Gender again. Sorry!

[AndyRM]

It's a brief interview with Barnes. She makes 3 main points - GIDS had some research that showed the treatment wasn't beneficial, they ignored it, clinics refused to give Cass data, GIDS did no real follow up themselves. That sounds like ideology overruling good clinical practise.

Why weren't the requisite standards of evidence required? 'Gender was like a magical cloak ... mention it and everybody turned away'.

I haven't watched the interview and I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

It's generally a waste of time to watch anything Andy posts in affirmation of his views.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You claimed that it was obvious that I hadn't read Cass. You are being dishonest - again.

No, I didn't. I said the following. Which is clearly my opinion. If you've read it, you've decided to skip any analysis for sad attempts at slagging me off on here.

It's not whataboutery to suggest a private individual pursuing advocacy outside work is very different from someone allowing unevidenced ideology to lead the direction of their work.

You haven't even looked at the Cass Report by the sounds of it.

 

[monkers]

It's a brief interview with Barnes. She makes 3 main points - GIDS had some research that showed the treatment wasn't beneficial, they ignored it, clinics refused to give Cass data, GIDS did no real follow up themselves. That sounds like ideology overruling good clinical practise.

Why weren't the requisite standards of evidence required? 'Gender was like a magical cloak ... mention it and everybody turned away'.

Cass says that standards were not met because of an overwhelmed service.

Make up your mind for the reason.

All I have being saying all along is that there have been multiple failure across public service - all of them political. There can be denial that there are members of parliament, ministers and the last three PMs for that matter that have demonstrated their anti-trans credentials. These are no accidental failures, they are most deliberate in a process of trans erasure - people that had identities made legal by acts of parliament.

Your own approach has to be to demonise trans people as the worst kind of offenders mostly without evidence. I'll say again, stating an opinion is not evidence of anything but prejudice.

I have been advocating increases in resources to make things work, you have falsely accused trans people of all being violent, cheats, perverts, rapists and paedophiles whose only reason for transitioning is to be able to enter women's spaces and abuse them. You think this makes you the better person. I don't.

 

[monkers]

You haven't even looked at the Cass Report by the sounds of it.

There is the false accusation again.

Your quote that I challenged was not from the Cass report. It was from a BMJ article. Nobody needs to read Cass to spot your dishonesty.

Keep digging, the hole is getting bigger.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I haven't watched the interview and I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

That this wasn't activism on the part of The Spectator. It was a straightforward interview with an award winning Newsnight journalist.

It's generally a waste of time to watch anything Andy posts in affirmation of his views.

The evidence should be assessed on its own merits, surely, regardless of who posts it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Cass says that standards were not met because of an overwhelmed service.

Bit more to it, but keep grasping at those straws.

Make up your mind for the reason. All I have being saying all along is that there have been multiple failure across public service - all of them political. There can be denial that there are members of parliament, ministers and the last three PMs for that matter that have demonstrated their anti-trans credentials. These are no accidental failures, they are most deliberate in a process of trans erasure - people that had identities made legal by acts of parliament.Your own approach has to be to demonise trans people as the worst kind of offenders mostly without evidence. I'll say again, stating an opinion is not evidence of anything but prejudice.

Trans erasure?

I have been advocating increases in resources to make things work, you have falsely accused trans people of all being violent, cheats, perverts, rapists and paedophiles whose only reason for transitioning is to be able to enter women's spaces and abuse them. You think this makes you the better person. I don't.

Fact free rant, especially the last bit.

 

[AndyRM]

That this wasn't activism on the part of The Spectator. It was a straightforward interview with an award winning Newsnight journalist.



The evidence should be assessed on its own merits, surely, regardless of who posts it.

True. But when he's posted such pointless sh!te in the past and has openly stated he says the whole topic is a joke (when it suits) then I think we can be forgiven for giving him short shrift.

Whatever, I've read her book, I know her views, some I agree with, some I don't. And parts of her book have been criticised for being unevidenced.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That's fair enough. I think Hannah Barnes is an outstanding journalist for persevering with this. In years to come I think the BBC's role in this issue, and their lack of impartiality, will come under some well deserved scrutiny.

 

[monkers]

Bit more to it, but keep grasping at those straws.

Trans erasure?


Fact free rant, especially the last bit.

There isn't any need for me to say any more. The record shows.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Does this record go to another school by any chance?

 

[monkers]

Does this record go to another school by any chance?

Please don't make the good people here suffer any more. Give it a rest eh.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It's a brief interview with Barnes. She makes 3 main points - GIDS had some research that showed the treatment wasn't beneficial, they ignored it, clinics refused to give Cass data, GIDS did no real follow up themselves. That sounds like ideology overruling good clinical practise.

Why weren't the requisite standards of evidence required? 'Gender was like a magical cloak ... mention it and everybody turned away'.

Hannah Barnes has a piece in the New Statesman* in which the same points are made.

Whether it's ideology or something else that's stopped 'good clinical practice' is an open question.

* I subscribe to the Staggers but I don't think it's paywalled.

 

[classic33]

Even in a public park you can never be safe.​

Child abuser spared jail for groping boy, 13, and saying ‘I’ll ride you ’til morning’​

https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/jade...rning-19602048/?ico=just-in_article_must-read

 

[monkers]

Even in a public park you can never be safe.​

Child abuser spared jail for groping boy, 13, and saying ‘I’ll ride you ’til morning’​

https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/jade...rning-19602048/?ico=just-in_article_must-read

Aw shucks, you beat Aurora to it. She's usually the first to post stories about women sexually abusing children. Bet she's gutted.

(sarcasm for the benefit of Dutch Guy)

 

[AuroraSaab]

Hannah Barnes has a piece in the New Statesman* in which the same points are made.

Thanks for that link. It's a good comprehensive summary. Thank God for people like Hannah Barnes, plugging away at this story when others looked the other way.

I think it is certainly an ideological issue for some clinicians. I think others were swept along with the idea that they were the first medics in an important and exciting new area - gender science - and the thought that they were doing something important and cutting edge made them blind to the lack of evidence. And of course, those who were unhappy with the protocols simply leave, leaving the ones who are 100% on board to crack on without dissent.