Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

Lupron is not an authorised medicine in the UK.

Lupron is a brand of medicine available in the USA. The active ingredient is Leuprorelin.
Leuprorelin Acetate is listed in the BNF and can therefore be prescribed. Three brands are available, but not Lupron.

 

[icowden]

It's amazing who's transphobic though.

Not as amazing as the fact that none of them have a phobia of trans identified people...

 

[multitool]

Yes, Helen Joyce, respected Irish journalist, International Head of The Economist. She has a Maths degree so probably grasps the statistics on the Tavistock better than any on here.

You think there aren't people here with degree level maths, or higher

I know you like to speak for other people Aurora.

 

[monkers]

Lupron is a brand of medicine available in the USA. The active ingredient is Leuprorelin.
Leuprorelin Acetate is listed in the BNF and can therefore be prescribed. Three brands are available, but not Lupron.

Thanks, I already know, but that doesn't have any effect on what I had said. LA is prescribed to children in the UK who have a diagnosis of precocious puberty, often a younger ages than were ever prescribed to children at the Tavistock centre.

 

[icowden]

Thanks, I already know, but that doesn't have any effect on what I had said.

Eh?

Isn't it the same as saying that Neurofen cannot be prescribed in the UK without acknowledging that you can still get Ibuprofen? The actual active medical ingredient is available in the UK on prescription.

 

[monkers]

Eh?

Isn't it the same as saying that Neurofen cannot be prescribed in the UK without acknowledging that you can still get Ibuprofen? The actual active medical ingredient is available in the UK on prescription.

Containing the same active ingredient is not the same thing as the product. As a general point about medicines, the amount of active ingredient may be different, the method of delivery can be different, ie injectable, oral, rectally, or trans dermal. Injectables can tend to leave spikes in levels and cause localised symptoms. Trans dermal medicines are more level.

Also consider the presence or otherwise of symptom suppressants.

For example the medicine Sodium Dichlofenac can be prescribed as an oral medicine but is not recommended since it is a stomach irritant which can lead to bleeding. A number of products are available containing the active ingredient but also contain ingredients to prevent stomach irritation. More recently it is available as an over the counter medication, because as a gel it is safer.

One can not simply compare products on the basis of one shared ingredient.

 

[monkers]

The active ingredient of Lupron is Luprorelin, which is used in the UK, though not used to block puberty unless the child has a reaction to Triptorelin - which is a GnRH analog drug in the same family. So bit like saying Anadin rather than asprin.

Look at us though. Talking about giving drugs that noone knows the long term side effects to kids age 10 and up as though it's the most natural thing in the world.

And kids who go puberty blockers invariably go on to cross sex hormones. Whereas if they don't, body dysphoria most often desists after adolescence.



Yes, Helen Joyce, respected Irish journalist, International Head of The Economist. She has a Maths degree so probably grasps the statistics on the Tavistock better than any on here.

It's amazing who's transphobic though. The medical experts in Holland, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, who have rowed back on using puberty blockers. Award winning Newsnight journalists who exposed the Tavistock. Sports scientists and researchers. Obviously despite their qualifications and experience none of them have grasped the issues and the research as well as folk on a niche sports forum can. Probably all fascists and Nazis too, I expect.

Better to believe the doctors in the US who make their living from double mastectomies on teens and have a vested interest in having people on meds for life. Better still, let activists dictate medical care. That'll probably be fine too.

There's a difference between the opinion of medical experts who have opinions about treatments and those people who oppose the rights of trans people on various grounds to seize on those views for their own purposes. A medical professional does not make such leaps as to say that they consider the efficacy of a treatment to be under-researched, only to use that argument to also argue trans women should not use the women's loos. Medical opinions do and will vary, it's why some people insist on second opinions.

Your own approach, like some others, is to seize upon any argument possible to prevent trans people having access to their own human rights. This is the approach even when one of the arguments directly acts in contradiction with another - something which has been pointed out to you so often.

 

[classic33]

It was a late stage cancer drug, now used 'off label' for gender medicine and other stuff.

The US FDA added an extra warning to it last year, that it might cause brain swelling and blindness in children. Personally I don't think children can understand the possible long term health effects of puberty blockers and hormones, and as such can't give informed consent at 11 or 12. European countries seem to be thinking the same now.

It still is used in the UK for cancer treatment.

How many children under the age of 12 can fully understand the long term effects, to them, of any medication? Thereby giving informed consent. How many adults can do the same.

I started on one in March '77. My "goal" at that time was if it can slow down/decrease the number of seizures I'd be willing to use it. And I was asked if I would be happy using it(Knowing then that it may well be lifelong medication). It did, but not as much as I'd expected. I'm still on it now.

 

[classic33]

The active ingredient of Lupron is Luprorelin, which is used in the UK, though not used to block puberty unless the child has a reaction to Triptorelin - which is a GnRH analog drug in the same family. So bit like saying Anadin rather than asprin.

