The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Noodle1982 said:

That's the usual reply I get off CC whenever I've mentioned the suicide rates in the past.

Not sure why you're singling me out on this. Or yourself, for that matter.

[Noodle1982]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Noodle1982 said:

That's the usual reply I get off CC whenever I've mentioned the suicide rates in the past.

Not sure why you're singling me out on this. Or yourself, for that matter.

Because everytime I bring up the suicide rate in trans folk you have a moan at me.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Noodle1982 said:

Because everytime I bring up the suicide rate in trans folk you have a moan at me.

I thought it was because you kept banging on and on about it, and I asked you why you were so concerned and suggested that you were using it as a debating point rather than from a position of genuine concern.

If I misunderstood that, then I apologise and commend you for your tireless campaigning for trans rights and any suicides associated with them.

[8.4L 154]

Noodle1982 said:

Why are you so concerned about the suicide rate in trans folk?!*

• That's the usual reply I get off CC whenever I've mentioned the suicide rates in the past.

Because I see too many of my friends contemplating it. There were two in crisis and one viable attempt in my twitter feed last week alone.

I was also personal witness to the mentioned street abuse last week.

SG also confirmed a teen suicide recently as a result of online abuse.

[andy_s]

8.4L 154 said:

Because I see too many of my friends contemplating it. There were two in crisis and one viable attempt in my twitter feed last week alone.

I was also personal witness to the mentioned street abuse last week.

SG also confirmed a teen suicide recently as a result of online abuse.

Suicide (attempt) rates are about 40% aren't they? [IIRC]

[Noodle1982]

8.4L 154 said:

Because I see too many of my friends contemplating it. There were two in crisis and one viable attempt in my twitter feed last week alone.

I was also personal witness to the mentioned street abuse last week.

SG also confirmed a teen suicide recently as a result of online abuse.

I'm with you on the suicide rates being an issue.

However, it can't be just down to hate. There has to be more to it. The only suicide rate that is higher than that of trans folk is of the Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Even black folk have never had rates as high and look at their oppression over the years.

Depression and anxiety play a huge part. And anyone that has ever had either knows there isn't a magic cure. You could take away all the hate and provide the trans folk with endless acceptance yet there will still be suicides as these people have a battle with themselves first and foremost. Outside factors are secondary.

[Noodle1982]

andy_s said:

8.4L 154 said:

Because I see too many of my friends contemplating it. There were two in crisis and one viable attempt in my twitter feed last week alone.

I was also personal witness to the mentioned street abuse last week.

SG also confirmed a teen suicide recently as a result of online abuse.

Suicide (attempt) rates are about 40% aren't they? [IIRC]

Slightly higher but yes.

And even after fully transitioning that percentage doesn't decrease.

[George Smiley]

So transitioning isn't the answer and suggests gender may not be the issue

[anonymous-user]

skwdenyer said:

Her child was born male. FGM legislation doesn't apply.

I thought that assigned gender at birth was irrelevant.

[mattmurdock]

Noodle1982 said:

Slightly higher but yes.

And even after fully transitioning that percentage doesn't decrease.

Even more absolute nonsense, which is easily demonstrated with 30 seconds of googling.

If you insist on taking as fact sources which have been shown to be wrong, how on earth is anyone supposed to have a rational discussion with you?

[George Smiley]

8.4L 154 said:

Because I see too many of my friends contemplating it. There were two in crisis and one viable attempt in my twitter feed last week alone.

Why is it in anyone's Twitter feed, sorry if this in insensitive but the whole Twitter thing screams attention. Those that properly want to do it don't seem to announce it via Twitter.

Last week I found a real friend had a failed attempt, I found out through a phone call after she was discovered (by chance).

[Patrick Bateman]

Not sure if this video has been posted but Brass Eye would have struggled with this.

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1108253119421562880

[Noodle1982]

mattmurdock said:

Noodle1982 said:

Slightly higher but yes.

And even after fully transitioning that percentage doesn't decrease.

Even more absolute nonsense, which is easily demonstrated with 30 seconds of googling.

If you insist on taking as fact sources which have been shown to be wrong, how on earth is anyone supposed to have a rational discussion with you?

