Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

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.

Because you asked for citations. I'm pointing out that the author claimed the linked research supported their view when the actual research they cited in fact expressed concern re pb long term use for gender distressed children.

The point is the evidence on the long term benefits of puberty blockers (vs risk) for gender/body dysphoria is limited. Dr Hilary Cass couldn't find it. Other European countries couldn't find it.

It is a phase for some children and young adults. This is what the Cass Report found. If you send them down a medicalised and surgical route without thorough exploration of all their issues then you risk making it harder for them reconcile to their birth sex - which most gender/body dysphoric children apparently do once they are through adolescence.

 

[AndyRM]

Because you asked for citations. I'm pointing out that the author claimed the linked research supported their view when the actual research they cited in fact expressed concern re pb long term use for gender distressed children.

The point is the evidence on the long term benefits of puberty blockers (vs risk) for gender/body dysphoria is limited. Dr Hilary Cass couldn't find it. Other European countries couldn't find it.

It is a phase for some children and young adults. This is what the Cass Report found. If you send them down a medicalised and surgical route without thorough exploration of all their issues then you risk making it harder for them reconcile to their birth sex - which most gender/body dysphoric children apparently do once they are through adolescence.

Yeah, from Andy, who has a habit of claiming spurious nonsense without any kind of attribution.

If that's your reading of it, then that's fine, my take is more in line with the original author of the article I linked.

It is a phase for some people, sure, but not for all. Likewise being trans doesn't make you gay.

 

[monkers]

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.

Testosterone and oestrogen levels influence bone density throughout life. Bone deficiency in males and females tends to decrease in life.

Having said that, hormone levels are dependent on many things and can not be considered in isolation. One big influence on hormone levels especially in more active people, so generally speaking children and athletes is nutrition. What we eat affects our hormone levels, where women are in their menstrual cycle affects hormone levels. Studies who that hormone levels affect other things too, from concentration, to digestion.

It's way too simplistic to say that administered hormones are responsible for decreases in bone density. Studies have also made some indication that trans kids have a higher tendency to come from poorer and more dysfunctional families. Poorer families tend to have poorer nutrition, leading to lower hormone levels, leading to 'moods'. Dysfunctional families can include those with socially illiberal views and values.

It would need a sizeable control group to undertake such a study as to take in all of the factors, and not inconsiderable resources. If you ask groups of experts to interpret an incomplete set of data, you'll end up with one of two scenarios, the honest experts saying 'insufficient data' or the less scrupulous introducing conjecture due to their personal biases.

This has proved to be the case with the Tavistock data - there are two competing professional interpretations of the same limited data leading to polar different opinions.

This is not the way to do science. Science needs a sizeable control group. Tavistock kids were all seen due to their transgender traits, being they did not also have access to a sizeable group of cisgender kids to include in their so-called scientific study, their could be no complete data set to interpret.

Otherwise the root of campaign as quoted in parliament by Badenoch is the Kiera Bell case. Bell largely won her case on the first round but some ground was lost in the second round.

My thoughts about Bell. Well we now know that she lied to the Tavistock for whatever reason. She had told the Tavistock that she was a lesbian and did not sleep with boys. We now know from her contemporaneous friends that she was very generous with her favours to boys. It is reported that she had an abortion at about the age of 16. Nobody questioned her Gillick competence for that procedure at that time it seems.

She made the decision to have her breasts removed at the age of 22, while no longer being under Tavistock. Whatever people think they know about Bell, they are probably relying more on conjecture than fact.

Cass said that the situation was contentious. She said that the contentious questions could not be answered. Yet her position is more often portrayed as having said that puberty blockers are irreversible and dangerous.

The most difficult question is whether puberty blockers provide valuable time for children and young people to consider their options, or whether they ‘lock in’ children and young people to a treatment pathway

Dr Hilary Cass

This question does expose a gap in Cass's thinking. She considers the puberty blockers provide thinking time. It isn't about thinking time for trans girls, it's about preventing their bodies going through 'testosterone poisoning' before being judged by adults to be competent to make their own decisions.