Look at us though. Talking about giving drugs that noone knows the long term side effects to kids age 10 and up as though it's the most natural thing in the world.

And kids who go puberty blockers invariably go on to cross sex hormones. Whereas if they don't, body dysphoria most often desists after adolescence.



Yes, Helen Joyce, respected Irish journalist, International Head of The Economist. She has a Maths degree so probably grasps the statistics on the Tavistock better than any on here.

It's amazing who's transphobic though. The medical experts in Holland, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, who have rowed back on using puberty blockers. Award winning Newsnight journalists who exposed the Tavistock. Sports scientists and researchers. Obviously despite their qualifications and experience none of them have grasped the issues and the research as well as folk on a niche sports forum can. Probably all fascists and Nazis too, I expect.

Better to believe the doctors in the US who make their living from double mastectomies on teens and have a vested interest in having people on meds for life. Better still, let activists dictate medical care. That'll probably be fine too.

The same Helen Joyce who
had spoken in favour of "reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition" and that "every one of those people is a person who's been damaged" and "every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world".

 

[icowden]

Your own approach, like some others, is to seize upon any argument possible to prevent trans people having access to their own human rights. This is the approach even when one of the arguments directly acts in contradiction with another - something which has been pointed out to you so often.

I don't think that it is. It has been stated repeatedly that no-one has a problem with accommodating trans people, or has an issue with them being able to behave as the gender they prefer. Is it not normal to be concerned about offering invasive, destructive surgery to people? Is it not a right for women question when they are told that they can no longer have safe spaces, and that their lesbian groups must now admit anyone identifying as female?

I think Aurora echoes the concerns of many when we are told that every accomodation must be made because trans people are delicate ephemeral butterflies where using a deadname or getting a pronoun wrong might result in suicide. There is a narrative which has built up where by any discussion must be closed down, disagreement is not tolerated.

Hence Simon Fanshawe, James Dretfuss, Kathleen Stock being cancelled and in some cases attacked. If there is nothing to worry about, then why must we be so concerned that discussion and alternative viewpoints are shouted down? Usually that is the domain of totalitarian dictatorships.

It's quite clear that there are misconceptions, potential problems, abuse and misinformation going on. Stifling discussion because you don't want to hear it is not the solution.

 

[monkers]

I don't think that it is. It has been stated repeatedly that no-one has a problem with accommodating trans people, or has an issue with them being able to behave as the gender they prefer. Is it not normal to be concerned about offering invasive, destructive surgery to people? Is it not a right for women question when they are told that they can no longer have safe spaces, and that their lesbian groups must now admit anyone identifying as female?

I think Aurora echoes the concerns of many when we are told that every accomodation must be made because trans people are delicate ephemeral butterflies where using a deadname or getting a pronoun wrong might result in suicide. There is a narrative which has built up where by any discussion must be closed down, disagreement is not tolerated.

Hence Simon Fanshawe, James Dretfuss, Kathleen Stock being cancelled and in some cases attacked. If there is nothing to worry about, then why must we be so concerned that discussion and alternative viewpoints are shouted down? Usually that is the domain of totalitarian dictatorships.

It's quite clear that there are misconceptions, potential problems, abuse and misinformation going on. Stifling discussion because you don't want to hear it is not the solution.

This really is a proper bullshit post I'm afraid. You keep doing this to me, coming along mainsplaining about what it means to be a woman, and now mainsplaining to an openly gay woman about lesbians. Least this is how it feels. Just pack it in.

Nobody has said that trans women are delicate little butterflies that need to be wrapped in cotton wool - this is bullshit.

This cancelling argument is bullshit too. It is a human right to be able to speak truth to power; it is not a human right to use one's platform to incite hatred or promote harassment of vulnerable people. Free speech is not without consequence. One possible consequence is falling foul of the law, another is that people just don't want to hear you.

People who own premises, such as pubs, hotels, comedy clubs etc have rights too. If a comedy club doesn't wish to give a platform to someone who is not a comedian, is that not a prerogative? They have their own 'brand' and business interests to protect.

If the owner of a venue feels strongly that they don't happen to agree with a hirer, can they not insist on their philosophical beliefs are protected too by denying the hiring?

It's curious isn't it, that Maya Forstater can have a protected belief, but those with the opposite protected belief are not deemed worthy of the same protection under the law?

There was the 'gay cake' episode that even went as far as the ECtHR. Ashers the bakers refused to make a cake. This was another case about 'protected belief', in this case religious belief. Although the court ruled in favour of Ashers, there were consequences, their trade fell away due to the publicity, they ultimately closed the business.

What is being insisted upon here is that those with a gender critical belief must be free to express it wherever they like, but those who don't agree should just shut up, and those caught up in the middle should just be complicit with the wishes of the GC brigade.

 

[classic33]

I don't think that it is. It has been stated repeatedly that no-one has a problem with accommodating trans people, or has an issue with them being able to behave as the gender they prefer. Is it not normal to be concerned about offering invasive, destructive surgery to people? Is it not a right for women question when they are told that they can no longer have safe spaces, and that their lesbian groups must now admit anyone identifying as female?

