State-sponsored child grooming.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

The left have had a fascination with eugenics for decades and this current child abuse and genital mutilation is just the current iteration. It's also turning into a multi million pound business opportunity so there are plenty of corrupt medical professional individuals and pharma companies ready to climb aboard this particular bandwagon

[king canary 7,679]

2 hours ago, Bort said:

And yet, if it's the best data we've got, then it makes sense to operate under these preliminary conclusions until we have better-quality data. Scientific method and all that.

Erm, no. 

It's flawed data. You don't just go 'that's all we've got so let's base all our policies off it.' Especially when what we're talking about are serious medical procedures involving minors. You proceed with an abundance of caution until you know better.

[Bort 34]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Erm, no. 

It's flawed data. You don't just go 'that's all we've got so let's base all our policies off it.' Especially when what we're talking about are serious medical procedures involving minors. You proceed with an abundance of caution until you know better.

Banning transition is as much of a policy choice as allowing it, so by your logic that decision is also based on flawed data. If a ban leads to poorer quality of life for thousands of people, then it's not a cautious option.

[Bort 34]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

The left have had a fascination with eugenics for decades and this current child abuse and genital mutilation is just the current iteration. It's also turning into a multi million pound business opportunity so there are plenty of corrupt medical professional individuals and pharma companies ready to climb aboard this particular bandwagon

Implying that eugenics, of all things, is primarily an interest of the left is a bold bit of mental gymnastics.

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

all of this transitioning insanity fails because you can't turn someone born a man into a real woman and you can't turn someone born a woman into a real man

This is the simple crux of your argument - nothing else to it at all - all the rest about minors, grooming, issues and rights are all just a straw-man smokescreen for you.

Far enough if that's your view, but at least we've got that straight (pun intended).  

[king canary 7,679]

42 minutes ago, Bort said:

Banning transition is as much of a policy choice as allowing it, so by your logic that decision is also based on flawed data. If a ban leads to poorer quality of life for thousands of people, then it's not a cautious option.

To be clear, I've not advocated banning transition.

Putting kids on puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and eventually life altering surgery is not something that should be done lightly though. I have no problems with kids socially transitioning as long as they are properly supported and I have no problem with adults choosing these paths. I do have a problem with affirmation only care and places like Tavistock not considering comorbidities when considering how to treat vulnerable minors.

And this isn't some fringe right wing position, countries like Sweden, Netherlands and Finland have all made the decision to move away from this model of care as more evidence comes to light.

[Bort 34]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

My argument doesn't fail; all of this transitioning insanity fails because you can't turn someone born a man into a real woman and you can't turn someone born a woman into a real man. The plastic surgeons are selling a delusion to make money as surgeons. Kind of ironic that our resident commie is such a fan of the idea.

Under 16, she's deemed unfit to judge whether she can have sex with someone. And yet supposedly she's fit to judge if her body is 'incorrect' when measured against whatever's going on within her head. Puberty blockers may be reversible, but they block the sexual development and will create issues that could quite possibly go away through the natural progress of puberty and a bit of well-judged counselling,

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the Monty Python clip. That the farce of the 1970s is now the reality of the 2020s is a very depressing thought.

 

You'll be delighted to hear that the NHS offers gender-affirming surgery then. Also, what's your definition of a "real" man or woman, out of interest? Someone who's fertile (as that seems to have been your focus thus far)?

Age of consent laws exist to stop adults manipulating children into sex, because of the inevitable power imbalance in an adult-child relationship. It's a vastly different thing to a child going through the personal process of learning about their own mind and body.

Yes, societal attitudes change over time, and usually for the better. Homosexuality, gender equality, racial equality - all treated as absurd and farcical in the past.

[Bort 34]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

And this isn't some fringe right wing position, countries like Sweden, Netherlands and Finland have all made the decision to move away from this model of care as more evidence comes to light.

Couldn't find a source on the Netherlands, but from what I've read about the situation in Sweden and Finland, those policy changes have been widely criticised by the trans communities in those countries (whom the policies actually affect). Notably though, Finland did recently bring in self-ID for adults, and Sweden's current government isn't exactly left-wing.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

 

🙃

Edited May 30, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

10 minutes ago, Bort said:

Couldn't find a source on the Netherlands, but from what I've read about the situation in Sweden and Finland, those policy changes have been widely criticised by the trans communities in those countries (whom the policies actually affect). Notably though, Finland did recently bring in self-ID for adults, and Sweden's current government isn't exactly left-wing.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/

The policies also affect the detransitioners who are frequently dismissed by professionals and bullied by other transitioners who are threatened by their negative experiences.