It simply doesn't wash for the GC brigade to say on one hand that those who have gone through male puberty should be banned from x, y, and z places, activities and professions on the one hand, only then to say that trans girls should go through male puberty because the science is unclear. This is tantamount to placing a lifetime ban to being a trans individual, all the time stigmatising them as sex deviants and offenders, despite never having committed a sex offence.

When you say 'I'm not prepared to be kind', it seems to me to be saying, 'I'm prepared to be cruel'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It is a phase for some people, sure, but not for all. Likewise being trans doesn't make you gay.

Similarly, not conforming to gender stereotypes, or/plus being gay, isn't a reason to consider that a child might in some way not be the sex they were born. I've never heard a story about a younger trans child that didn't start with something along the lines of 'He liked playing with dolls rather than a football'.

It's way too simplistic to say that administered hormones are responsible for decreases in bone density.

Not really. It's a risk factor that shouldn't be dismissed when we are talking about 11 year olds and long term use.

Studies have also made some indication that trans kids have a higher tendency to come from poorer and more dysfunctional families. Poorer families tend to have poorer nutrition, leading to lower hormone levels, leading to 'moods'. Dysfunctional families can include those with socially illiberal views and values.

Probably a good idea to fully explore with a therapist how having a poor, dysfunctional family and/or conservative, super religious, or homophobic parents has affected the child's sense of self then, before affirming them as the opposite sex, as these issues might be a factor in thinking they are the opposite sex.

It would need a sizeable control group to undertake such a study as to take in all of the factors, and not inconsiderable resources. If you ask groups of experts to interpret an incomplete set of data, you'll end up with one of two scenarios, the honest experts saying 'insufficient data' or the less scrupulous introducing conjecture due to their personal biases.

Probably best not to send kids down the medical route then if there is insufficient data of the benefit. Which is what the Cass report said.

This has proved to be the case with the Tavistock data - there are two competing professional interpretations of the same limited data leading to polar different opinions.

No there aren't.

This is not the way to do science. Science needs a sizeable control group. Tavistock kids were all seen due to their transgender traits,

Transgender traits? Like liking stuff associated with the opposite sex?

.... being they did not also have access to a sizeable group of cisgender kids to include in their so-called scientific study, their could be no complete data set to interpret.

Well let's not medicate kids on the basis of limited or non existent data then.

Otherwise the root of campaign as quoted in parliament by Badenoch is the Kiera Bell case. Bell largely won her case on the first round but some ground was lost in the second round.

My thoughts about Bell. Well we now know that she lied to the Tavistock for whatever reason. She had told the Tavistock that she was a lesbian and did not sleep with boys. We now know from her contemporaneous friends that she was very generous with her favours to boys.

Oh ffs. There are many reasons why same sex attracted teenagers - both lesbians and gay boys - sleep with members of the opposite sex, not least peer pressure or a desperate attempt to fit in, or because of internalised homophobia and as an attempt to try not to be gay.

You're trying to shame someone for their sexual behaviour as a teen. Anybody with any decency would a) not do that, and b) know that it might well have been behaviour that was a result of their psychological distress. It doesn't undermine their credibility at all.

It is reported that she had an abortion at about the age of 16. Nobody questioned her Gillick competence for that procedure at that time it seems.

So what? An early abortion has a very, very small risk attached to it and no long term effects. Continuing a pregnancy has risks. A 16 year old is able to grasp the implications of that more easily than they can grasp the long term effects of testosterone on the female body.

Dr Hilary Cass

This question does expose a gap in Cass's thinking. She considers the puberty blockers provide thinking time. It isn't about thinking time for trans girls, it's about preventing their bodies going through 'testosterone poisoning' before being judged by adults to be competent to make their own decisions.

It simply doesn't wash for the GC brigade to say on one hand that those who have gone through male puberty should be banned from x, y, and z places, activities and professions on the one hand, only then to say that trans girls should go through male puberty because the science is unclear. This is tantamount to placing a lifetime ban to being a trans individual, all the time stigmatising them as sex deviants and offenders, despite never having committed a sex offence.

