this rationale does not necessarily apply to laterpresenting young people, including the predominant referral group of birth-registered girls. We do not fully understand the role of adolescent sex hormones in driving the development of both sexuality and gender identity through the early teen years, so by extension we cannot be sure about the impact of stopping these hormone surges on psychosexual and gender maturation. We therefore have no way of knowing whether, rather than buying time to make a decision, puberty blockers may disrupt that decision-making process.

A further concern is that adolescent sex hormone surges may trigger the opening of a critical period for experience-dependent rewiring of neural circuits underlying executive function6 (i.e. maturation of the part of the brain concerned with planning, decision making and judgement). If this is the case, brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by puberty blockers, which could have significant impact on the ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as possible longer-term neuropsychological consequences. To date, there has been very limited research on the short-, medium- or longer-term impact of pubertyblockers on neurocognitive development.

In light of these critically important unanswered questions, I would suggest that consideration is given to the rapid establishment of the necessary research infrastructure to prospectively enrol young people being considered for hormone treatment into a formal research programme with adequate follow up into adulthood, with a more immediate focus on the questions regarding puberty blockers. The appropriate research questions and protocols will need to be developed with input from a panel of academics, clinicians, service users and ethicists.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cass-Review-Letter-to-NHSE_19-July-2022.pdf

 

[Jambomo]

2 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

No children under 18 are ever allowed to undergo surgical changes. 'They're sterilizing kids' is deliberate misinformation spread by transphobes. Unfortunately there's a load of places you could have picked up that idea from, but don't give it any more legs, it's nonsense. 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

Aren’t the puberty blockers started at a young age?

Though I realise that’s not a surgical change but a medical one, I think it refers to a similar point that Oaksoft is making about making life-altering decisions as a kid.

[Empty It]

Shocked to see the tory egg tossing that is rugby has banned trans women from playing.

[carpetmonster]

30 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

Aren’t the puberty blockers started at a young age?

Though I realise that’s not a surgical change but a medical one, I think it refers to a similar point that Oaksoft is making about making life-altering decisions as a kid.

There’s no hard and fast data relating to when puberty blockers are given, certainly in the UK. The issuing does have to be preceded by a 3-6 month consultation at the Tavistock. We know Kiera Bell, the most famous case, was prescribed them at 16. 
 

I think you’re giving Oaksoft far too much credit tho. 

 

ETA - to go back to something I was asked a few pages back, about would I give my kid puberty blockers - my kid has a friend who's trans. She's 8. She pitched up at the first day of elementary school as a girl, and 3 years later she still is. In her situation - when Cass is talking about the psychological and hormonal effects of puberty blockers and whether they should be used as a 'delaying tactic' - there could well be an argument to say that letting her go thru puberty as a boy may be more psychologically damaging to her than if she had a revelation at 18, say, realised she wasn't transgender and came off them. Physically, when you stop taking puberty blockers, then normal puberty service resumes about 6 months later. Would it be more damaging to her to let her take the drugs, even if not every effect is known, or to go thru puberty as a boy, but still identify as a girl even when puberty is completed? That may be particuarly relevant when Cass talks about 'passing' - while many trans folks would argue passing isn't important, for those who it is, then going thru that male puberty may also make passing be more difficult down the line, and again may cause psychological harm. 

This is where we now start to realise the 'gender critical' lobby simply don't want trans people to exist (even before they come out and just say that directly, as Helen Joyce did). 'She can't do athletics if she's gone thru male puberty' but also 'we can't give children puberty blockers'. It's not 'concerns', it's simple hatred. 

And as an aside, it's fucking hilarious that that welt Jordan Peterson lost his shit and tried sooooo hard to get himself cancelled over Elliot Page having gender affirming care - procedures to help him feel more comfortable in his gender - when Peterson's clearly had a hair transplant. Gonk. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by carpetmonster

[Jambomo]

24 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

Worth pointing out that for a trans child, the act of not doing anything medically until they are an adult is also a 'life altering decision'. It has huge ramifications on their immediate mental health and also on the ultimate outcome of their transition when they reach adulthood.

The problem is that this issue is too often viewed through the prism that cis is normal and so 'remaining cis' (by which I mean not undergoing any gender affirming care, potentially going through the puberty of a gender which doesn't match who you know you are) is a risk free baseline that you can sit at with no consequences, that its not a major life decision. For a trans person, cis is not normal and being forced to wait years for treatment has the potential to be incredibly harmful. There's a reason that a lot of trans people talk very little about their lives pre-transition.

If you are trans, and realise it at a young age there is no real way to avoid major life changing decisions being made one way or another in your teens, as that is when puberty happens.

 

I don’t think that I agree that it’s viewed through a CIS lens as such. More that permanent medical intervention isn’t necessarily desirable in anyone at any age if avoidable, so in my case I only mean that how can you be certain that it’s the correct course of action?
 

