Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full (Study of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder, 2021).

"Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters".

This study references other studies specifically on boys. The number who persisted with a transgender identity was as follows:

'Small sample studies' overall rate was 9.4% persisted.
Green study: 2% persisted.
Wallian/Cohen-Kettenis study: 20.3% persisted.
Steensma study: 29.1% persisted.

Across all the named studies it was 17.4% of boys/men who persisted. So that's over 80% who did not persist as transwomen on follow up.


View attachment 3891


The criticism that transactivists make of all these studies is that the children who desisted as young adults were not really trans at all. The point is though they were 'trans enough' to get a diagnosis at a clinic from specialist doctors and presumably access to puberty blockers and possibly cross sex hormones. If doctors can't judge who is genuinely transgender with any kind of accuracy, is it wise to be putting kids and young people on life changing puberty blockers, and then hormones? Surely better to wait until they are adults?

I'll have a look for other studies that also cover girls tomorrow. Will probably be fewer available.

Ciri - show me a case of a liar cherry-picking text to mischaracterise a cohort of people in context.

I've followed the link to where this came from. Ye Gods how you lie. The study ...

Not the UK.

Boys only.

Outdated.

Numbers include boys questioning sexual orientation (same sex attracted}. The opening text of what the study examined are as follows ...

This study reports follow-up data on the largest sample to date of boys clinic-referred for gender dysphoria (n = 139) with regard to gender identity and sexual orientation. In childhood, the boys were assessed at a mean age of 7.49 years (range, 3.33–12.99) at a mean year of 1989 and followed-up at a mean age of 20.58 years (range, 13.07–39.15) at a mean year of 2002. In childhood, 88 (63.3%) of the boys met the DSM-III, III-R, or IV criteria for gender identity disorder; the remaining 51 (36.7%) boys were subthreshold for the criteria.

So now Aurora ... let's see something that relates to what we are talking about. Seriously if this is all you've got, you really should sit down.

 

[multitool]

So now Aurora ... let's see something that relates to what we are talking about. Seriously if this is all you've got, you really should sit down.

STOP TRYING TO SILENCE WOMEN

(that's how it goes, isn't it?)

 

[monkers]

STOP TRYING TO SILENCE WOMEN

(that's how it goes, isn't it?)

Indeed.

I could mischaracterise data from this source in the same way.

For example, here's the proof ... in order to collect meaningful data in Canada in 1989, a boy of 3 years and 4 months old was asked about his sexual fantasies - he didn't go on to be trans; therefore I'm right that many trans people are misdiagnosed.

 

[icowden]

Ciri - show me a case of a liar cherry-picking text to mischaracterise a cohort of people in context.
I've followed the link to where this came from. Ye Gods how you lie. The study ...
Not the UK.
Boys only.
Outdated.

So it doesn't count and you feel you have to characterise the poster as a liar. Rather than posting refutations or why you feel that that study isn't representative and engaging in positive discussion you do exactly what @multitool refers to.

You go back to the message that AS is stupid, a liar and should be quiet. Which is exactly the point. If you want to change people's minds you need to engage positively rather than reductively.

Why is ths study invalid because it was carried out in Canada? Don't other countries count? What has changed since 2002 that invalidates the findings of the study?

 

[icowden]

That stuff from the Mayo applies to the states, but it's not how it's done over here. Different countries have differing regimes. Some places use combinations of blockers, oestrogen and progesterone in their regimes. The UK system relies on heavy doses of oestrogen, typically 6mg per day orally or otherwise, and more often trans-dermal patches. This causes dramatic effects in terms of genital and gonadal atrophy. I spoke about this before, but I left out an important aspect (I thought I'd said enough).,

So my point stands. You have to take additional doses of hormone - what AS referred to as external hormones.

So let's please clear this up once and for all, while a trans woman undergoing hormone replacement therapy they may have 'male genitals', however the possibility of erection, orgasm and ejaculation are not realistically feasible. Despite the wild claims made by others, it is simply not possible for the cohort of trans women undergoing hormone therapy to have male patterns of rape, which is why you don't hear about it.

