Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Your entire position on this issue seems to be that feelings should overrule facts.

The exemptions already in place in law do not advocate for trans women who have committed violence against women or rapists to be female for the purposes of allocating a prison place - they do exactly the opposite.

And yet there they were, Isla Bryson and Katie Dolatowski, in a female prison.

 

[monkers]

Your entire position on this issue seems to be that feelings should overrule facts.



And yet there they were, Isla Bryson and Katie Dolatowski, in a female prison.

Disingenuous nonsense. That is not my stated position at all. How you love to make stuff up. Seems you are the fantasist.
How you love to start arguments by stating falsehoods. Stick to facts.

They may have been in a women's prison:
But not because they were supposed to be. Not because trans activists insisted. Not that any Minister insisted. Not that any prisoner had the right to insist, but because contractors messed up, just as in the case of Karen White. Group 4 admitted responsibility for the Karen White blunder. The Scottish Prison Service should apologise for their errors and put systems in place to ensure this doesn't happen again.

What is not required is to prevent harmless trans women prisoners from going to women's prisons for committing repeat offences of watching live TV without a licence.

The risk assessment process needs to be correctly applied.

The reasonable thing to do is to stop blaming people who have no part in this and blame those responsible. Nicola Strugeon needs to take urgent action, and my guess is that she will.

 

[classic33]

The research on transgender issues tends to be of poor quality. There is some evidence that most children who identify as trans in their early teens desist if they do not go on puberty blockers or cross sex hormones. If you go on puberty blockers you tend to carry on onto cross sex hormones.

The whole model of giving 'trans kids' drugs comes from what is known as the Dutch Study. Turns out this was funded by the makers of puberty blockers. Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are all now questioning the use of puberty blockers as there are issues over long term effects and whether children can consent to bone damage, infertility, loss of sexual function, at age 11 - 14.

There are a growing number of detransitioners though. The Detransitioner forum on Reddit has 25k members, though they won't all be transgender. If it was innate like same sex attraction, people would not completely detransition.

There's a huge amount of money to be made from transgender patients, especially in the US. Life long drugs-requiring patient from early teens til death, plus surgery costs - it's a massive cash cow and the surgery market is growing year on year with a cost of $100k per patient.

No, but social contagion is a real thing. We know that from studies of anorexia. Why is there a sudden upsurge in children being referred to gender clinics? Why are many of these kids gay? Why are there disproportionately high numbers of teenage girls? We need to look at this and proceed with caution.

There's a worry we might be transitioning our gay kids rather than encouraging them to be comfortable with their gayness. Which is what they do in Iran, of course. There's certainly some parents who would rather have a straight daughter than a gay son.

The interim Cass Report on UK gender services noted all this - and said that even social transitioning isn't a neutral act. It can concretise a gender identity which might otherwise be a passing phase.

Plenty of left wing people are concerned about this issue too. Just because the US right wing have piled in on it, for different reasons, does not mean there isn't anything at all to be concerned about.

Which medications are these? And do the effects of these medications stop when the medication is stopped, or, is it a case of being too late to think about stopping them after you've started on them?

I'm not aware of any medication, currently on the market that doesn't have side effects.

 

[multitool]

@AuroraSaab

I have to question your reading skills, given that you get the hump when I point out misrepresentation.

Nobody is "mocking" detransitioners and "people with social contagion".

We are mocking YOU. Why? Because, as the term 'bingo sheet' implies, you are reading from a script of talking points from well-known phobes.

You can't even think up your own attack-lines with which to denigrate trans people.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Pointing out the issues which have been part of the discussion for years isn't 'reading from a transphobic script' unless you think that discussing the increasing number of detransitioners is transphobic in itself.

You have a pretty good script yourself though. It runs bigot/transphobe/whataboutery/rightwing
in an attempt to shut down the discussion.

As we've seen this week though, the public discussion isn't going away any time soon.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Which medications are these? And do the effects of these medications stop when the medication is stopped, or, is it a case of being too late to think about stopping them after you've started on them?

I'm not aware of any medication, currently on the market that doesn't have side effects.

Puberty blockers are usually used sparingly for short periods to prevent precocious puberty. To prevent 9 year old girls having periods for a couple of years for example. The NHS has recently reversed its position that the effects of puberty blockers are reversible. We do know that puberty blockers affect bone health and there is concern about cognitive development. Obviously, after longterm use the body does not have the full development that puberty brings in terms of height and size. Also a question of whether children at a young age can understand possible side effects and consent.

With cross sex hormones the effect of testosterone on women is facial hair, deeper voice, baldness, bone density, uterine atrophy and infertility. None of which is reversible. I would question whether even an 18 year old can understand things like loss of fertility, though obviously we allow consent for many things at 18.

Long term studies on the effects of cross sex hormones suggest other issues like increased risk heart disease, but the research on both medical and mental health outcomes is not always of good quality. Often no control group for example.

