The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Esceptico said:

Internet forum is real life but still different from face to face. You have already insulted me many times and been passive aggressive, dismissive or otherwise rude in responses that you might not have done if we had been sat at the dinner table talking. If you are actually hurt by stuff said on forums, for your own mental well-being you should perhaps avoid them. PH in is a pretty toxic environment, particularly NP&E.

Well, take your own advice then and stop moaning.

[Esceptico]

8.4L 154 said:

https://isna.org/faq/frequency/

3) I have news for you, if you tell your religious co-worker their god doesn't exist and do it on a regular basis in the same way that it sounds like you think you should be able to misgender a trans person then that would also be considered harassment, would likely get you disciplined and may also be illegal, so, no its not any different and trans people are not treated in anyway more favourably in law.. In actual fact religion has far greater hate crime protection than trans people do.

1) - Of course it isn’t goal post shifting. Trans people claim to be the other gender before transition. Clearly giving them hormones of the other sex is going to have a physiological and psychological impact.

2) Had another look. From article in the Guardian around 130 births a year in the U.K. where investigation is necessary because it is not immediately apparent which sex the baby is. Annual births in the U.K. 640k. So 0.02%.

3) The difference is that by forcing someone to use the other pronoun to address someone is to make them comply with your worldview. A bit like if it were made law that you would have to utter their religious greetings confirming the existence of their god whenever you spoke with religious people. If I go to church (or mosque) I don’t join in with prayers and I’m not forced to do so either.

[8.4L 154]

Esceptico said:

3) The difference is that by forcing someone to use the other pronoun to address someone is to make them comply with your worldview. A bit like if it were made law that you would have to utter their religious greetings confirming the existence of their god whenever you spoke with religious people. If I go to church (or mosque) I don’t join in with prayers and I’m not forced to do so either.

So if you were to encounter a priest you would refuse to refer to them as Reverend Bob because that would be forcing you to comply with their world view and not just being polite and respectful. What about if they asked you to address them as Reverend and you kept calling them Imam Bob or Rabbi bob, would that be harassment and why is your world view which causes upset and distress to others so much more important to society than anyone else's?

[eldar]

I drop into this thread from time to time in the hope of better understanding a concept that i find difficult to comprehend as well as i think i should.

Starts well, then seems to regress to pointless bickering and point scoring. Not helpful.

[_dobbo_]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

No, that's a Layman. To be a Polymath you need to be an _expert_ in a wide range of subjects.

Seems to me that is something a polymath would know...

Maybe a certain someone's wife is wide of the mark.

I avoided this thread for a couple of days because of what I thought was a regrettable post after a couple of beers. I see now that post was entirely justified. And this thread just goes around and around

[anonymous-user]

Thankfully the judges ruled on evidence, not trans hysteria from middle aged men.

The vast majority of later age transwomen take no medical or surgical treatments in their “transition “ , yet they all rabidly push for young girls and boys to permanently make irreversible changes to their bodies ??

Then the suicide line is thrown out ( totally against Samaritans guidelines) when there is absolutely no evidence of this either.

Imo more input is needed from women in these cases( as they are losing out the most) , not just blue haired folx and agp’s

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Iwantafusca said:

Thankfully the judges ruled on evidence, not trans hysteria from middle aged men.

The vast majority of later age transwomen take no medical or surgical treatments in their “transition “ , yet they all rabidly push for young girls and boys to permanently make irreversible changes to their bodies ??

Then the suicide line is thrown out ( totally against Samaritans guidelines) when there is absolutely no evidence of this either.

Imo more input is needed from women in these cases( as they are losing out the most) , not just blue haired folx and agp’s

Why are women losing out the most?

[8.4L 154]

Iwantafusca said:

Thankfully the judges ruled on evidence, not trans hysteria from middle aged men.

The vast majority of later age transwomen take no medical or surgical treatments in their “transition “ , yet they all rabidly push for young girls and boys to permanently make irreversible changes to their bodies ??

Then the suicide line is thrown out ( totally against Samaritans guidelines) when there is absolutely no evidence of this either.

Imo more input is needed from women in these cases( as they are losing out the most) , not just blue haired folx and agp’s

Ah the thinly veiled claim of Pedophilia yet again. Stochastic terrorism is gender critical people's favourite tactic

[Stay in Bed Instead]

8.4L 154 said:

Iwantafusca said:

Thankfully the judges ruled on evidence, not trans hysteria from middle aged men.

The vast majority of later age transwomen take no medical or surgical treatments in their “transition “ , yet they all rabidly push for young girls and boys to permanently make irreversible changes to their bodies ??

