Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

Yet access to the pill(another drug), is legal from the age of 13 without the parents consent or the parents having to be informed.

Does not have irreversible effects, stop taking it, females can get pregnant. Millions do every year

Take puberty blockers, female high risk of becoming sterile.

 

[icowden]

As N once explained here, she knew she was 'not a boy' at age before she knew that boys and girls bodies were different. She was beaten by her parents for saying so. The desire is there to be treated in the societal / cultural role. N wanted to be treated as a girl, not a boy by her parents. Even at that very young age, N was aware that boys are groomed from a young age to be aggressive and violent, She did not want rough and tumble games with her father who tried to insist at age three that she learned 'how to punch' and how to hurt others.

This I find interesting and would like to discuss further, but only if you and N are comfortable doing so. If not, please don't respond and I entirely respect your feelings on this.

I do wonder how much of that is a reaction to being forced into behaviours by N's parents rather than any real perception about gender. I'm male but I wasn;'t groomed to be aggressive and violent. I was quite introverted and loved music and puzzles. I also hated rough and tumble and wasn't interested in fighting and other so called "boys" stuff. But my parents were quite liberal bordering on hippy. I also had similarities to my father who was very autistic, so my behaviours weren't considered particularly difficult, and were sometimes pandered to more than they probably should have been (my diet was very limited until I met my wife who encouraged me to try new foods for example).

As childhood trauma often seems (to my perception) to be involved where transwomen are concerned (I don't know much about trans men - they get less publicity) do you and N think that is a factor?

When trans people go through transition, it is not because their sole objective is to fetishise their bodies for sexual pleasure. How could it be when they know they will lose the functions of sex for pleasure and reproduction? These are seen by trans individuals as costs rather than benefits in order to live a life that fits with their knowledge of their identity.

I agree with you here which is why I have been at pains to point out that I think there are two categories of trans. People who genuinely are trans and trying to find a way to live with their own perception of self, and people who are using it to live out their sexual fetishes under the pretence of being Trans.

As an aside, I was listening to Grayson Perry on Richard Herring's Leicester Square podcast and he talked about his cross-dressing persona, its shock value and that when he used to go to cross-dressing meets they tended to be most concerned about the people wearing ladies trousers "the ones going all the way". He somewhat decried the rise of tolerance as being a bit boring. He asks his students to make him outfits that will shock and which he'd have to draw a deep breath before going out of the front door. He was very clear that the difference between a transvestite or drag queen and someone who is transgender is that the transvestite / drag queen has no interest in actually being a woman.

 

[icowden]

No sh!t? That's why I didn't mention it, because it's not what the SNP are proposing banning.

To be fair, part of the problem is that they haven't actually defined what they are banning. Conversion Therapy is open to a *lot* of interpretation.

 

[CXRAndy]

No irreversible harm by not taking puberty blockers. The likes of Lupron are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, this drug is used as a puberty blocker in trans

 

[AndyRM]

Does not have irreversible effects, stop taking it, females can get pregnant. Millions do every year

Take puberty blockers, female high risk of becoming sterile.

Unsurprisingly, The Lancet disagrees with you on the puberty blocker front.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext

 

[AndyRM]

To be fair, part of the problem is that they haven't actually defined what they are banning. Conversion Therapy is open to a *lot* of interpretation.

That's because there isn't a universal/international definition of what it is.

This is what the SNP are working towards:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/e...tish-government-consultation-summary/pages/3/

 

[icowden]

Unsurprisingly, The Lancet disagrees with you on the puberty blocker front.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext

That's an opinion piece by Sam Thomas a trans campaigner. It's not a scientific paper.

 

[AndyRM]

That's an opinion piece by Sam Thomas a trans campaigner. It's not a scientific paper.

Opinions they may be, but backed up by citations.

 

[icowden]

That's because there isn't a universal/international definition of what it is.

Yep. The standard definition is this:-

“any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change, suppress and/or eliminate a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression.

