Gender again. Sorry!

[newfhouse]

genuine dysphoria

Who decides if it is “genuine”, and on what evidence? Twitter vote?

 

[classic33]

What crime statistics were those?

You've posted that three trans women were held in the women's section of Limerick Prison, needing guards to escort them round, for their one hour outside of their cells in solitary. That turned out to be completely untrue. One trans women in Dublin Prison had an escort for her safety.
One held in Limerick wasn't in the women's section and the third was on day release. Violent prisoners don't generally get given day release privileges.

As for limiting access to single sex spaces, you appear to be only bothered about how it may possibly impact on yourself. Using "the majority" view, as you see it to try and make your point seem valid. It's scaremongering at it's most basic level, and it appears to be the only way you want to work.

Women aren't the danger, only men. Unless they happen to be trans men, in which case the process they are undergoing makes them a danger, and they shouldn't be in women only areas.

You are the only one in here advocating creating a third class of person, with their own facilities. So long as you don't have to have them near you, you don't care. That at least is the attitude you are projecting.

The Ladies Gaelic Football Association seem to have a different view on trans women in their sport.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ga...-light-by-ladies-gaelic-football-association/

 

[icowden]

If you are a transwoman, then under your new identity you will be recorded as Male. Your gender identity will be recorded as female.
That's if the software is up to date enough to be able to do it. Otherwise your gender identity will be a written note and and alert probably.

Need to correct myself here.
Under your new identity there are two / three fields depending on area of medicine:-

• Person stated gender code (this can also be described as Person Phenotypic Sex)
• Gender identity same at birth indicator
• Gender identity (sexual health)

And this is where it can get dangerous. In order to person stated gender (which traditionally is your biological gender), you the patient have to state that that is your gender. At the same time (hopefully) something has to be set to indicate if your gender identity is the same as your gender at birth. That can be done via a separate field to record gender identity.

At the same time, if you do have a new record, your GP has to update it with all previous medical information from the original medical record. Any information relating to the patient’s previous identity should not be included in the new record.

Ideally it works, but in a system designed around biological gender, mistakes can easily be made if the record is unclear. Additionally there is a conflict between recording the new record as female but also fulfilling the terms of the field definition depending on how it is defined.

As hospitals etc get better electronic patient record systems, hopefully this will get ironed out, but many have terrible ones at the moment.

 

[icowden]

Who decides if it is “genuine”, and on what evidence? Twitter vote?

Well currently you need a diagnosis and to live for two years as your assigned gender.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[icowden]

Please do stop making stuff up. You are now even inventing conversations between doctors and patients. I'm going to need a lot of convincing that you have these magical powers.

What are you on about? I've worked with patient records for 30 years and in NHS data for 14 years, including programmes involving the National Spine and multiple different electronic patient record systems.

There was no conversation in the post. There was a suggestion that a good GP should warn you that whilst they can request a new NHS number you should take care with the process. They also have a lot of data to try to transfer to the new number and a lot of the software in use is utter crap for doing that. It still, quite often involves cut and paste. Your existing record can easily be amended to your new name and title, and for most people that is sufficient.

If you think a GP is going to copy across 20 years of medical notes trying to remove every reference to "he" or "him", you are much mistaken. Then there are all the PDF documents. None of those can be taken across if they refer to your old identity. Your new record is going to be next to empty. This may not be the best for your continued good health.

 

[newfhouse]

Well currently you need a diagnosis and to live for two years as your assigned gender.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Would you respect the judgement of a doctor in making such a diagnosis? If so, what accommodations are reasonable?

 

[monkers]

Need to correct myself here.
Under your new identity there are two / three fields depending on area of medicine:-

• Person stated gender code (this can also be described as Person Phenotypic Sex)
• Gender identity same at birth indicator
• Gender identity (sexual health)

And this is where it can get dangerous. In order to person stated gender (which traditionally is your biological gender), you the patient have to state that that is your gender. At the same time (hopefully) something has to be set to indicate if your gender identity is the same as your gender at birth. That can be done via a separate field to record gender identity.

At the same time, if you do have a new record, your GP has to update it with all previous medical information from the original medical record. Any information relating to the patient’s previous identity should not be included in the new record.

Ideally it works, but in a system designed around biological gender, mistakes can easily be made if the record is unclear. Additionally there is a conflict between recording the new record as female but also fulfilling the terms of the field definition depending on how it is defined.

As hospitals etc get better electronic patient record systems, hopefully this will get ironed out, but many have terrible ones at the moment.

Thank you for this. Your new research has brought you closer. The NHS requires differing levels of markers for differing services. To this end differing levels of data sharing occur.

Medical practitioners require 'foundational identity' for some purposes, and 'functional attribute' for others. In some cases elements can be intersectional.

In terms of what you said about GPs, that wasn't correct. People who complete transition (ie have a GRC) are by default recoded. The medical records of the previous identity are archived.

The GMC tells doctors they should otherwise change the record of a person's gender / sex at their request. This does not require the patient to have so much as started transition. This is not reserved for people who are trans identifying but for anyone.

There have been multiple changes in the NHS patient number coding system over time, so a simple analysis is not possible. However I happen to know that difficulties have arisen with these numbers, since the number codes element of foundational identity and functional attribute which exposes contradiction.

At one time the NHS numbers given to GRC holding trans people included an incorrect coding that indicated to hospitals that the patient was not a British citizen and not entitled to treatment under the NHS. This has caused absolute nightmares for some trans people and considerable embarrassment for hospital staff.

 

[monkers]

What are you on about? I've worked with patient records for 30 years and in NHS data for 14 years, including programmes involving the National Spine and multiple different electronic patient record systems.