Though I take your point that no action may be just as harmful, I am not trying to suggest it shouldn’t be done, only that in the post I quote from Carpetmonster, the outrage at questions around surgical/medical intervention at early ages is a bit counter-productive to any actual discussion and that the questions people may have aren’t just the product of transphobes and a figment of the imagination. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Jambomo

[carpetmonster]

9 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

 

Though I take your point that no action may be just as harmful, I am not trying to suggest it shouldn’t be done, only that in the post I quote from Carpetmonster, the outrage at questions around surgical/medical intervention at early ages is a bit counter-productive to any actual discussion and that the questions people may have aren’t just the product of transphobes and a figment of the imagination. 

That's the problem tho, surgical intervention at early ages simply doesn't happen, and the misinformation that Oaksoft's bought is the product of transphobia. It's much like you can ask questions about whether the 2020 US Election was stolen - people do have questions about that - however those questions stem from a falsehood, that's then knowingly perpetrated on to the general public who'll take bad faith as good faith at first glance.  

Edited July 29, 2022 by carpetmonster

[carpetmonster]

2 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

I don't think there was any outrage in Carpet Monsters reply, it just pointed out a factual inaccuracy in the post they were replying to.

I'm definitely somewhere between disappointed and bored way more so than outraged, believe me. 

[carpetmonster]

This is worth a read about the small numbers of people who detransition, whether that be after any sort of gender affiriming medical care or not. For instance, in the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret.

Sweden is 2%, and the only country where a higher percentage is reported is the USA where In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures 

Translation: I'm in America, my family are Christian loonballs and I don't want to be ostracized. Also medical care is spotty - getting gender affirming care in Chicago or NYC might be a totally different experience than in rural Oklahoma or Utah (look at the way individual states have reacted to Roe vs Wade being struck down for the unhappy foisting of 'morality' onto healthcare) - and again, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required before insurers will think about coughing up for any gender affirming care. 

https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/

 

Apologies for formatting, not sure what's going on with that. 

[Jambomo]

8 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

I would also say that if you don't know much about this topic (not a criticism, true of most on this thread), it is on you to do a bit of research so that you avoid spouting transphobic talking points.

It's not on trans people and allies to tiptoe around you so that you don't get offended by being called out for posting said talking points.

I mean it’s true of most of society and there will always be people who get things wrong and read the wrong sources, which is why discussion threads like this are useful for learning that and getting the correct and accurate information & sources.

If getting things wrong though, means you are told you are “spreading transphobic messages” etc then it isn’t going to work. Nor is the attitude of “tiptoeing around if you get offended” nobody is asking for that, yet that whole escalation is everything that’s wrong with the debate. You don’t really seem to care about challenging misinformation, more in proving that being wrong = being bigoted. 

 

[Jambomo]

13 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

This is worth a read about the small numbers of people who detransition, whether that be after any sort of gender affiriming medical care or not. For instance, in the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret.

Sweden is 2%, and the only country where a higher percentage is reported is the USA where In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures 

Translation: I'm in America, my family are Christian loonballs and I don't want to be ostracized. Also medical care is spotty - getting gender affirming care in Chicago or NYC might be a totally different experience than in rural Oklahoma or Utah (look at the way individual states have reacted to Roe vs Wade being struck down for the unhappy foisting of 'morality' onto healthcare) - and again, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required before insurers will think about coughing up for any gender affirming care. 

https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/

 

Apologies for formatting, not sure what's going on with that. 

It’s such a shame that 62% of those 8% of people feel they need to detransition because of external pressures. I mean, it’s one thing to change your mind but really another to be forced into it. Shameful.

eta - it’s also sad, though less surprising, to see the levels of harassment and unfairness highlighted in the survey. Especially the police force.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Jambomo

[carpetmonster]

24 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

I mean it’s true of most of society and there will always be people who get things wrong and read the wrong sources, which is why discussion threads like this are useful for learning that and getting the correct and accurate information & sources.

If getting things wrong though, means you are told you are “spreading transphobic messages” etc then it isn’t going to work. Nor is the attitude of “tiptoeing around if you get offended” nobody is asking for that, yet that whole escalation is everything that’s wrong with the debate. You don’t really seem to care about challenging misinformation, more in proving that being wrong = being bigoted. 

 

With the greatest of respect, I think a lot of trans folks are just bored and annoyed that they are a debate. Particularly in the UK where utility bills are about to double, the Prime Minister is about to be chosen by about 0.0003% of the population (I wonder if there's more trans people than Tory Party members, there's a question) and half the country's industry is walking out every other Tuesday - yet the 'culture wars' (translation 'Look! A squirrel!') mean that the 'trans issue' is blasted across every newspaper in the country every day. And the trans community are the ones who are never given a voice in said newspapers to explain that they don't think they're an issue and they'd much rather not be, thankyouverymuch.  And per folks unwittingly and innocently espousing what they don't realise are transphobic talking points - which many do and are horrified to find that out - it again reveals that a lie getting round the world before the truth's got its socks on is unfortunately still very much a truism. 