Fair enough, and thank you for this. I think, as I have said before, concerns are not about people who are genuinely trans and actively transitioning. They are about the peripheral increase in people who want to exploit it or fetishise it.

Hence the author of the Swedish study trying to clarify that her study should not be used to say that statistically trans women commit rape as much as the men. She has clarified to say this is not the case. You will understand that this is not a fit with the allegations made by some.

From what you have said it would also be very important to distinguish the genuinely trans and transitioning from those who might want to exploit or fetishise it. There does seem to be increasing evidence of this.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ciri - show me a case of a liar cherry-picking text to mischaracterise a cohort of people in context.

It's 'Siri' by the way.

I've followed the link to where this came from. Ye Gods how you lie. The study ...

Not the UK.

Why does that matter? Do foreign children have different brains from UK kids? Do you dismiss all scientific research done by non UK scientists? Seems a bit selective of you.

Boys only.

Yes, we know. It said it in the title. The reason being that the massive upsurge in girls being referred to gender clinics is a recent thing so most follow up studies will be on boys. Why would it be different results from a study on girls?

Outdated.

ie. numerous studies over a number of years have shown the same thing.

Numbers include boys questioning sexual orientation (same sex attracted}. The opening text of what the study examined are as follows ...

Missed something out here????

Yes - lots of those given a diagnosis of trans were same sex attracted. The relevance of this is that they were actually just gay - not girls, not born in the wrong body, just gay boys who thought they were the opposite sex (or whose parents did). But they were still given a diagnosis of being transgirls by 'experts'. The Tavistock stats show 60% of girls referred were same sex attracted btw.

So now Aurora ... let's see something that relates to what we are talking about. Seriously if this is all you've got, you really should sit down.

You've done absolutely nothing to undermine the conclusions of those research papers. You just think if you say it enough times it will convince people.

The fact that you think being rude is an refutation of academic research is quite something though.


Unfortunately the Tavistock didn't do any follow ups so we don't know the UK figures. We have no idea if all those kids persisted in a trans identity as young adults or not. We don't know if the Tavistock was 'successful'. They kept doling out the puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and nobody cared enough to find out what happened later.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Here's some 2023 research on girls referred to the Tavistock. 80% of the 81 kids in the study were girls. All 81 had socially transitioned, 75% fully. Most reported a reduction in bullying etc. after social transitioning and before they were seen at the clinic. (Meets your ridiculous only acceptable criteria of girls, up to date, UK based....)

"However, young people continued to dislike their bodies, and experience low mood and social connectedness".
https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr614452

Guess what? Being socially transitioned didn't make them feel any better. Almost as if 'being a boy' didn't automatically solve their problems. The next step might be 'Puberty blockers will make me feel better', then 'Testosterone will make me feel better', then 'If I have my breasts removed that will do it'..... on and on looking for the magic wand that will solve their problems. These children are being failed by the affirmation only model and failed by the doctors who put them on a medical pathway for being gay and gender non conforming.

 

[multitool]

You go back to the message that AS is stupid, a liar and should be quiet. Which is exactly the point. If you want to change people's minds you need to engage positively rather than reductively.

Do you remember how climate change deniers on twitter would posts screenshots of decontextualised data? Anti-vaxxers did it too.

Remind you of anyone?

The point being is that these people are captured by a conspiracy theory that results in a faith-based belief system. People like AS will never change their minds because they have a psychological predisposition for this kind of thing. If it wasn't wanging on endlessly about TW it would be shouting at 5g masts.

 

[monkers]

You go back to the message that AS is stupid, a liar and should be quiet. Which is exactly the point. If you want to change people's minds you need to engage positively rather than reductively.

No, she and others should tell the truth. Being a woman saying, 'I will not silenced' is not enough'. As a woman I find it embarrassing actually to see that claim. Being a woman is no special dispensation from being truthful. When one is insistent on following the science, one must also be truthful about what research actually says.

If they can't attempt to 'win' the argument with the truth, then anyone should be free to call them out on their lies. The problem being that other people including your good self, while acting in good faith, can fall into the trap of repeating those lies as though they are believable and believed.