So if a psychiatrist has a session with you and suggests you might be confused and not actually trans just a gay woman then boom. They are guilty of conversion therapy.

To be fair to the SNP they have said:-

The legislation will be clear that the provision of medical care by a healthcare professional relating to a person’s gender identity is not a conversion practice.

So as long as it's a qualified doctor attaching electrodes to your testicles and telling you that you are a man, it's not conversion therapy. It's only conversion therapy if they aren't providing medical care.

It's too woolly and as it stands is completely meaningless.

 

[AndyRM]

Yep. The standard definition is this:-

So if a psychiatrist has a session with you and suggests you might be confused and not actually trans just a gay woman then boom. They are guilty of conversion therapy.

To be fair to the SNP they have said:-

So as long as it's a qualified doctor attaching electrodes to your testicles and telling you that you are a man, it's not conversion therapy. It's only conversion therapy if they aren't providing medical care.

It's too woolly and as it stands is completely meaningless.

Better than nowt though, and at least brings some publicity to the issue.

There was quite a good film about conversion camps recently, called They/Them. It's by no means perfect, but it's worth a watch.

 

[icowden]

Better than nowt though, and at least brings some publicity to the issue.

It could be, but it does depend a little who is using the legislation and for what purpose.

In the example I gave John Doe takes a clinic to court for using Conversion Therapy on him. The clinic are exonerated as they were providing medical care and this is fine under the terms of the legislation, even though John was tied to a chair, beaten and had electroconvulsive therapy administered against his wishes as he was sectioned by the clinic under the mental health act.

Thus this legislation provides no protection to anyone really.

 

[AndyRM]

It could be, but it does depend a little who is using the legislation and for what purpose.

In the example I gave John Doe takes a clinic to court for using Conversion Therapy on him. The clinic are exonerated as they were providing medical care and this is fine under the terms of the legislation, even though John was tied to a chair, beaten and had electroconvulsive therapy administered against his wishes as he was sectioned by the clinic under the mental health act.

Thus this legislation provides no protection to anyone really.

It didn't work out well in Clockwork Orange either.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unsurprisingly, The Lancet disagrees with you on the puberty blocker front.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext

That's an opinion piece. And the 'citations' it gives is a research paper about puberty blockers which is mainly about their use on children with precocious puberty - like 9 year old girls with periods - where the use is short term and limited.

When the paper talks about children with gender issues it actually says "The impact on BMD (bone mass density) is concerning since lumbar spine Z-scores at age 22 years were found to be lower than those observed prior to treatment [122, 123], suggesting a possible permanent decrement in BMD. Thus, it is unclear how long GnRHa can safely be administered.

The effects of GnRHa on adolescent brain maturation are unclear. GnRHa therapy prevents maturation of primary oocytes and spermatogonia and may preclude gamete maturation, and currently there are no proven methods to preserve fertility in early pubertal transgender adolescents."

So the article's author's best piece of evidence actually says puberty blockers permanently reduce bone density, might affect cognitive function, and might well leave you sterile.

Can an 11 year old understand all those risks and make an informed decision to consent to all that? Can you decide at 11 that you never want to have children? Childless adult women in their 20's have trouble getting the NHS to sterilise them because they might change their mind. It's crazy to think children can understand and consent to it.

 

[monkers]

This I find interesting and would like to discuss further, but only if you and N are comfortable doing so. If not, please don't respond and I entirely respect your feelings on this.

I do wonder how much of that is a reaction to being forced into behaviours by N's parents rather than any real perception about gender. I'm male but I wasn;'t groomed to be aggressive and violent. I was quite introverted and loved music and puzzles. I also hated rough and tumble and wasn't interested in fighting and other so called "boys" stuff. But my parents were quite liberal bordering on hippy. I also had similarities to my father who was very autistic, so my behaviours weren't considered particularly difficult, and were sometimes pandered to more than they probably should have been (my diet was very limited until I met my wife who encouraged me to try new foods for example).

As childhood trauma often seems (to my perception) to be involved where transwomen are concerned (I don't know much about trans men - they get less publicity) do you and N think that is a factor?