On one level, it's fantastic that so much bigotry has become social poison - we're not watching sitcoms like 'Curry And Chips' any more (and if you're not familiar, then don't be) and while there's still always work to be done, homophobia has to a large degree gone by the wayside as well. It can seem tho, that transphobia is the last form of socially acceptable hate (and sectarianism in parts of Scotland/NI, natch). I can't imagine how it must feel to hear me talked about and talked over by those with infinitely more power than I'd ever have when I'm just trying to live my life. Even Katy Montgomerie's given up, bless her - 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by carpetmonster

[Jambomo]

9 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

With the greatest of respect, I think a lot of trans folks are just bored and annoyed that they are a debate.

I can completely understand that, it must be very difficult to see it a constant source of discussion and not even being able to have some input into that.

Equally with respect though, we are changing paradigms that have existed for centuries. Not that it’s a bad thing, there’s nothing that shouldn’t be looked at or challenged, but It’s going to be debated and talked about!

There does seem to be in some areas the expectation that it’s been decided and accepted and now everyone just gets on with it. That’s not realistic when you are changing something that’s been a foundational tenet of knowledge for such a long time. 

[Dons_1988]

My daughter is too young for all this but if she got to, say, 10 years old and told me she wanted to be a boy I have to say I’d be extremely uneasy at sending her for medical treatment to deal with it. 

This may be ignorance/bigotry or whatever but it definitely doesn’t feel right to be taking such significant action to young kids. 

[welshbairn]

Just now, Jambomo said:

I can completely understand that, it must be very difficult to see it a constant source of discussion and not even being able to have some input into that.

Equally with respect though, we are changing paradigms that have existed for centuries. Not that it’s a bad thing, there’s nothing that shouldn’t be looked at or challenged, but It’s going to be debated and talked about!

There does seem to be in some areas the expectation that it’s been decided and accepted and now everyone just gets on with it. That’s not realistic when you are changing something that’s been a foundational tenet of knowledge for such a long time. 

We aren't changing paradigms at all, a mad social media controversy has been manufactured about a tiny minority who most people have never encountered. American 4chan types thought it would be fun to wind up the feminazis by pretending to be trans lesbians, posting pictures of themselves in beards and dresses, and claiming that any woman who refused to shag them was a bigot. A certain group of of very naïve feminists, and the odd Irish comic writer and Bath citizen journalist, fell for it and started panicking about beardy men in dresses invading women's toilets. They've had self id in Ireland and a few other countries now for years, with no reported invasions. It's time everyone settled down and realised they've been had.

[carpetmonster]

1 minute ago, Jambomo said:

I can completely understand that, it must be very difficult to see it a constant source of discussion and not even being able to have some input into that.

Equally with respect though, we are changing paradigms that have existed for centuries. Not that it’s a bad thing, there’s nothing that shouldn’t be looked at or challenged, but It’s going to be debated and talked about!

There does seem to be in some areas the expectation that it’s been decided and accepted and now everyone just gets on with it. That’s not realistic when you are changing something that’s been a foundational tenet of knowledge for such a long time. 

I mean, it kinda was, even as recently as a couple of years back. Theresa May's admin did a consultation about making it easier to get a GRA (much like the SNP keep stalling on) and out of over 100,000 responses, two-thirds were in favour. That's now been abandoned. 

Meanwhile Allison Bailey got absolutely rinsed in court by Stonewall yesterday - her one complaint against her employer was held up and she was awarded a nominal sum of 22k in damages. Yet every national newspaper painted it as a win for Bailey (and many of them ran it on their front page - an employment tribunal - why is this front page news?) You have to wonder who's now pushing this and why. For Allison Bailey, the why is obvious - she crowdfunded 500k to go towards her legal costs, so that's certainly a win for her even if the beak told her her case was a load of old shite. 

 

[Jambomo]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

We aren't changing paradigms at all, a mad social media controversy has been manufactured about a tiny minority who most people have never encountered. American 4chan types thought it would be fun to wind up the feminazis by pretending to be trans lesbians, posting pictures of themselves in beards and dresses, and claiming that any woman who refused to shag them was a bigot. A certain group of of very naïve feminists, and the odd Irish comic writer and Bath citizen journalist, fell for it and started panicking about beardy men in dresses invading women's toilets. They've had self id in Ireland and a few other countries now for years, with no reported invasions. It's time everyone settled down and realised they've been had.

Oh no, I don’t mean the stupid toilet and changing room safe space debate, yes that I think is just clearly people trying to repress transrights.

I mean the wide paradigm of being able to change gender, not just to dress or live as a member of the opposite gender but to medically become them. That’s (in the context of history anyway) completely new, that’s the big shift and that’s what I think many people find challenging. For centuries biological sex was the same as gender and that was unalterable - I don’t think you can deny that recent medical developments changing this is a real shift in this area. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Jambomo

[Jambomo]

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It's not that simple. Some people of both sexes are absolutely fucking terrified of what they see as men coming into their daughters toilets. It's possible to appreciate both sides of the argument on this issue and still be very worried about your kids.

We're not doing anyone any favours by simply automatically castigating these people as transphobes.

I can’t agree with that tbf. There isn’t a single woman’s toilet which isn’t a cubicle, we already have for years had mixed use changing rooms for example at places like gyms (the gym I go to for instance!) and swimming pools. 

The actual danger is exaggerated because those who want to go into them will do. All it’s doing is painting transgender people as sexual predators.