There was no conversation in the post. There was a suggestion that a good GP should warn you that whilst they can request a new NHS number you should take care with the process. They also have a lot of data to try to transfer to the new number and a lot of the software in use is utter crap for doing that. It still, quite often involves cut and paste. Your existing record can easily be amended to your new name and title, and for most people that is sufficient.

If you think a GP is going to copy across 20 years of medical notes trying to remove every reference to "he" or "him", you are much mistaken. Then there are all the PDF documents. None of those can be taken across if they refer to your old identity. Your new record is going to be next to empty. This may not be the best for your continued good health.

Yes if a patient was requesting a change to their sex / gender identity. Otherwise no. See my post above.

 

[monkers]

Well currently you need a diagnosis and to live for two years as your assigned gender.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The WHO say that a doctor can not make a 'diagnosis' of a non-existent illness. So how is it that the UK still spends resources on a non illness that can can not be diagnosed? Not that they spend enough money to make the system work because they don't, and the queues are horrendous.

That is why the recommendations of two long and complex all party select committees have recommended to UK government to stop wasting money, provide better service, and simplify the procedure. The committees were chaired by Conservatives in both instances, Maria Miller in the first and Caroline Nokes in the second.

Theresa May while PM listened accepted the recommendations in full and promised to implement them. She got booted shortly after of course due to Johnson's aspirations and Brexit and all that. Since May we've governments who are invested in the idea that they can court the electorate at election times with promises to tackle the culture war between them and 'the woke' - a culture was of their own manufacture.

Dominic Cummings was privy to those conversations and revealed it because of being booted. 30p Lee is saying as much because he's not bright enough to know that he shouldn't be revealing their secret election strategy.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Quote me saying that I 'don't believe law professors or Nobel Prize winning biologists'.

Quote me saying that I 'don't believe sports scientists, or crime statistics'.

There's a decent search function here, shouldn't take you more than a few seconds.

Lol. On the Equality Act you simply ignore what law professors say and expect us to believe your lawyer relative knows better.

On contradicting Winston, Dawkins, et al who say sex is binary and you can't change sex see your Post # 2114.

What I have challenged is this GC claim that sex is 'binary and immutable', since it isn't. Nature intends our species to be capable of reproduction, therefore reproductive sex is binary. That people exist without the capacity for reproduction due to difference in their biology illustrates the fact that reproductive sex is not binary, but it doesn't stop them from being human, or from having feelings such as maternal or paternal instinct.

On sports you've directed people to an opinion piece that posits trans inclusion, which you called a 'study' before you were corrected. Post #1351:

Hiya. There's a new study published. You might find this helpful ...
https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/f...lbHruCJDOWm2X7feQRwUdFwO1UnPSRFSnOYanXiZWKrK0

Your only purpose in this thread is to obfuscate the issues with long irrelevant essays and constant allegations and abuse. It helps to obscure the fact that gender ideology is a house built on sand. None of it stands up to objective analysis.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Who decides if it is “genuine”, and on what evidence? Twitter vote?

If your gender identity affected noone else, it wouldn't matter. It does however so a better question might be: Should there be any gatekeeping for those who seek access to medicines which can have irreversible effects, surgeries that cannot be undone, and access to single sex spaces?

We routinely gatekeep over other issues - both for the individual's involved benefit and society's - why should this area be exempt?

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

I haven't disagreed with any law professors. You keep saying I have, but where is the evidence? Maybe that if you keep saying it then it somehow comes true. Maybe it's a good example of that 'magical thinking' that you often talk about.

Quote me saying that I disagree with these law professors. I don't even know who I am supposedly disagreeing with.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women aren't the danger, only men.

Bingo.

You are the only one in here advocating creating a third class of person, with their own facilities.

A third space that is unisex - anybody can use it. Not third class. Problem solved. Trans people have services and facilities just for them, but you seem to want to deny women the same thing.

The Ladies Gaelic Football Association seem to have a different view on trans women in their sport.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ga...-light-by-ladies-gaelic-football-association/

Yes, and players and clubs have been forbidden from voicing their opinions and given a script to spout.

https://www.thesun.ie/sport/gaa-football/10514786/lgfa-document-ladies-footballers-launch/

Women's pro Danielle Loughrey has spoken out against it. 'She told Gript that there was “massive opposition” to the transgender policy across the country but that club members and players and volunteers had not been consulted and were afraid to speak out'.

https://gript.ie/ladies-football-trans-row-members-told-to-avoid-giving-opinions/

Barbie Khardashian is being moved from Limerick btw.

https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/iri...over-fears-of-attack-on-staff/a659395218.html

 

[monkers]

On contradicting Winston, Dawkins, et al who say sex is binary and you can't change sex see your Post # 2114.

What I have challenged is this GC claim that sex is 'binary and immutable', since it isn't. Nature intends our species to be capable of reproduction, therefore reproductive sex is binary. That people exist without the capacity for reproduction due to difference in their biology illustrates the fact that reproductive sex is not binary, but it doesn't stop them from being human, or from having feelings such as maternal or paternal instinct.

That does not say that I disagree with Winston or Dawkins. It says I have challenged the GC claim. You are surely aware of the many geneticists who say that sex is not binary or immutable. I don't think I've ever mentioned Dawkins. I gave my views on Winston earlier up the thread, so I need not repeat.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Dawkins and Winston and the vast majority of biologists make the same claim as gender critical folk re sex being binary and immutable so that's a bit like saying 'I disagree with your belief in gravity, I haven't said anything about what Isaac Newton believes'.
Many geneticists? I know of a few doctors who dispute the binary nature of sex but they are mostly reliant for their income on willfully ignoring the scientific concensus.