The Detransitioners link gives a good insight into the effects of testosterone. You can see it in the photos.

 

[classic33]

Puberty blockers are usually used sparingly for short periods to prevent precocious puberty. To prevent 9 year old girls having periods for a couple of years for example. The NHS has recently reversed its position that the effects of puberty blockers are reversible. We do know that puberty blockers affect bone health and there is concern about cognitive development. Obviously, after longterm use the body does not have the full development that puberty brings in terms of height and size. Also a question of whether children at a young age can understand possible side effects and consent.

With cross sex hormones the effect of testosterone on women is facial hair, deeper voice, baldness, bone density, uterine atrophy and infertility. None of which is reversible. I would question whether even an 18 year old can understand things like loss of fertility, though obviously we allow consent for many things at 18.

Long term studies on the effects of cross sex hormones suggest other issues like increased risk heart disease, but the research on both medical and mental health outcomes is not always of good quality. Often no control group for example.

The Detransitioners link gives a good insight into the effects of testosterone. You can see it in the photos.

But what are the names of these medications?
And as far as I'm aware, it's not just young girls that are given them. Why are you concentrating on just part of those involved.

I speak as someone who as a child had to agree to take certain medications, for a condition that isn't fully understood today.

 

[multitool]

As we've seen this week though, the public discussion isn't going away any time soon.

Yeah...and as we've found out most of the public discussion was fact-free sensationalism generated by right-wing tabloids and people like you who work tirelessly to equate trans women with predators.

What we learned was that there are, in fact, no rapists in free circulation in Scottish women's prisons.

But do people know that? No. Because lies stick...and you are still promulgating them.

 

[multitool]

I find your patronising tone in this whole discussion as tiresome as you find me careless.

Tone policing now eh? Yes I admit to being 'teachery'. I identified as a teacher of one kind or another for 34 or more years.

I apologise for calling you 'careless'. I actually meant reckless.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Careful Aurora. You'll have mudsticks screaming in to accuse you of shutting down women's speech.

 

[multitool]

...whilst totally failing to invoke that I do actually shut down one person, icowden.

Of course, it's an awkward fact for mudsticks's little sexism theory that icowden is a man.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Anyone got an opinion on this?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-change

'But while UKA now makes clear that the women’s category should be reserved “for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly”, it says the government must introduce legislation to ensure beyond doubt that it will not be legally challenged.'

 

[multitool]

You have a pretty good script yourself though. It runs bigot/transphobe/whataboutery/rightwing
in an attempt to shut down the discussion.

The bulk of my involvement in this thread was seeking evidence for and clarification of, your many reductivist, dogmatic and zealous statements.

In response, I got:

Gender-flaming (from you and Mudsticks).
Goalpost moving when you couldn't supply the specifics requested.
Straw men (endless)
Misquotation and misrepresentation.
Disgusting personal attacks accusing me of being pro-rapist.(with the idiot jowwy repeating your ad homs)
...and lies.

I'm at least the fourth person to point out your tactics. So yes, forgive me if I don't consider you much other than an extremist bigot with a hate agenda who uses dishonesty to promote her case.

That's not shutting you down. It's stating a fact.

 

[multitool]

Anyone got an opinion on this?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-chan

'But while UKA now makes clear that the women’s category should be reserved “for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly”, it says the government must introduce legislation to ensure beyond doubt that it will not be legally challenged.'

Yes, I do.

I think the question of trans people (t women, in cis women's sport, let's face it) has still to be worked through. I think it probably needs to be done on a sport by sport basis. It's clear to me that even with rules in place regarding hormone treatment there are some residual advantages that may be present in some but not all sports. Indeed those same things may be disadvantageous in some sports where extra weight of bone is a handicap.

I don't think there needs to be a moral panic, nor do I think the 'phobes should be allowed to weaponise women's sport...especially the ones who have never shown the slightest interest in rectifying the inequality between female and male sports in terms of pay & conditions, tv coverage etc etc. As with the trans prison rapist discussion, I very much doubt it will be fact-based. All of which makes it much harder for an equitable solution to be found for everyone.

I'd also point out that nobody seems to think it's an issue when TW lose...which is what they spend most of their time doing. Nor has there ever been any major win by a TW athlete (and yes, I know there is more to it than winning)

 

[AuroraSaab]

Anyone got an opinion on this?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-change

'But while UKA now makes clear that the women’s category should be reserved “for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly”, it says the government must introduce legislation to ensure beyond doubt that it will not be legally challenged.'

Other sports have moved to the Open category option so it seems odd that UK Athletics are saying it needs a law change. Can only think they are worried about a possible legal action and are holding back. Several track and field athletes have spoken out about the issue in the last couple of weeks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ld-athletics-b2272557.html#Echobox=1675138652

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/64396740.amp

 

[bobzmyunkle]

it seems odd that UK Athletics are saying it needs a law change.

Yes, I wondered if anyone knew why they are taking that stance