Then the suicide line is thrown out ( totally against Samaritans guidelines) when there is absolutely no evidence of this either.

Imo more input is needed from women in these cases( as they are losing out the most) , not just blue haired folx and agp’s

Ah the thinly veiled claim of Pedophilia yet again. Stochastic terrorism is gender critical people's favourite tactic

Where is this thinly veiled claim exactly?

[amusingduck]

8.4L 154 said:

Anyway this has very little to do with trans and non binary people, nor anything much about Tuesday's court case which sets a horrifying precedent for undermining Gillick competence

Rubbish.

As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

They don't have sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed, Gillick competence has been reinforced by this decision.

8.4L 154 said:

Not to mention the premise of the decision could be used to overturn adolescent consent to a whole range of medical treatments and procedures, not least of which is the Covid 19 Vaccine. If puberty blockers are two experimental to give informed consent to then a drug which wasn't even in existence or even known to be needed less than 10 months ago most certainly fits the experimental criteria far more than one which has been used off label for suppressing puberty in trans kids for 30 years and is actually licenced for the same purpose in precautious puberty.

Baseless fearmongering, and misrepresentation of what the court said.

8.4L 154 said:

Or does it deal with the cisnormative approach to trans healthcare, when the regret of one person who would never have been covered by the judgement they sought (they were 16 when prescribed PB's so outside of the meat of the ruling) is placed above the actual harm now being done to trans adolescents. Since the judgement on Tuesday there is already one reliable indication of an attempted suicide, there are kid's who have spent three years attending assessment's and who had endo appointments next week having them cancelled, there are kids who have this week had prescriptions withheld for their ongoing treatment plan. there are 160 trans kids having their treatment plan ripped out from underneath them with no thought to their safety, withdrawal or ongoing care, there are a further 5000 kids who now are looking at little hope of preventing permanent changes which will lead to inevitable painful surgery's, costly and painful additional treatments, all because trans healthcare sees cis as the ideal outcome, because the legal system sees cis as the ideal outcome, a system that does everything it can to protect that one cis person, that does everything it can to ensure cis conformity is the preferred outcome.

Keira Bell would have been called a trans adolescent not long ago. Now, her body has been irreversibly changed, breasts removed, for no reason. Three quarters of new admissions are female; how many more like her would be failed by the useless Tavistock clinic, who seem to have very little interest in analysing their data or safeguarding their patients.

Guardian said:

Marcus Evans, one of the governors of The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has resigned, after accusing its management of having an “overvalued belief in” the expertise of its Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) “which is used to dismiss challenge and examination”.

..

The service has been struggling to contain the fallout from an internal report by Dr David Bell, written in his capacity as then staff governor, which warned that “the GIDS service as it now functions [is] not fit for purpose and children’s ends are being met in a woeful, inadequate manner and some will live on with the damaging consequences”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/23/child-transgender-service-governor-quits-chaos

Times said:

The Times has spoken to five clinicians who resigned from the service because of concerns over the treatment of vulnerable children who come to the clinic presenting as transgender.

They believe that some gay children struggling with their sexuality are being wrongly diagnosed as “transgender” by the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) clinic.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c4343502-5981-11e9-b371-613f81256d20

Spectator said:

among the people at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust who are supposed to ensure such policy and practice are in place is Sonia Appleby, the ‘Named Professional for Safeguarding Children’. She describes her role in this way:

'My primary task is to ensure that clinicians protect their patients/service users from avoidable harm and are also able to recognize and appropriately respond to situations where under 18s are in need of safeguarding. My secondary task is challenge practices which are either harmful or could lead to harm.'

In other words, Appleby is part of the system at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust that is supposed to identify and address concerns from NHS staff who want to ‘blow the whistle’ on things that could be causing harm to the children seen at the GIDS.

Appleby is now taking legal action against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. She says that when she raised the concerns of GIDS staff about patient safety to senior management, she was effectively punished. She also says that the Trust management actively discouraged clinical staff from raising patient safety concerns with her.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Are-whistleblowers-being-silenced-at-the-NHS-gender-clinic

[8.4L 154]

amusingduck said:

a bunch of complex quotes i cant be bothered to sort the syntax for

Gillick competence is about understanding that kids don't go to bed on the eve of their 16th birthday incapable of consenting to medical treatment and wake up the next morning having been programmed overnight with the requisite knowledge and ability to consent. How does a ruling that effectively prohibits anyone under the age of 16 being considered competent reinforce the principles of Gillick competence?