Medical professionals telling parents their children were 'born in the wrong bodies' because they might be a more masculine girl or a more feminine boy, or a boy attracted to boys or a girl attracted to girls. This is not progress. This is the antithesis of the philosophy that reconciled being gay, lesbian or bisexual with being considered a normal person.

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

Perhaps if we can all ignore LYB and Jools we can have a proper discussion.

I for instance can easily see and accept that many children in the ten to twelve year old group can easily be persuaded by social media or that its cool  / fashionable to be transgenda or whatever. It's not helped by the plethora of obviously gay characters on TV like Schofield. Housewives choice!

However, it should be easy to identify those that have superficial transient issues from those that may need more help. 

As with most things there is a spectrum and certainly transitioning should be seen as a last resort for the most difficult cases.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Bort 34]

22 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/

The policies also affect the detransitioners who are frequently dismissed by professionals and bullied by other transitioners who are threatened by their negative experiences.

Medical professionals telling parents their children were 'born in the wrong bodies' because they might be a more masculine girl or a more feminine boy, or a boy attracted to boys or a girl attracted to girls. This is not progress. This is the antithesis of the philosophy that reconciled being gay, lesbian or bisexual with being considered a normal person.

While I have sympathy for the handful of individuals highlighted in this article (and agree that they shouldn't be ignored, as long as they're simply sharing their experience), again it's worth noting that the collection of studies cited at the foot of the piece show that current evidence suggests they are very much in the minority when looking at people who have transitioned as a whole.

Rather than framing their suffering as an indication that pro-trans policy is a mistake, I see it as a reminder that mental healthcare in most countries is still lacking, and greater support both pre- and post-transition is essential to ensure that vulnerable people get the care they need. 

This section stands out to me:

"Others said sexual abuse or assault made them want to leave the gender associated with that trauma. Many also said they had autism or mental health issues such as bipolar disorder that complicated their search for identity as teenagers.

Echoing what MacKinnon has found in his work, nearly all of these young people told Reuters that they wished their doctors or therapists had more fully discussed these complicating factors before allowing them to medically transition."

Again, this suggests to me that more attention, funding and research - rather than the dismissal we see from some circles - should be dedicated to trans (and trans-adjacent) issues in an effort to get that transition regret rate down as low as possible, without denying transition to the vast majority who benefit from it.

I'll also take this as an opportunity to point out that there are actions governments can take, such as minimising poverty and improving educational standards, to reduce the prevalence of conditions which precipitate traumatic childhoods in the first place.

[king canary 7,679]

10 hours ago, Bort said:

Again, this suggests to me that more attention, funding and research - rather than the dismissal we see from some circles - should be dedicated to trans (and trans-adjacent) issues in an effort to get that transition regret rate down as low as possible, without denying transition to the vast majority who benefit from it.

I think what is important to acknowledge a couple of things here

1- There is a lot of willingness to do research but it is often the most vocal element of trans-activists who oppose it. Academics have raised concerns that a combination of protest groups and activist lobbies are pressuring universities into shutting down or censoring research that explore controversial issues associates with the trans debate such as detransition, the long term effect of puberty blockers and transwomen in womens prisons. The lack of research isn't driven by conservative plots to shut down the issue, rather, it is often driven by trans activists themselves who claim any research into these areas makes them feel 'unsafe' and cowardly universities who are too willing to cave to pressure groups rather than defend academic freedom.

2- Getting the transition regret rate as low as possible involves moving away from affirmation only care in order to make sure those who do medically transition are actually certain it is what they need. However any suggestion that this isn't the right way forward is met with strong resistance by trans activists. @Yellow Fever said above that it should be easy to work out who is and isn't genuinely trans but that isn't the case when the entire model of care is built off 'if someone says they are trans we work from the assumption that they are.' A failure to explore and track comorbidities was one of the reasons Tavistock got shut down. A staggeringly large proportion of those presenting with ROGD also either have autism or display strong autistic traits. They've also often suffered sexual abuse. However under the affirmation only model a doctor should not explore whether these underlying issues might be driving the patient to decide they are transgender. Instead they are supposed to affirm and work from there. It is a crazy model that absolutely wouldn't be applied to any other circumstances. Any suggestion that there may be a social contagion element is similarly dismissed as transphobic despite it being a factor in various other similar situations such as eating disorders and despite very odd and statistically improbable cases of 4 or 5 girls in one school year suddenly all saying they are trans.