Not even clear what point you think this makes. Cass doesn't consider puberty blockers provide thinking time. That was the argument of gender clinics. She says there's no sound evidence for their benefit.

When you say 'I'm not prepared to be kind', it seems to me to be saying, 'I'm prepared to be cruel'.

I'm not prepared to be kind at other people's expense. I'm not prepared to be kind to men when it comes at a cost to women and girls, or to distressed children and teens.

Why don't you be kind and stop pushing for men to be in women's single sex spaces, sports, jails, and stop advocating drugs with irreversible effects for kids that are in mental distress and need therapy first?

 

[monkers]

I'm not prepared to be kind at other people's expense.

You are prepared to be cruel though at other people's expense. Everything you say above flows towards this 'I'm not prepared to be kind' narrative while at the same time pretending to care.

I've never subscribed to the 'need to be cruel to be kind' crap either. You need to be kind to be kind, but cruelty is easier and cheaper to administer.

What is needed is not criticism of a government who the GC lot never feel go hard and fast enough after trans people. What is needed is criticism of a government that inflicts cruelty on UK citizens and the toxic culture that they promote. When they are out, I can only hope that something better will follow. It needs to.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You are prepared to be cruel though at other people's expense.

It's not cruel to think men shouldn't be in women's prisons, sports, or rape support groups.

Everything you say above flows towards this 'I'm not prepared to be kind' narrative while at the same time pretending to care.

Amongst other things I care about women and girls, those harmed by gender ideology, and appropriate medical care for children and young adults in mental distress.

I am less interested in furthering the wants of a small group of men who seek access to women's single sex spaces and services. This is not unkindness.

 

[classic33]

It's not cruel to think men shouldn't be in women's prisons, sports, or rape support groups.

Amongst other things I care about women and girls, those harmed by gender ideology, and appropriate medical care for children and young adults in mental distress.

I am less interested in furthering the wants of a small group of men who seek access to women's single sex spaces and services. This is not unkindness.

For all your bull, you're concerned about no-one but yourself.

You've used a small minority to try and make out that all within that group are the same, and after the same thing. Yet after five years you still roll out the same clap now as when you started.

You're frightened of them, admit that much to yourself and you might just start understanding how someone in a minority group actually feel when someone decides they're afraid of them.

What'll you do if one ever sat next to you on the train, or was in the seat next to you on a plane.

 

[monkers]

It's not cruel to think men shouldn't be in women's prisons, sports, or rape support groups.

I don't think that is what we were talking about. You might think it fleet of foot to simply change the subject. I tend to think that you only do so when you fail to 'win the argument' which is what you intend.

I have never said that men should be in women's prisons, elite level sport, or rape groups. I just challenge you when you present a false argument because your manner of doing so is so often stigmatising.

I think one thing that we can agree on is that fundamentally any notion of a 'discussion' is over.

 

[monkers]

It's not cruel to think men shouldn't be in women's prisons, sports, or rape support groups.

Amongst other things I care about women and girls, those harmed by gender ideology, and appropriate medical care for children and young adults in mental distress.

I am less interested in furthering the wants of a small group of men who seek access to women's single sex spaces and services. This is not unkindness.

I think you are just engaged in tribal warfare using a campaign of moral panic.

Women's prisons are not housing dangerous trans prisoners. Rape support groups have been inclined to say trans women are women.

Even the WI say trans women are women. It's just the crazies that have so much difficulty with it.

 

[classic33]

I don't think that is what we were talking about. You might think it fleet of foot to simply change the subject. I tend to think that you only do so when you fail to 'win the argument' which is what you intend.

I have never said that men should be in women's prisons, elite level sport, or rape groups. I just challenge you when you present a false argument because your manner of doing so is so often stigmatising.

I think one thing that we can agree on is that the fundamentally any notion of a discussion is over.

The first part is all she's done all along when challenged, change the subject fast and ignore any replies to the previous points.