Bell was 16 when she consented to PBs, she was 20 and no longer a patient of the clinic she took to JR when she consented to surgery, she is on the record stating nothing would have stopped her. How does a judgement affecting under 16 change the outcome she would have had?

I agree the Tavistock is a disgrace, they didn't follow international best practice but instead considered themselves the UK experts and came up with their own treatment protocols, I agree they absolutely failed in record keeping and failed in presenting a case, and because the court denied any representation from trans advocacy groups whilst allowing transgender trend to give testimony, a group which is in reality just a front for one ex cult member ex sculptor who has zero experience in trans healthcare, the UK is now left with a judgement which makes singles us out as going against the rest of western countries like Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada and most of Europe except those ex eastern block states like Poland and Hungary which we are now following in curtailing LGBT rights

[General George Smiley]

8.4L 154 said:

Ah the thinly veiled claim of Pedophilia yet again. Stochastic terrorism is gender critical people's favourite tactic

I think you need to stop with the claim people are calling you pedophiles.

On the one hand there are trans rights people wanting to block puberty and enable physical transition at an age well below the bar set for mental culpability and on the other hand we have people wanting to protect children from making a life altering decision at an age they are not capable of responsibility.

No one is calling you a kiddie fiddler or claiming trans women are a increase danger to kids

It is possible to transition post puberty, surely this is the safest option all round.

[8.4L 154]

General George Smiley said:

8.4L 154 said:

Ah the thinly veiled claim of Pedophilia yet again. Stochastic terrorism is gender critical people's favourite tactic

I think you need to stop with the claim people are calling you pedophiles.

On the one hand there are trans rights people wanting to block puberty and enable physical transition at an age well below the bar set for mental culpability and on the other hand we have people wanting to protect children from making a life altering decision at an age they are not capable of responsibility.

No one is calling you a kiddie fiddler or claiming trans women are a increase danger to kids

It is possible to transition post puberty, surely this is the safest option all round.

Iwantafusca has a long history of provoking the idea of paedophilia as the motivation for trans adolescent healthcare along with the gender critical campaign outside of PH. The words they are using are most certainly dog whistles to that campaign.

On your other point

No its not the safest option all round. That is the experience of trans people who have survived it. The trans people who are having to endure painful long-term treatments to reverse the effects of puberty, None of the treatments without risk, the trans people who experience the ongoing mental health struggles that result from the effects of the wrong puberty, the trans people who have lost friends and countless others because of healthcare that wasn't available to them both now and as children, the trans people who knew from their first memories who they were.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

General George Smiley said:

I think you need to stop with the claim people are calling you pedophiles.

[...]

No one is calling you a kiddie fiddler or claiming trans women are a increase danger to kids

Iwantafusca has previous on this. The latest post is a subtle(r) callback to more blatant insinuations in the past. It is by no means a one-off and is systematic.

Additionally, other posters have made comments along the lines of "I wouldn't want a man in a dress to be in the same toilet as my young daughter".

There are plenty of comments implying that trans women are sexual predators.

The irony, in the instance of toilets, is that a mop and an overall would be a far more effective means of entry than a dress.

[pquinn]

The problem with people who turn up aggressively pushing their argument is they get bundled in as being the same sort of 'activist' as Jessica Yaniv.

Wind it down a bit and people might pay your argument more attention.

[General George Smiley]

It always comes back to the toilets

[Clockwork Cupcake]

General George Smiley said:

It always comes back to the toilets

Doesn't it. It's almost like Godwin's Law. Only for toilets.

[General George Smiley]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Doesn't it. It's almost like Godwin's Law. Only for toilets.

Yeah

I still have an issue with allowing someone not presenting as their chosen gender to enter to opposite gender areas (for obvious reasons) but I don’t understand the links to deviancy

I do disagree on blocking puberty, I understand it’s tough for someone to go through then transition but for someone determined to they will have the support once they are able to make the choice (when older and more understanding of the impact)

I’d rather take that route as it gives a better prospect of the right decision. I also understand the counter argument of prolonged strain but with such a permanent choice, it’s better to be fully safe.

Can’t believe I’ve been following this for near 3 years, merry Christmas one and all

[8.4L 154]

General George Smiley said:

Can’t believe I’ve been following this for near 3 years, merry Christmas one and all

Merry Christmas George

[8.4L 154]

General George Smiley said:

Yeah

I still have an issue with allowing someone not presenting as their chosen gender to enter to opposite gender areas (for obvious reasons)

TBH I don't think that is really happening, maybe occasionally there may be some anecdotal evidence but not on any scale worth worrying about, Cis women are coping more flack for not conforming to gender stereotypes than trans women.