This also brings in another issue that was discussed earlier in this thread- conversion therapy. When people hear this they generally think of awful hardcore Christian conservative 'pray the gay away' camps. However in the context of transgender treatment 'conversion therapy' includes basic talking therapy. So under the initial proposed ban, it would have been considered conversion therapy for a psychologist to suggest to a patient that they might not actually have GD. Again, a crazy way of treating people.

I absolutely agree that terms like grooming, eugenics and nazi comparisons aren't helpful in the debate. My general believe is well meaning people who are extremely keen on being on 'the right side of history' have allowed themselves to be railroaded by a very loud and very extreme sector of the trans rights movement. Hence the rise and then fall from grace of organisations like Mermaids, when anyone who took a cursory glance at the 'origin story' of the charity would have raised an eyebrow or two. 

This is a delicate and important issue and shouldn't be consumed by either right wing culture warriors or do-gooder leftist activists demanding all the usual scrutiny and research be dropped so they can feel like they're helping.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by king canary
typos

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

57 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think what is important to acknowledge a couple of things here

1- There is a lot of willingness to do research but it is often the most vocal element of trans-activists who oppose it. Academics have raised concerns that a combination of protest groups and activist lobbies are pressuring universities into shutting down or censoring research that explore controversial issues associates with the trans debate such as detransition, the long term effect of puberty blockers and transwomen in womens prisons. The lack of research isn't driven by conservative plots to shut down the issue, rather, it is often driven by trans activists themselves who claim any research into these areas makes them feel 'unsafe' and cowardly universities who are too willing to cave to pressure groups rather than defend academic freedom.

2- Getting the transition regret rate as low as possible involves moving away from affirmation only care in order to make sure those who do medically transition are actually certain it is what they need. However any suggestion that this isn't the right way forward is met with strong resistance by trans activists. @Yellow Fever said above that it should be easy to work out who is and isn't genuinely trans but that isn't the case when the entire model of care is built off 'if someone says they are trans we work from the assumption that they are.' A failure to explore and track comorbidities was one of the reasons Tavistock got shut down. A staggeringly large proportion of those presenting with ROGD also either have autism or display strong autistic traits. They've also often suffered sexual abuse. However under the affirmation only model a doctor should not explore whether these underlying issues might be driving the patient to decide they are transgender. Instead they are supposed to affirm and work from there. It is a crazy model that absolutely wouldn't be applied to any other circumstances. Any suggestion that there may be a social contagion element is similarly dismissed as transphobic despite it being a factor in various other similar situations such as eating disorders and despite very odd and statistically improbable cases of 4 or 5 girls in one school year suddenly all saying they are trans.

This also brings in another issue that was discussed earlier in this thread- conversion therapy. When people hear this they generally think of awful hardcore Christian conservative 'pray the gay away' camps. However in the context of transgender treatment 'conversion therapy' includes basic talking therapy. So under the initial proposed ban, it would have been considered conversion therapy for a psychologist to suggest to a patient that they might not actually have GD. Again, a crazy way of treating people.

I absolutely agree that terms like grooming, eugenics and nazi comparisons aren't helpful in the debate. My general believe is well meaning people who are extremely keen on being on 'the right side of history' have allowed themselves to be railroaded by a very loud and very extreme sector of the trans rights movement. Hence the rise and then fall from grace of organisations like Mermaids, when anyone who took a cursory glance at the 'origin story' of the charity would have raised an eyebrow or two. 

This is a delicate and important issue and shouldn't be consumed by either right wing culture warriors or do-gooder leftist activists demanding all the usual scrutiny and research be dropped so they can feel like they're helping.

 

I can agree with a lot of that KC - especially the need to have a toned down and less absolutist positions when the world is much more complicated than that even on 'sex' (the mess the athletics boards get into when trying to define a woman etc.). The problem is it has become politicized on both the left and right (the polarizing title of this thread bears witness to that which is what got me involved)

My point about being easy to work out who isn't generally LGBT really applies to very young children who follow fashion trends and 'role' models only. Oddly, Jool's cartoon sums that up but doesn't help the more substantive cases.

Against that - it is of course now easier than ever 'come out' as opposing to living an unhappy, secretive, inner life. 

Finally, we do have a social trend in the youngest, agree with it or not, to drop the pronouns he/she/him/her for gender neutral ones i.e 'dog'. Personally I think that's too far and people should be addressed consistent with their 'looks/dress' although I can easily recall a few 'its' 😉

I suppose I generally wish people could be a little less prescriptive of others and learn to live and let live.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[king canary 7,679]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I can agree with a lot of that KC - especially the need to have a toned down and less absolutist positions when the world is much more complicated than that even on 'sex' (the mess the athletics boards get into when trying to define a woman etc.). The problem is it has become politicized on both the left and right (the polarizing title of this thread bears witness to that which is what got me involved)

My point about being easy to work out who isn't generally LGBT really applies to very young children who follow fashion trends and 'role' models only. Oddly, Jool's cartoon sums that up but doesn't help the more substantive cases.

