Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

Who's saying all transwomen are gay males? I was referring to the kids (male and female) referred to the Tavistock -

Jesus christ, why do you have to make everything about you?

 

[AuroraSaab]

There it is, despite all the previous dogma that most of these 'kids' would just turn out gay if left alone, to this admission that 'we don't even know'.

We don't know how anything turned out for the specific kids who went through the Tavistock. They didn't bother to follow up and find out. We do know from their own records that around 60% of the girls who were referred were same sex attracted, ie young lesbians. Which means gay girls were massively over represented, seeing as estimates of the % of people who are gay is only around 3%.

We know from detransitioners that them not accepting their being gay played a part in their dysphoria.

Court warrants obtain personal information from the plea from the individual submitted ahead of their trial.​

'Ahead of their trial' then. Not a survey where they tick boxes one afternoon in jail and get to discuss with each other what they'll put.

Other information collected will be self-declared by the individual when processed at the prison.

'..when processed at the prison'. So again, information known and held by the prison, not a survey done once they've been there a while.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Jesus christ, why do you have to make everything about you?

Is Jesus partaking in the thread now? He would know a bit about self ID I expect.

Says the guy mentioning me by name 120 times in this thread. Not including the times you just put 'AS' or @ me. The 5am mentions were a bit odd, I'll admit. I was worried you were going to be late for your milk round.

 

[monkers]

We don't know how anything turned out for the specific kids who went through the Tavistock. They didn't bother to follow up and find out. We do know from their own records that around 60% of the girls who were referred were same sex attracted, ie young lesbians. Which means gay girls were massively over represented, seeing as estimates of the % of people who are gay is only around 3%.

We know from detransitioners that them not accepting their being gay played a part in their dysphoria.


'Ahead of their trial' then. Not a survey where they tick boxes one afternoon in jail and get to discuss with each other what they'll put.

'..when processed at the prison'. So again, information known and held by the prison, not a survey done once they've been there a while.

So yes, the prison service relies on self-declared data. Now bear in mind that a trans woman without a GRC will have in all likelihood changed all of her identity documents to female, that is what the court and the prison service will record. Prisoners are not required to produce a GRC or a birth certificate at any stage - it is self-declaration.

It's as my friend told me by phone, the prison service relies on self declaration, and the opportunity for anonymity was preserved in the survey.

Actually what he told me came as a pleasant surprise. I can imagine a cohort of prisoners just ticking the trans box for a grin, or taking umbrage at being asked the question. To be told that a number of prisoners at this one prison had ticked the trans box as a way of supporting the two trans prisoners among them I felt rather touching as it happens.

I'd have difficulty with the idea that my friend was just making this up; he's a very honest man - a bit of a gem actually. Anyone who takes the government data for real should really take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[multitool]

Is Jesus partaking in the thread now? He would know a bit about self ID I expect.

Says the guy mentioning me by name 120 times in this thread. Not including the times you just put 'AS' or @ me. The 5am mentions were a bit odd, I'll admit. I was worried you were going to be late for your milk round.

I didn't mention you, you mugwump.

 

[monkers]

I didn't mention you, you mugwump.

It was nice to AS attempting humour though.

 

[multitool]

I found it quite disturbing

 

[theclaud]

Feminists have been angry about the social pressures that lead women to have any cosmetic surgery for years

I wasn't talking to a feminist.

 

[multitool]

The 5am mentions were a bit odd, I'll admit. I was worried you were going to be late for your milk round.

Not content with trying to police what other people do with their bodies, here she is trying to police when other people post on forums.

Not surprised she finds it so easy to align with fascists.

 

[classic33]

We know from the emails that the Tavistock clinic were forced to release the other week that they were allowing Mermaids to refer children directly, after their own GP had said no. That in itself is a massive failing of safeguarding. People who have been through the system seem to be saying they weren't properly assessed for their other issues - Keira Bell says she was put on puberty blockers after 3 one hour meetings. Dr Michael Webberly was suspended for doling out hormones without proper assessment:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...nge-drugs-private-online-GenderGp-clinic.html

If they were being given thorough and appropriate care there wouldn't be any detransitioners, certainly not ones who had been through surgery in their teens and early twenties. The affirmation model pretty much excludes 'appropriate' because it doesn't allow exploration of the young person's other issues.

If the service was so good, they wouldn't be closing it and changing to a holistic model.

Doesn't it worry you that many of the Tavistock kids were same sex attracted? Without medical intervention they might well have grown up to be gay.

Sounds very, very unlikely that the government's official data on trans prisoners is based on their own self-ID on a survey on one particular afternoon. That data would already be on record anyway. The prison service must have had a system of recording gender identity because otherwise every prisoner would have been in the prison appropriate to their birth sex on the day of the survey.

Who's saying all transwomen are gay males? I was referring to the kids (male and female) referred to the Tavistock - statistically many of them were same sex attracted, especially the girls. There seem to be plenty of transwomen who claim to lesbians around and when they're in the changing room, prison, or hospital ward you have no idea whether their sexual interest is males or females. They are still men in women's spaces though.

Everybody who comes under the transgender umbrella hasn't been through a clinic, is on hormones or had surgery. It's not a requirement of the self ID system you wish to see introduced. 'Trans' is everybody from those with diagnosed lifelong dysphoria to blokes who like wearing certain clothes. That's part of the problem with self ID.

Serious question for you, given your anti medication stance. If you were given a medication, that you were told would sort/help sort your problem(s) out, and going on the information available at the time, would you say "No"?

Then a few years down the line, you find out/realise that what was told to you didn't quite work out. How would you feel? Would you be looking for someone to blame, because you as a child were not fully able to understand all the negative sides to the medication.* You saw only the positive ones, and a way of sorting out a problem there and then.