The pursuit is to change UK law. This obviously will only have the effect of what we can expect to happen in the UK. We have a poster here gish galloping about health assistants in one breath, to prisoners, in the next, pronouns in another, then gametes. This is the MO of somebody just determined to justify their own bigotry by whatever means. Whenever asked for the evidence that will stand up the claims, they fail.

Historic data from Canada looking into the sexual orientation of boys from the age of 3 years 4 months has no relevance to the issues being discussed here - please let's not pretend that it does.

Read the study, it centres on asking very young boys about their sexual fantasies in order to discover if the are gay, trans, both, or neither.

If the Tavistock was basing clinical decisions on this kind of data, AS would be here complaining about that, and in that case rightly so.

 

[icowden]

No, she and others should tell the truth. Being a woman saying, 'I will not silenced' is not enough'. As a woman I find it embarrassing actually to see that claim. Being a woman is no special dispensation from being truthful. When one is insistent on following the science, one must also be truthful about what research actually says.

I respectfully have to disagree. Research can be interpreted and different studies have different outcomes. As such there is no single "truth" here, only differences of opinion. A difference of opinion, or even misunderstanding a study does not make someone a liar.

If you think they got it wrong, explain why and help them out. Otherwise you are no better than @multitool and his vuvuzela.

 

[icowden]

The point being is that these people are captured by a conspiracy theory that results in a faith-based belief system. People like AS will never change their minds because they have a psychological predisposition for this kind of thing. If it wasn't wanging on endlessly about TW it would be shouting at 5g masts.

The point is that there is an opposing group also being captured by a conspiracy theory that results in a faith-based belief system. How else can you describe the insistence that biological men are women and will immediately die if you refer to them as men, despite the evidence to the contrary?

Both groups do a great disservice to those people actually experiencing gender dysphoria.

And, as I keep pointing out, the evidence keeps stacking up that there are some very unstable people piggybacking on the problems of those who genuinely have gender dysphoria. This just in from Scotland:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65610429

We have been repeatedly told that transwomen are not a danger to men as the hormone treatment prevents them from getting an erection or being interested in sex. I keep trying to point out that the problem is that the idea of transwomen is now being invaded by this sort of person who dresses as a woman but is, going by @monkers detailed posts, not taking hormone therapy. Of course that isn't compulsory, but there is evidence that we need to be ensuring that changes to make the world a better place for transwomen (and transmen) do not make it a worse place for women.

 

[monkers]

I respectfully have to disagree. Research can be interpreted and different studies have different outcomes. As such there is no single "truth" here, only differences of opinion. A difference of opinion, or even misunderstanding a study does not make someone a liar.

If you think they got it wrong, explain why and help them out. Otherwise you are no better than @multitool and his vuvuzela.

It does if they cherry-pick the hell out of it to conceal the truth.

 

[icowden]

It does if they cherry-pick the hell out of it to conceal the truth.

How can you conceal something that doesn't exist? There is no single version of the truth here.

 

[monkers]

going by @monkers detailed posts, not taking hormone therapy. Of course that isn't compulsory, but there is evidence that we need to be ensuring that changes to make the world a better place for transwomen (and transmen) do not make it a worse place for women.

Thank you. Having the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' alone does not change the legal sex of the person. A person assigned male at birth but protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment remains legally male. There is no need to change the law in order to make that so, it already is so.

The push to change the law is specifically aimed at trans women with a GRC who are perceived as some special kind of threat. However your internet search produced four results, none of whom was a case in the UK of a trans woman with a GRC assaulting a cis woman in a public loo.

There are no known cases despite GRCs being granted in the UK since 2006. The law says that trans women with a GRC are entitled to be in the toilets that accord with their legal sex. Women's toilets have a private space behind each cubicle door. In the communal area for hand washing etc, women cis and trans share that space. There is no evidence of cis women being harmed, there is no affront to dignity in washing one's hands in front of a person different somehow to yourself. It's an utter non-story.

The goal is to repeal the gender recognition act, to repeal gender reassignment from the equality act, and to define sex in law as biological sex only. That is the ambition.

 

[classic33]

How can you conceal something that doesn't exist? There is no single version of the truth here.

You mean there's more than one truth?