I think Aurora echoes the concerns of many when we are told that every accomodation must be made because trans people are delicate ephemeral butterflies where using a deadname or getting a pronoun wrong might result in suicide. There is a narrative which has built up where by any discussion must be closed down, disagreement is not tolerated.

Hence Simon Fanshawe, James Dretfuss, Kathleen Stock being cancelled and in some cases attacked. If there is nothing to worry about, then why must we be so concerned that discussion and alternative viewpoints are shouted down? Usually that is the domain of totalitarian dictatorships.

It's quite clear that there are misconceptions, potential problems, abuse and misinformation going on. Stifling discussion because you don't want to hear it is not the solution.

That's not quite the picture she's been painting though. Trans people are dangerous, especially trans women, who are using/playing the system to cheat their way to the top. Get an easier prison sentence. If you can count 23 hours in solitary as an easier prison sentence. Guards/staff required because they are so violent, and a danger to other women prisoners. The guards assigned for their protection, from other women prisoners. Saying that trans men are at a similar risk of harming others due to the increased level of testosterone they now have.

When it comes to children, she only sees girls as needing single sex facilities, not boys. Women have no other reason for being in their single sex space, and they're not a danger to them either. Look at Rochdale, Keighley*, Rotherham and you'll see they're as big a danger as men.
*Over 13 women charged in the procurement of children for adults. Part of a larger nationwide operation.

Men can have no problem accepting trans men, after all they now identify as men, in their single sex spaces. Even if these are used by boys. Trans women on the other hand, remain men, and should have no right of access to women only spaces. Especially if there's girls using them.
It's a one way narrative, Men are the issue/the problem, not women.

She has a fixation on toilets, which when questioned about refuses to answer. Relying on their "women only spaces". More recently she's advocated that womens toilets be turned into an area that "normal people" don't want to use, so they, "normal people" should have separate facilities made available to them. Basically she wants women to go back to the early days of disabled toilets, hidden away, where you wouldn't go. I have asked for clarification on this part, but she's having trouble working out what I meant. Her own words were quoted, and she doesn't know what they mean!

There's something that's frightening her and until she can tell herself, truthfully what it is, she has no chance of getting anyone else to understand.

 

[multitool]

Nobody has said that trans women are delicate little butterflies that need to be wrapped in cotton wool - this is bullshit.

Bzzzzt correction!

Yes they have. The transphobes have. It's part of their nasty little attack lines. It's a bit like WW2 era anti-semites complaining that the Jews were demanding.

Its part of building up the dehumanisation and hatred.

 

[icowden]

That's not quite the picture she's been painting though. Trans people are dangerous, especially trans women, who are using/playing the system to cheat their way to the top. Get an easier prison sentence. If you can count 23 hours in solitary as an easier prison sentence. Guards/staff required because they are so violent, and a danger to other women prisoners. The guards assigned for their protection, from other women prisoners. Saying that trans men are at a similar risk of harming others due to the increased level of testosterone they now have.

That's slightly inaccurate. It is the risk of men, not transwomen using/playing the system. There are some grounds for suspecting that people like "Barbie Kardashian" are not transwomen at all, but men gaming the system. There is certainly a body of evidence that suggests some men use trans identities as a kind of sexual fetish. I don't think these are the same people as those who genuinely consider themselves Trans.

When it comes to children, she only sees girls as needing single sex facilities, not boys. Women have no other reason for being in their single sex space, and they're not a danger to them either. Look at Rochdale, Keighley*, Rotherham and you'll see they're as big a danger as men.

That's not really borne out by statistics. There are far more predatory males, and far more sexual abuse of children by males than women.

Men can have no problem accepting trans men, after all they now identify as men, in their single sex spaces. Even if these are used by boys.

Again, I don't think anyone has said that. Transmen tend not to get talked about as men are the physically stronger sex and capable of sexual penetration. A generic "smaller weaker" person identifying as a "stronger bigger" person is less problematic than vice versa.

It's a one way narrative, Men are the issue/the problem, not women.

Yes, because men are stronger, more predatory. That isn't to say that there aren't outliers, but biologically men are there to impregnate as many women as possible to make babies. Women are there to be impregnated and create new offspring to propagate the species.

She has a fixation on toilets, which when questioned about refuses to answer

Fair point. I think the toilet thing is a dead cat.

 

[icowden]

Its part of building up the dehumanisation and hatred.

I think that bit is in your mind.

There is no dehumanisation and hatred. For the most part, most people considered "terfs" and "transphobes" have no phobia, no hatred and have no problem with trans people at all. What they want is to ensure safeguards are in place and to have a public discussion about it, or carry out research without people shouting about it and trying to silence them / get them sacked / stop them working etc.

Portraying an alternative view as dehumanisation and hatred is as reductive and pointless as it is untrue.