*How many kids under the age of 12, are so well informed that they can foresee problems that the experts aren't aware of, at the time the medication is started. And once on, it's never a simple case of stopping them when you feel like it.

 

[Unkraut]

She's just Ron de Santis pretending to be Marilyn Monroe.

Isn't pretending at the heart of the problem ...

 

[monkers]

Isn't pretending at the heart of the problem ...

I guess it is.

If there wasn't so many people pretending that there is an omnipresent supreme being / world maker constantly judging people and condemning misfits to burn in hell for eternity we get some rational thinking. Yes he does all this because he loves us. Yeh, right.

But you love your God and religion all you like and that's totally cool with me; but please don't make the mistake that you think your God thinks it cool for you to judge everyone, because that's his job and not yours, or the job of Ron de Santis or the brainless wasp that is Posie Parker.

It's all part of the exploitation racket used by billionaires and the patriarchy, but crack on if you must be so gullible.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Serious question for you, given your anti medication stance. If you were given a medication, that you were told would sort/help sort your problem(s) out, and going on the information available at the time, would you say "No"?

I'm not anti-medication for mental health issues when necessary and when patients can fully understand the consequences. I think you should proceed very cautiously in prescribing drugs to children that have serious effects for something that might likely resolve on its own. Can an 11 year old really consent to puberty blockers and understand the consequences? Can teenagers really give informed consent to a treatment pathway that could end in infertility?

Then a few years down the line, you find out/realise that what was told to you didn't quite work out. How would you feel?

Would you be looking for someone to blame, because you as a child were not fully able to understand all the negative sides to the medication.* You saw only the positive ones, and a way of sorting out a problem there and then.

If you were a child/young person who put your physical and mental heath in the hands of 'experts', I think you would have a right to feel angry and distressed because the job of adults is to stop kids and young people making decisions they don't fully understand the consequences of, however much they might want it at the time. Which is why the UK, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, have reassessed the use of puberty blockers with under 16's.

 

[classic33]

I'm not anti-medication for mental health issues when necessary and when patients can fully understand the consequences. I think you should proceed very cautiously in prescribing drugs to children that have serious effects for something that might likely resolve on its own. Can an 11 year old really consent to puberty blockers and understand the consequences? Can teenagers really give informed consent to a treatment pathway that could end in infertility?

If you were a child/young person who put your physical and mental heath in the hands of 'experts', I think you would have a right to feel angry and distressed because the job of adults is to stop kids and young people making decisions they don't fully understand the consequences of, however much they might want it at the time. Which is why the UK, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, have reassessed the use of puberty blockers with under 16's.

The questions were to you, not what you feel is right, or wrong for others. Would you, based on the information available at the time, say "No" to a medication that you are told will sort your problem(s) out.

Then a few years later find out there were negative effects that you weren't told about when you agreed to taking it. Meaning it didn't sort out the problem(s) as was promised. This can be because the side effects weren't known at the time you were started on it, or you in hoping to get your problem(s) sorted by taking the medication, didn't even consider the full effects(good and bad) of the medication.
In the first, side effects not known when started, you made the choice fully understanding the consequences at the time, on the information available at the time.
In the second one, you saw the medication as a means to sort your problem(s) out, without fully considering the negative effects. Same information given, but you didn't stop to consider the side effects.


I'd already asked you how many under 12's are so well informed that they can foresee problems the experts can't at the time the medication is started.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The questions were to you, not what you feel is right, or wrong for others. Would you, based on the information available at the time, say "No" to a medication that you are told will sort your problem(s) out.

I would not say 'No' because like most people I would assume that the medical professionals would have already examined all the options and deemed that drug to be the best option available. That's their job.

Then a few years later find out there were negative effects that you weren't told about when you agreed to taking it. Meaning it didn't sort out the problem(s) as was promised. This can be because the (A) side effects weren't known at the time you were started on it,

I would expect the medics to tell me that they don't know what the long term side effects will be. I would expect them to accurately assess whether I was able to understand. I would not expect doctors and charities to tell me the effects are completely reversible when they aren't, as with puberty blockers or fail to tell me there were other treatments available.

or (B) you in hoping to get your problem(s) sorted by taking the medication, didn't even consider the full effects(good and bad) of the medication.

Even adults deserve a standard of care that stops them making the wrong decision. They don't give anorexics diet pills on demand, so I would expect the supposed experts to tell me 'No' if there were even the slightest inkling that I hadn't thought it through or didn't understand. That's what informed consent means.

I'd already asked you how many under 12's are so well informed that they can foresee problems the experts can't at the time the medication is started.

I would say zero. I don't think they can consent to understanding that there might be serious unforeseen consequences either.

Marci Bowers, who is a transwoman surgeon specialising in gender surgery, is on record as saying practically all male children who start on puberty blockers at 11/12 will have no sexual function. How can an 11 year understand what that means? Or understand the commitment to being made infertile?

I could ask you similar questions. If you were a child, or a young adult, would you expect your doctors to give you drugs with known irreversible bad effects, or with unknown effects, to solve your immediate mental distress, when there was a course of drug free treatment that had a good chance of resolving it? Don't doctors have a duty of care to stop you going down a route that ends up with you taking drugs for life if there is an alternative?
If you went to a doctor with one symptom, eg bad headaches, would you not expect them to explore all the possible causes rather that just affirming your own diagnosis and giving you strong painkillers with unknown effects?

Children and young people are making lifelong decisions based on what medics, charities, and campaign groups tell them will solve their problems - without a proper assessment of what the problem actually is and without good quality research to support the effectiveness of the treatment given.