Against that - it is of course now easier than ever 'come out' as opposing to living an unhappy, secretive, inner life. 

Finally, we do have a social trend in the youngest, agree with it or not, to drop the pronouns he/she/him/her for gender neutral ones i.e 'dog'. Personally I think that's too far and people should be addressed consistent with their 'looks/dress' although I can easily recall a few 'its' 😉

To be honest the pronouns stuff doesn't bother me. I work with someone who goes by 'they/them' and it took a bit of getting used to but it clearly matters to them and they've not jumped down peoples throats when they get it wrong which I think goes a long way.

[FenwayFrank 2,468]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

To be honest the pronouns stuff doesn't bother me. I work with someone who goes by 'they/them' and it took a bit of getting used to but it clearly matters to them and they've not jumped down peoples throats when they get it wrong which I think goes a long way.

Is he a fisherthem ? ( winky face)

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

To be honest the pronouns stuff doesn't bother me. I work with someone who goes by 'they/them' and it took a bit of getting used to but it clearly matters to them and they've not jumped down peoples throats when they get it wrong which I think goes a long way.

Yes - I was just adding a line to my previous comment (was struggling to find the right word) which I think says much the same. 

"I suppose I generally wish people could be a little less prescriptive of others and learn to live and let live."

[Bort 34]

52 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think what is important to acknowledge a couple of things here

1- There is a lot of willingness to do research but it is often the most vocal element of trans-activists who oppose it. Academics have raised concerns that a combination of protest groups and activist lobbies are pressuring universities into shutting down or censoring research that explore controversial issues associates with the trans debate such as detransition, the long term effect of puberty blockers and transwomen in womens prisons. The lack of research isn't driven by conservative plots to shut down the issue, rather, it is often driven by trans activists themselves who claim any research into these areas makes them feel 'unsafe' and cowardly universities who are too willing to cave to pressure groups rather than defend academic freedom.

2- Getting the transition regret rate as low as possible involves moving away from affirmation only care in order to make sure those who do medically transition are actually certain it is what they need. However any suggestion that this isn't the right way forward is met with strong resistance by trans activists. @Yellow Fever said above that it should be easy to work out who is and isn't genuinely trans but that isn't the case when the entire model of care is built off 'if someone says they are trans we work from the assumption that they are.' A failure to explore and track comorbidities was one of the reasons Tavistock got shut down. A staggeringly large proportion of those presenting with ROGD also either have autism or display strong autistic traits. They've also often suffered sexual abuse. However under the affirmation only model a doctor should not explore whether these underlying issues might be driving the patient to decide they are transgender. Instead they are supposed to affirm and work from there. It is a crazy model that absolutely wouldn't be applied to any other circumstances. Any suggestion that there may be a social contagion element is similarly dismissed as transphobic despite it being a factor in various other similar situations such as eating disorders and despite very odd and statistically improbable cases of 4 or 5 girls in one school year suddenly all saying they are trans.

This also brings in another issue that was discussed earlier in this thread- conversion therapy. When people hear this they generally think of awful hardcore Christian conservative 'pray the gay away' camps. However in the context of transgender treatment 'conversion therapy' includes basic talking therapy. So under the initial proposed ban, it would have been considered conversion therapy for a psychologist to suggest to a patient that they might not actually have GD. Again, a crazy way of treating people.

I absolutely agree that terms like grooming, eugenics and nazi comparisons aren't helpful in the debate. My general believe is well meaning people who are extremely keen on being on 'the right side of history' have allowed themselves to be railroaded by a very loud and very extreme sector of the trans rights movement. Hence the rise and then fall from grace of organisations like Mermaids, when anyone who took a cursory glance at the 'origin story' of the charity would have raised an eyebrow or two. 

This is a delicate and important issue and shouldn't be consumed by either right wing culture warriors or do-gooder leftist activists demanding all the usual scrutiny and research be dropped so they can feel like they're helping.

 

I can agree with some of this. I consider myself a materialist rather than a liberal idealist, so generally speaking I'll follow the best evidence we have on a given issue. 

What I would say, though, is that academia is not immune from reflecting contemporary social attitudes in its research findings. Speaking of eugenics, the prejudices of Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw social Darwinism become popular among academics. It's not unreasonable for trans people to be concerned that transphobia in modern society could leach into academia.

