Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It is a serious error. Anybody who has followed this in the UK would know about the Webberleys and Gender GP. It shows how ill informed you are, nevermind how quickly you jump to calling people c*nts on the basis of accusations made from your own prejudice and ignorance.
Nice attempt at a save with the '51% agreed in a bog survey' line again though.
Nice attempt at a save with the '51% agreed in a bog survey' line again though.
multitool
Pharaoh
You have to remember I don't spend my time on hatesites fixating on a few individuals, and learning a narrative like you do, imagining that you are some sort of expert with real knowledge. So, I didn't realise there were two Webberleys. Whoopy-do.
Nowhere near the universe of thinking that 49% is a "majority"
AuroraSaab
Squire
No, you spend your time on here, calling me a c*nt because you are poorly informed, yet demanding apologies left, right, and centre from everyone else for the smallest perceived slight or mildest ribbing.
It's clear you know nothing about the wider issues and have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion.
It's clear you know nothing about the wider issues and have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion.
classic33
Senior Member
You're not much better informed yourself. You have this habit of using out of date information and incorrect/irrelevant information to "prove a point'. When what you're posting is questioned, you say people are pedantic or simply splitting hairs. Your other tactic is to simply ignore the fact that you were wrong in the first place.
That's not just on here. Previous posts from you were much the same. You rely on the alarmist view, to try and divert attention away from the fact that what you're posting isn't correct, or relevant to the point being questioned.
It's a case of why/how has someone else being treated, for any condition, got anything to do with you? You simply not liking it, isn't an acceptable answer.
AuroraSaab
Squire
The standards of medical care for children should be something all of us should be concerned about surely. And even adults who are capable of understanding and consenting deserve evidence based care, not ideological based care. Besides which, this is a discussion forum if you hadn't noticed.
I'm female, so many of the demands of transactivists have plenty to do with me, thanks. You're a man. I could just as easily say, 'Most of it won't affect you, so what does it have to do with you?'.
classic33
Senior Member
You don't recognise that there are trans men do you. It's something you are not willing to accept. To you, the issue is one sided, and only what you feel is an issue is important. Whether it actually concerns you or not.
Suggest you read back through your own posts and see just how many times you've said men should have to accept what you don't want. And, currently in Ireland, the number of trans men outnumber trans women. That's based on the legally issued gender recognition certificates issued. That piece of paper you are so against.
Someone else's medical care is where you shouldn't be sticking your nose. How would you feel if your medical issues were posted on the internet for all to see.
OP
OP
theclaud
Reading around the chip
Are you one of them?
AuroraSaab
Squire
No, I'm not. I wouldn't be afraid to say if I was though. Any thoughts on the evidence about the Peter Tatchell allegations that you asked for?
OP
OP
theclaud
Reading around the chip
I mean, the point was that I'm not sure what the number on the Reddit forum is supposed to mean. 20K people banging on about detransition could just be a bit like a more popular edition of this thread.
I wasn't asking for evidence about Tatchell having expressed dodgy perspectives about the age of consent, which I already know about - I was objecting to the obvious and widespread insinuations from the online quarters you frequent that he is a child abuser, when as far as I am aware there have been no allegations of any kind to that effect. I think it was Glinner that used the phrase 'hiding in plain sight' about him. What do you think he means? Are we back in 1983?
multitool
Pharaoh
Puberty blockers, eh
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext
"Findings support a relationship between access to GAHT and lower rates of depression and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youth"
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext
"Findings support a relationship between access to GAHT and lower rates of depression and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youth"
AuroraSaab
Squire
Puberty blockers, eh
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext
"Findings support a relationship between access to GAHT and lower rates of depression and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youth"
An interesting study, though based on a self-selecting cohort? "Youth were recruited via targeted ads on Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat"..."Respondents were eligible to be entered into a drawing for one of 100 gift cards worth $50 each by providing their email address after being routed to a separate survey".
Only 14% of respondents were actually receiving hormone treatment so it's a much smaller survey that the headline figure suggests.
I won't trawl through it in detail other than to say I would think Hilary Cass and the experts in Denmark, Sweden, France and so on are well aware of all the studies on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, including this one. And yet they still decided the benefits were not sufficient to continue giving them to under 18's.
Much research in this area is of poor quality, with short follow up times. Perhaps there is an initial sense of euphoria when finally getting on hormones. Detransitioners often suggest there was initially, but it doesn't last.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It would suggest the detransitioning phenomenon isn't a tiny minority, even if not all on there are detransitioners themselves.
You have no idea which online quarters I frequent. You are making assumptions. I don't follow Linehan on social media and I haven't seen the comments that directly accuse Tatchell of being a child abuser. I think his oft stated views are a bit more than a dodgy perspective though.
I think he means that Tatchell would like the opportunity to have sex with children under the age of 16. How would you interpret his campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14? What do you think his view that children as young as 9 can consent to and enjoy sex with adults implies? If not that he thinks such relationships should be permitted?
You're presumably aware that there are many gay men (and women) who find Peter Tatchell's views that sex between adults and children is not necessarily harmful, and that young children can consent to sex with adults, to be abhorrent and against everything the gay community fought for in the last 50 years. Gay men having been the target of homophobia in the past (including Tatchell himself) doesn't mean that finding his views on sex with children morally wrong is homophobic.
AuroraSaab
Squire
You could drop Hilary Cass a line, I suppose, she must have missed your study. The NICE review of the major research in this field for the Cass Report couldn't find evidence of benefit for puberty blockers and said most studies were of poor quality.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/nice-evidence-reviews/
Still, you probably know best.