I agree with you here which is why I have been at pains to point out that I think there are two categories of trans. People who genuinely are trans and trying to find a way to live with their own perception of self, and people who are using it to live out their sexual fetishes under the pretence of being Trans.

As an aside, I was listening to Grayson Perry on Richard Herring's Leicester Square podcast and he talked about his cross-dressing persona, its shock value and that when he used to go to cross-dressing meets they tended to be most concerned about the people wearing ladies trousers "the ones going all the way". He somewhat decried the rise of tolerance as being a bit boring. He asks his students to make him outfits that will shock and which he'd have to draw a deep breath before going out of the front door. He was very clear that the difference between a transvestite or drag queen and someone who is transgender is that the transvestite / drag queen has no interest in actually being a woman.

Hi Ian

N is not here at the moment, I'm expecting her here on Friday. I'll wait and see what she says before offering you her perspective.

I wouldn't attempt any specific comparison between N's child upbringing and your own because I wasn't there to see it. However you do sound like somebody who ought be able to slip into N's shoes more readily than some other men from what you say. You say you didn't like rough and tumble play either, but wasn't forced into it. You are at least in a position to consider how you would have felt if your parents weren't the liberal minded people that raised you. Would you have reacted and turned out differently? I can't say, but you might consider the question for yourself. Boys are somewhat groomed into the defensive or warrior roles.

So many boys toys tend to be towards guns, military. There are junior groups for boys for all three forces.

My perspective is that the way we are treated by others has a bigger influence on our development as a person than just physiology. I will say that we are a country that remains sexually repressed with a legacy of prudery, while at the same time still glorifying the hostility of imperialism. Modern political populism seems to be reinforcing those harmful ways. Indeed, the same people in politics who are offended at the sight of a woman breast feeding her baby also seem content to vote for wars. Other countries without this legacy have more tolerant cultures it seems.

A Guardian article today says that 52% of alleged crimes against girls are committed by boys. The police claim this is because young boys are influenced by watching violent porn which so easily accessible to them.

I'm going to be bold and say this; children are growing up in such a culture of toxicity that is seriously harming their well-being and those around them. The more this tends to be true, the greater the number of children trying to escape it will become. The increase in the number of children identifying in non-traditional ways could well be the result of cultural toxicity. The cure is not to amplify the toxicity, which is tending to be the case, but to decrease it.

 

[AndyRM]

That's an opinion piece. And the 'citations' it gives is a research paper about puberty blockers which is mainly about their use on children with precocious puberty - like 9 year old girls with periods - where the use is short term and limited.

When the paper talks about children with gender issues it actually says "The impact on BMD (bone mass density) is concerning since lumbar spine Z-scores at age 22 years were found to be lower than those observed prior to treatment [122, 123], suggesting a possible permanent decrement in BMD. Thus, it is unclear how long GnRHa can safely be administered.

The effects of GnRHa on adolescent brain maturation are unclear. GnRHa therapy prevents maturation of primary oocytes and spermatogonia and may preclude gamete maturation, and currently there are no proven methods to preserve fertility in early pubertal transgender adolescents."

So the article's author's best piece of evidence actually says puberty blockers permanently reduce bone density, might affect cognitive function, and might well leave you sterile.

Can an 11 year old understand all those risks and make an informed decision to consent to all that? Can you decide at 11 that you never want to have children? Childless adult women in their 20's have trouble getting the NHS to sterilise them because they might change their mind. It's crazy to think children can understand and consent to it.

I don't know why you put citations in inverted commas, but there we go.

Like you, the author has used the paper to back their opinion. It's not perfect, but very little is.

Personally what I took from it, is that there's a lot we don't understand properly. There's a lot of language used to leave wiggle room.

I think that more should be done to actually listen to children, and I don't agree with puberty blockers (or any kind of other medical intervention) unless it's actually going to help the child.

Saying that "it's a phase, they'll just accept that they're gay" or that being trans is some kind of faddy bandwagon is just nonsense.