I'd also push back on the idea that being transgender is comparable to having an eating disorder. Embracing an eating disorder is never going to be beneficial to the long-term health of an individual, whereas enabling someone to live in their preferred gender identity has clearly been beneficial for many people. You presumably wouldn't compare homosexuality to an eating disorder.

[king canary 7,679]

37 minutes ago, Bort said:

I can agree with some of this. I consider myself a materialist rather than a liberal idealist, so generally speaking I'll follow the best evidence we have on a given issue. 

What I would say, though, is that academia is not immune from reflecting contemporary social attitudes in its research findings. Speaking of eugenics, the prejudices of Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw social Darwinism become popular among academics. It's not unreasonable for trans people to be concerned that transphobia in modern society could leach into academia.

I'd also push back on the idea that being transgender is comparable to having an eating disorder. Embracing an eating disorder is never going to be beneficial to the long-term health of an individual, whereas enabling someone to live in their preferred gender identity has clearly been beneficial for many people. You presumably wouldn't compare homosexuality to an eating disorder.

No but I also don't see homosexuality as something particularly comparable to gender dysphoria either. If a teenager comes out as gay nobody suggests they need to start taking poorly researched drugs or have irreversible surgery.

The problem with the idea of 'transphobia leaking into academia' is that transphobia is so badly defined. I've seen people who believe women's sports should stay segregated by sex, lesbians who say they don't want to sleep with people with penises and people who advocate the positions I've stated above dismissed as transphobic bigots. I've rarely seen debates escalate so quickly and hysterically as those about trans people. There are people who will say, with a straight face, that the UK is involved in genocide against trans people because British Cycling have regulations that say transwomen can't compete in women's cycling. 

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

I ought to add just for completeness.

I would guess any first year anatomy course at any medical school will quickly disabuse you of simple binary notions of male/female anatomy. It might be rare but not that rare (society has always hidden it). Once you grasp this that 'nature' can throw an obvious curved ball at some people you can quickly accept that there will be many other less obvious 'cross-over' effects that can also occur. A spectrum of which the common traditional male/female are at the extremes.  Forget 'trans' but it's the problem that is causing all sort of confusion in athletics.

This is not to to promote or belittle others concerns but it should induce a little bit of humility in our concepts of sex and gender. There but for for the grace of God (or nature) go I.

Of course there are also societal effects - nurture - that can affect a persons outlook. It is likely mixture (or enabled/requires) a bit of both.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Fact is anyone who is aminor can think and say what they like but their pajrents have the final say. So while arguments rage, the basic point of parenting is being ignored.

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Fact is anyone who is aminor can think and say what they like but their pajrents have the final say. So while arguments rage, the basic point of parenting is being ignored.

Not strictly true KG - 

See

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines#skip-to-content

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

6 hours ago, Bort said:

I can agree with some of this. I consider myself a materialist rather than a liberal idealist, so generally speaking I'll follow the best evidence we have on a given issue. 

What I would say, though, is that academia is not immune from reflecting contemporary social attitudes in its research findings. Speaking of eugenics, the prejudices of Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw social Darwinism become popular among academics. It's not unreasonable for trans people to be concerned that transphobia in modern society could leach into academia.

I'd also push back on the idea that being transgender is comparable to having an eating disorder. Embracing an eating disorder is never going to be beneficial to the long-term health of an individual, whereas enabling someone to live in their preferred gender identity has clearly been beneficial for many people. You presumably wouldn't compare homosexuality to an eating disorder.

Clearly you haven't looked into the long term effects of gender 'reassignment' surgery. Regular occurrence in trans females of having repeat surgery because they keep healing up and a lifetime of hormone replacement.

If gender dysphoria is such a prevalent issue now, it would be really interesting to see a survey of adults to see what proportion feel they were deprived or harmed at because they weren't encouraged to embrace their 'real' sex - if we're to believe our sex is a figment of our imaginations rather than a physical trait of our bodies - before this sort of surgery was normalised. Presumably there are countless adults happily living under the delusion that they're simply male or female because they looked at their genitalia and nobody told them otherwise.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Not strictly true KG - 

See

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines#skip-to-content

I wonder how far reaching those guidelines are YF?

There always have to be laws and guidelines to help those under attack, threat or ill treatment. But I would assume that much of the current trend in gender comes from minors in decent, free thinking, educated families which may include parents who are very liberal. But I would suggest the majority are saying don't worry, they will grow out of it. We will just keep an eye on it.