Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Funny that the Cass review recommended that Gender identity healthcare needs to be widened and made available regionally and that one of the principal difficulties for Tavistock was its existence as sole provider
If you'd read the actual report first hand rather than what you'd seen on the anti-trans sites you frequent, you'd know this.
You are just like those antivaxxers that spewed out anti-science they had read on conspiracy sites. Everything filtered through the prism of an obsession.
I've read the interim Cass review. Here's article from The Guardian explaining why the Tavistock is closing. It's not because it was doing such a great job that the NHS decided to open a few more.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...wn-london-gender-identity-clinic-for-children
"Inspectors rated it “inadequate” after complaints raised by whistleblowers, patients and families."
"Regional centres would be set up to replace the service and “ensure the holistic needs” of patients are fully met, NHS England said, after being warned that only having one provider was “not a safe or viable long-term option”."
ie. the quality of care at the Tavistock was below par, and not just because of the waiting list, and the 2 new clinics will be holistic - ie. not affirmation only.
If it was that good they would simply keep it and open more on the same model. They aren't.
Read the stories in the Hannah Barnes book then tell me that this wasn't a medical scandal. Or is BBC Newsnight's long established award winning journalist an obsessed, anti-science, trans hating, conspiracy theorist?
Shorter review here:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-hannah-barnes-review-what-went-wrong-at-gids
"The mother of one boy whose OCD was so severe he would leave his bedroom only to shower (he did this five times a day) suspected that his notions about gender had little to do with his distress. However, from the moment he was referred to the Tavistock, he was treated as if he were female and promised an endocrinology appointment."
"Dr Kirsty Entwistle, an experienced clinical psychologist. When she got a job at Gids’ Leeds outpost, she told her new colleagues she didn’t have a gender identity. “I’m just female,” she said. This, she was informed, was transphobic."
I give you credit though. You obviously know far more about the GIDS than the dozens of staff who worked there and were interviewed for the book. You're certainly a brave soul, all that coverage of how children were let down and you're still prepared to come on here and bang the drum for the Tavistock. True believer.
This, finally, might actually be a case of faith being something you believe without evidence!!
AuroraSaab
Squire
Screenshot of some of the Key Points from the Cass review interim report. Bearing in mind that the language used in official reports is always measured and understated, nobody can spin this as a ringing endorsement.
multitool
Pharaoh
Ah, I see we are back to misrepresentation and flat out lying again. As I said, that prism...
Anyway, looks like Posie Parker's Australia tour is going well...
"Destroy Paedo Freaks"
View: https://twitter.com/LilahRPGtt/status/1636901416043442179?s=20
"Destroy Paedo Freaks"
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 121
Guest
They are just pointing to the direction of the sun to travelling solar eclipse enthusiasts.
mudsticks
Squire
You seem to consider yourself a hot shot of debate.
But then come out with stuff like this.🙄
Have you ever considered you might be viewing yourself through the 'prism' of unjustified intellectual superiority?
Without much in the way of humility, or pause for thought, getting in the way.
Having some concerns about the way gender disphoria, and other allied conditions have been treated, just recently.
And having some concerns about the overall effect on the hard won rights of women.
Particularly more vulnerable women
Does not immediately make one a transphobe.
Despite your seemingly very assured* conclusion that it does.
Nor, does having such concerns, immediately ally one with the brutish mob depicted above.
Any more than our defending of transrights allies us with the 'kill the terfs' extremists
You really do like to apply one rule to yourself
And one rule to everyone else, don't you.?
It's the same old same old.
'At the end of the day, us chaps always know best' overconfidence.
*But I guess if you've been brought up in a society that repeatedly tells you that, it will permeate your world view.
monkers
Legendary Member
I don't buy all of this. The 'hard-won rights of women' is a good line and entirely appropriate where women have actually won rights that they didn't have before.
The right to vote would be a good example if it wasn't for the fact that at one time the majority of men were also excluded from the vote. That oppression was not so much rooted in the privilege of being male, but in the privilege of being from the wealthy ruling classes.
When this 'hard-won rights of women' is framed in context with the EqA as it so often is, then some examples of the rights of women that were enhanced by that act and that are impinged upon by trans rights from the 2004 Gender Recognition Act would be pertinent. However this is impossible since it would be an anachronism by default. Even setting that aside, it will still be difficult to make the case for the claim since the EqA does not confer any extra rights of one sex over the other in the category of protected characteristic of 'sex'.
So I can't buy that argument on those terms. If the majority of women believe that the legislation needs to afford sex-based rights specific to women, that is rights not available to men, then they need to campaign on that basis, though this would be an odd-looking optic for an 'Equality Act'.