Here you go, knock yourself out.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.13...

Find me another study over the same course of time, 30 years, that says otherwise. Not a questionnaire of recently transitioned folk who suddenly think everything is fine and dandy.

That link is a Swedish study by the way. One of the most affirming countries in the world when it comes to LGBT issues.

[Halb]

mattmurdock said:

Even more absolute nonsense, which is easily demonstrated with 30 seconds of googling.

If you insist on taking as fact sources which have been shown to be wrong, how on earth is anyone supposed to have a rational discussion with you?

That façade dissolved almost instantly. Better to ignore than feed.

[skwdenyer]

Vandenberg said:

skwdenyer said:

Her child was born male. FGM legislation doesn't apply.

I thought that assigned gender at birth was irrelevant.

That's an interesting thought - did the child in question legally change their gender before undergoing the surgery?

As regards the offending tweets, I'll admit that I'm torn on this issue. We wouldn't allow 11 year olds to make other types of life-altering decisions. We've rolled back from marriage at age 12, say, and there's no criminal liability, etc. Within that context (and setting aside any other issues), I find it hard to accept that chemical gender suppression (for want of a better term) of not-yet-teenagers can be justified.

Now, times change. My grandfather went out to work aged 14, people used to marry at 12, and so on. But the debate shouldn't be about trans issues; the debate is about age and consent and care and nurture.

My wife suffers from pain, and I would love to be able to try various known-source cannabis variants and derivatives to help her. But I can't do that legally because society (or government) has decided that those decisions should not be made by adults.

Society has also decided that many other things are not available to us - either as children or even as adults.

I think where the trans issue falls down for many is that in this particular instance the established norms on consent, maturity and so on seem to have been abandoned without a great deal of (if any) debate, and certainly no wider contextual conversation about what this means overall. It has sort of railroaded its way through.

I note that in the deleted tweets, Ms Farrow did not address the child or use any terms of abuse towards the child; her opprobrium was towards the Mother. Was that free speech, free opinion? It is hard to see it as (legislatively) a hate crime, because the mother does not have any of the protected characteristics. There's a wider "hate" definition, too, but was this hateful or merely critical? Some terms used are emotive, but AIUI "castrated" is an accurate technical term for a part of the procedure, the child was her "son" at some point in the past before re-identifying and then being re-assigned, etc.

But above all I think the wider point needs to be debated - hard cases make bad law, as they say. There is a public debate that needs to happen, one that isn't about trans people but about a much larger class of consent capacity and maturity issues. I just wish both sides of the trans quarrels could pipe down and allow that debate to happen.

[Noodle1982]

skwdenyer said:

That's an interesting thought - did the child in question legally change their gender before undergoing the surgery?

As regards the offending tweets, I'll admit that I'm torn on this issue. We wouldn't allow 11 year olds to make other types of life-altering decisions. We've rolled back from marriage at age 12, say, and there's no criminal liability, etc. Within that context (and setting aside any other issues), I find it hard to accept that chemical gender suppression (for want of a better term) of not-yet-teenagers can be justified.

Now, times change. My grandfather went out to work aged 14, people used to marry at 12, and so on. But the debate shouldn't be about trans issues; the debate is about age and consent and care and nurture.

My wife suffers from pain, and I would love to be able to try various known-source cannabis variants and derivatives to help her. But I can't do that legally because society (or government) has decided that those decisions should not be made by adults.

Society has also decided that many other things are not available to us - either as children or even as adults.

I think where the trans issue falls down for many is that in this particular instance the established norms on consent, maturity and so on seem to have been abandoned without a great deal of (if any) debate, and certainly no wider contextual conversation about what this means overall. It has sort of railroaded its way through.

I note that in the deleted tweets, Ms Farrow did not address the child or use any terms of abuse towards the child; her opprobrium was towards the Mother. Was that free speech, free opinion? It is hard to see it as (legislatively) a hate crime, because the mother does not have any of the protected characteristics. There's a wider "hate" definition, too, but was this hateful or merely critical? Some terms used are emotive, but AIUI "castrated" is an accurate technical term for a part of the procedure, the child was her "son" at some point in the past before re-identifying and then being re-assigned, etc.