That last part, did you really think any meaningful discussion could be had with a person hiding their fears behind something such as "all women and girls"?

 

[monkers]

The first part is all she's done all along when challenged, change the subject fast and ignore any replies to the previous points.

That last part, did you really think any meaningful discussion could be had with a person hiding their fears behind something such as "all women and girls"?

I came to this thread originally rather late, but with some hope that a bit of fresh information might change the discourse. But you can only change the discourse with people who are here for the discussion; it never works with tribal absolutists because they won't their own way with no discussion.

A form of words has been worked as a narrative by a small group of people who using fear have invoked a moral panic into a wider group, but that group seems to have stopped expanding. The group are still relatively small, but they are very vocal and determined.

 

[AndyRM]

@AuroraSaab - you've not heard many stories about younger trans people then.

When you say "similarly", it really isn't.

 

[classic33]

I came to this thread originally rather late, but with some hope that a bit of fresh information might change the discourse. But you can only change the discourse with people who are here for the discussion; it never works with tribal absolutists because they won't their own way with no discussion.

A form of words has been worked as a narrative by a small group of people who using fear have invoked a moral panic into a wider group, but that group seems to have stopped expanding. The group are still relatively small, but they are very vocal and determined.

I've had a lifetime of people like her making their opinions about my disability known. Often quite vocally. In one case, a person demanding they be given another seat on a coach where seats couldn't be booked. You got what was available, in his case he was on the same side but the row in front. I'd just been asked by the driver what the tablets taken were, I answered.

As for consenting to take tablets, I was only 10 when I agreed to try one lot of tablets, that I'm on till this day. Long term use causes bone thining, soft bones and means painkillers can't be taken whilst on it. I knew about the painkillers before agreeing to try it. Done on a hospital ward(kids) with male and females in white coats all round the bed listening/taking notes.

Whilst I'm viewing parts of these threads from a viewpoint of another minority group, the same prejudices are plainly visible. Right down to the choice of wording, only she doesn't use disabled as much, in her rants. Everyone in that group is treated the same by her, and if you're not agreeing with her then you're wrong.

It's twenty-nine years I've had the protection under UK law, but I still hear the same clap spouted now as I did when I was at school.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You've used a small minority to try and make out that all within that group are the same, and after the same thing. Yet after five years you still roll out the same clap now as when you started.

Presumably you mean transwomen. They are the same as other men. In five years you haven't provided any evidence why they should be treated differently from other men, other than they (and you) say so.

You're frightened of them, admit that much to yourself and you might just start understanding how someone in a minority group actually feel when someone decides they're afraid of them.

I'm not frightened of men in most circumstances. I just don't think they should be in women's single sex spaces and services, or their sports.

What'll you do if one ever sat next to you on the train, or was in the seat next to you on a plane.

I wouldn't care because it's a train or a plane. I would care if they were the police officer assigned to strip search me after arrest or the carer who turned up to perform my intimate care if I were disabled and had asked for a same sex carer. Surely even you can see the difference.

What continues to surprise me is how quickly and resolutely you would dismiss women's needs and welfare in the most obvious of situations - prisons, sports, same sex care - and side with men. Just because you feel sorry for them it seems.

It's not up to women to give things up in order to accommodate any specific group, and prioritise their needs above their own, regardless of how marginalised that group might be.

That you think women should do so shows how little you think of women.

 

[monkers]

It's not up to women to give things up in order to accommodate any specific group, and prioritise their needs above their own, regardless of how marginalised that group might be.

It doesn't surprise me to see write such things given your history here, but somehow it makes me feel sad to read what you write.

To use your turn of phrase, it's up to all of us to look out for each other. There is no need for this aggressive inhumane marginalisation of people.

You are also incorrect from the legal standpoint. Spaces and facilities are reserved for people with physical and sensory disabilities in everyday life, and you should respect that.

What will you say in response? Probably something about a New Zealand weightlifter coming fourth in the olympics or something equally irrelevant.