In the light of my above paragraph, the statement ...
You really do like to apply one rule to yourself
And one rule to everyone else, don't you.?
... doesn't work does it? Multitool is actually arguing for equality rather than for a ruling that favours men. MT's argument is that all people benefit from equality whether they be male or female, man or woman, trans woman or trans man. Therefore I favour that argument, even though it may have imperfections, and may need development. They way to fix inequality is not to be found by advocating inequality for another group.
There are difficulties, but I'm sure there are solutions. It's a pity that too many campaigners are focussing on difference and using the most spurious, deceitful and hate-inciting arguments rather seeking resolution.
Last edited:
mudsticks
Squire
I agree re hate inciting being a problem
But there's no doubt that that is coming from both 'sides'
I wasn't advocating inequality for another group
Although all rights do need to be balanced, and
In some very specific instances the rights of one group, impinges on another.
This part
"You really do like to apply one rule to yourself
And one rule to everyone else, don't you.?"
Was in reference to multitools insisting that AS supports and is allied with those anti trans extremists, that he has pictured and that she is in their 'gang'
But would doubtless be averse to being lumped in with the 'kill all the terfs' mob at the other end.
He is trying to position himself as the cool calm considered voice of reason.
Whilst portraying AS as some rabid anti trans person.
Same old same old, women are the problem, if they raise any concerns they are the the ones who are 'the trouble'.
.
And as classic tried to insinuate, they're probably a little bit, or a lot 'mad' too.
It's routine enough trashing, we do see it.
Not all of us are putting up with it anymore though.
monkers
Legendary Member
We can certainly agree on that. My position has been consistent. This is less of a battle between trans people and cis people, and much more a battle between cis people on two sides of an argument about trans people. The reputations of trans people suffer as a result. Sure some trans people are hot-headed and say some quite mad sounding stuff; but isn't this because some very vulnerable people are being targeted by some very aggressive campaigning?
I see the development of the argument from AS is that because people from the left and people from the right are together in one campaign doesn't mean that they are together in a hive mind. I kind of agree, but it is not a valid argument against the truth that is that campaign language, tactics and strategies look borrowed from the fascists of 1930's Germany. That is a valid comparison.
As a generalisation, and not an accusation against any individual here, I see that so often that one type of bigot is so commonly every type of bigot - that is those who harbour racism, often spout homophobia, transphobia and other forms of bigotry too.
That's the very thing about equality; you can't dice it, slice it or cherry-pick from it, you are either pro-equality for all, or you are not pro-equality.
I'm also fed up with the quasi argument of 'biological scientific reality' and saying that feelings is just stuff in people's heads and doesn't count. The reality is that 'science' is not reality, but the modelling of reality, those models being created just by stuff in people's heads. Scientists are not shy to say when 'science' does not meet expectations, that the model is flawed; that the model needs work, or that better models are needed. Everyday I look out of the window and see that the weather does not match with the forecasts. I notice that the Met office and BBC weather forecasts do not match with each other, and sometimes neither matches with what I see from my window. Meteorology is a science, yet our empirical knowledge is that weather forecasting is not reliable. Biological science is the study of reality, not reality itself. It has not reached an end point.
I'm also fed up with the 'philosophical argument'. I was taught that philosophy aims to use language to clarify. Increasingly I see philosophers developing argument to cement their personal prejudices.
Lastly I see religious belief being used as a justification for bigotry.
I'm not somebody who is prepared to sacrifice my instinct for all humans to exist with equality of rights in the face of false or flawed arguments, be they religious, philosophical, or scientific. We all got here the same way, but that doesn't give some women the freedom, right or privilege to decide the destiny of other women's children due to some delusion of privilege to do so.
monkers
Legendary Member
There's the nub of the problem right there - see the tension between those two positions?
You've said, the problem is absolutism from both sides, but I'm sticking with the absolutism of my side, while trying to sound moderate.
mudsticks
Squire
That's because you're conflating two things.
I'm saying there is a problem with absolutism in the trans issue
My 'not putting up with' is not putting up with the depiction of it generally being women who are the 'problem' when trying to resolve this issue .
Whereas we all know that in an ideal world where women didn't suffer nearly so much oppression, or violence from a not inconsiderable number of men, then very few of us would give much of a stuff about any of it.
The blame has got shifted onto women.
We are not the problem.
I have to go to work now.
monkers
Legendary Member
May that time pass quickly for you so that you can enjoy other things.
AuroraSaab
Squire
You're joking. Not to do with being female? At a time when women and everything they possessed were the property of their husbands, whether rich or poor? They didn't need to check your purse to know who to exclude from voting. The mental gymnastics you're prepared to do to convince yourself are astounding.