But above all I think the wider point needs to be debated - hard cases make bad law, as they say. There is a public debate that needs to happen, one that isn't about trans people but about a much larger class of consent capacity and maturity issues. I just wish both sides of the trans quarrels could pipe down and allow that debate to happen.

Bloody brilliant post.

[gregs656]

Noodle1982 said:

Here you go, knock yourself out.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.13...

Find me another study over the same course of time, 30 years, that says otherwise. Not a questionnaire of recently transitioned folk who suddenly think everything is fine and dandy.

That link is a Swedish study by the way. One of the most affirming countries in the world when it comes to LGBT issues.

That study doesn't support your assertion that transitioning doesn't reduce suicide rates/attempts, only that individuals that have transitioned have a higher risk of suicide compared to a cis gendered control group.

You have now set your self quite a high bar; to find a study over the same course of time, 30 years, that compares non-transitioned trans individuals to transitioned individuals and see what that says.

Otherwise it might look like you were using the 30 years as an unlikely to be matched number to avoid having your underlying opinion challenged.

FWIW that study seems to be a good one and quite open about it's weaknesses etc, offers plausible explanations for variation and so on. This is so much more valuable than the length of the study IMO.

[Trophy Husband]

Noodle1982 said:

skwdenyer said:

That's an interesting thought - did the child in question legally change their gender before undergoing the surgery?

As regards the offending tweets, I'll admit that I'm torn on this issue. We wouldn't allow 11 year olds to make other types of life-altering decisions. We've rolled back from marriage at age 12, say, and there's no criminal liability, etc. Within that context (and setting aside any other issues), I find it hard to accept that chemical gender suppression (for want of a better term) of not-yet-teenagers can be justified.

Now, times change. My grandfather went out to work aged 14, people used to marry at 12, and so on. But the debate shouldn't be about trans issues; the debate is about age and consent and care and nurture.

My wife suffers from pain, and I would love to be able to try various known-source cannabis variants and derivatives to help her. But I can't do that legally because society (or government) has decided that those decisions should not be made by adults.

Society has also decided that many other things are not available to us - either as children or even as adults.

I think where the trans issue falls down for many is that in this particular instance the established norms on consent, maturity and so on seem to have been abandoned without a great deal of (if any) debate, and certainly no wider contextual conversation about what this means overall. It has sort of railroaded its way through.

I note that in the deleted tweets, Ms Farrow did not address the child or use any terms of abuse towards the child; her opprobrium was towards the Mother. Was that free speech, free opinion? It is hard to see it as (legislatively) a hate crime, because the mother does not have any of the protected characteristics. There's a wider "hate" definition, too, but was this hateful or merely critical? Some terms used are emotive, but AIUI "castrated" is an accurate technical term for a part of the procedure, the child was her "son" at some point in the past before re-identifying and then being re-assigned, etc.

But above all I think the wider point needs to be debated - hard cases make bad law, as they say. There is a public debate that needs to happen, one that isn't about trans people but about a much larger class of consent capacity and maturity issues. I just wish both sides of the trans quarrels could pipe down and allow that debate to happen.

Bloody brilliant post.

I concur. Excellent balance whilst fermenting down to a real problem regardless of issue. Hats off.

[8.4L 154]

Trophy Husband said:

Noodle1982 said:

skwdenyer said:

That's an interesting thought - did the child in question legally change their gender before undergoing the surgery?

As regards the offending tweets, I'll admit that I'm torn on this issue. We wouldn't allow 11 year olds to make other types of life-altering decisions. We've rolled back from marriage at age 12, say, and there's no criminal liability, etc. Within that context (and setting aside any other issues), I find it hard to accept that chemical gender suppression (for want of a better term) of not-yet-teenagers can be justified.

Now, times change. My grandfather went out to work aged 14, people used to marry at 12, and so on. But the debate shouldn't be about trans issues; the debate is about age and consent and care and nurture.

My wife suffers from pain, and I would love to be able to try various known-source cannabis variants and derivatives to help her. But I can't do that legally because society (or government) has decided that those decisions should not be made by adults.

Society has also decided that many other things are not available to us - either as children or even as adults.

I think where the trans issue falls down for many is that in this particular instance the established norms on consent, maturity and so on seem to have been abandoned without a great deal of (if any) debate, and certainly no wider contextual conversation about what this means overall. It has sort of railroaded its way through.

I note that in the deleted tweets, Ms Farrow did not address the child or use any terms of abuse towards the child; her opprobrium was towards the Mother. Was that free speech, free opinion? It is hard to see it as (legislatively) a hate crime, because the mother does not have any of the protected characteristics. There's a wider "hate" definition, too, but was this hateful or merely critical? Some terms used are emotive, but AIUI "castrated" is an accurate technical term for a part of the procedure, the child was her "son" at some point in the past before re-identifying and then being re-assigned, etc.

But above all I think the wider point needs to be debated - hard cases make bad law, as they say. There is a public debate that needs to happen, one that isn't about trans people but about a much larger class of consent capacity and maturity issues. I just wish both sides of the trans quarrels could pipe down and allow that debate to happen.

Bloody brilliant post.

I concur. Excellent balance whilst fermenting down to a real problem regardless of issue. Hats off.

The thing is the adults have already had the conversation a long time ago. There is a thing called Gillik competency which is used to decide if children are capable of making informed decisions about a whole range of medical needs. Furthermore trans kids are vigorously assessed over a long period of time before any medical intervention is authorised. (that's after the long wait to get a first appointment) As for their treatment, that has also been debated among the adult medical profession, rather than daily mail, twitter and PH experts and is generally a world wide consensus on treatment method (although the UK is behind in following the best practice)

Oh and one other legal point. Susie Green does poses the protected characteristic necessary for a trans hate crime. The test is the motive not the victim and the victim is also protected by association anyway.

[8.4L 154]

gregs656 said:

Noodle1982 said:

Here you go, knock yourself out.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.13...

Find me another study over the same course of time, 30 years, that says otherwise. Not a questionnaire of recently transitioned folk who suddenly think everything is fine and dandy.

That link is a Swedish study by the way. One of the most affirming countries in the world when it comes to LGBT issues.

That study doesn't support your assertion that transitioning doesn't reduce suicide rates/attempts, only that individuals that have transitioned have a higher risk of suicide compared to a cis gendered control group.

You have now set your self quite a high bar; to find a study over the same course of time, 30 years, that compares non-transitioned trans individuals to transitioned individuals and see what that says.

Otherwise it might look like you were using the 30 years as an unlikely to be matched number to avoid having your underlying opinion challenged.

FWIW that study seems to be a good one and quite open about it's weaknesses etc, offers plausible explanations for variation and so on. This is so much more valuable than the length of the study IMO.

Yeah the devil is in the detail of the Swedish study. its also important to know what the study doesn't say, as many anti trans political lobby groups fill in the gaps themselves and then people like noodle and Gorge start spreading bull st like farmers in the winter.

IIRC a more recent study was used and set legal precedent in Australia when it was evidence in a court case. That study of trans kids found affirmation of the child's GI resulted in near cis levels of depression and suicide ideation.

As for comparing suicide rates to those of concentration camps, and black slaves, i'm not sure the statistics are comparable that way through history, far to many things have changed in society regarding information exchange and recording. But one key factor between those groups and trans people in general is their support network. As st as things were in concentration camps and as a slave, there was still a community support network, They were all in it together. Trans people on the other hand face ostracisation in many cases, just as they need support their family cuts them off. Their friends stop calling, medical help is next to useless, either too far away for effective help or just doesn't have a clue. GP's who are unsupportive, add to that a national conversation which is non stop never ending abuse, even going out for a meal is subjected to staring and pointing across the restaurant and outright abusive behaviour once the abusers felt safe outside, and that was two adults in front of their three pre teen kids hurling abuse that would make a sailor blush.

So why are trans people on twitter reaching out to the only people that care about them. Because in quite a few cases the only people that do care about them are a few strangers/friends who lift them up when they are near the end. and they do it because they are the community support network for each other.