The Gender Non-binary debate.

[8.4L 154]

General George Smiley said:

Yeah



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.

May I suggest the following program, its due to be aired on BBC1 Wales on Tuesday and should be available on BBC3 Iplayer afterwards

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08yr4dk

No Idea how her story will be portrayed by the BBC this time as they can be a bit hostile at times but the family behind the story are sound so hopefully the BBC treat them well.

Its the second part follow up from 5 years ago (below)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qh5v7

[320d is all you need]

eldar said:

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.

From my point of view we have one or perhaps two very vocal posters who seem to think this is "their thread" and make up arguments to have with other posters.

Really pathetic to watch the snide comments made.

Oh but if you disagree, you're transphobic. Nice one.

I tried to get involved with some balanced posts but was repeatedly mis-quoted and purposefully mis understood in an attempt to devalue my position.

I shouldn't have bothered, just like those religious people who force their opinions on you, I aim to just leave well alone and let the circle jerk continue.

[sutoka]

Story today has me confused so how the two children are going to understand I have no idea.

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-transge...

So does that mean they in a heterosexual relationship?

If the father, now the mother was so committed to now being a trans women = isn't it a bit weird she (previously he) waiting until his sperm was extracted before getting it tucked up.

[InitialDave]

320d, is your username a joke, or do you actually own/drive a diesel?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

320d is all you need said:

I tried to get involved with some balanced posts but was repeatedly mis-quoted and purposefully mis understood in an attempt to devalue my position.

I think you may have missed my previous reply to you as this is the first time you have posted since I made it, so to repeat...

Clockwork Cupcake said:

320d is all you need said:

Ok. You're one of those people who completely twist what someone has said to fit a different narrative that you have.

I am categorically not.

320d is all you need said:

That is not what I have said or what was meant.

I can certainly accept that it is not what was meant. But are you 100% certain that what you wrote was unambiguous and couldn't have been interpreted the way that I did interpret it?

You automatically have to attribute to malice what could easily be explained by misunderstanding.

320d is all you need said:

Infact, that is quite a womanly thing to do. Reminds me of my wife. Maybe you are a woman after all.

Thanks. I'll misinterpret that as a compliment.

If you feel you were repeatedly misquoted and misunderstood, then maybe you weren't putting your point across very well and it was open to genuine misinterpretation?

If I misunderstand what someone meant, and go off on one as a result, and they clarify that this is not what they meant, I'll always apologise. I'll never twist or deliberately misinterpret, and I always try to give the benefit of the doubt.

So, if I have misunderstood you then I apologise.

[Esceptico]

320d is all you need said:

From my point of view we have one or perhaps two very vocal posters who seem to think this is "their thread" and make up arguments to have with other posters.

Really pathetic to watch the snide comments made.

Oh but if you disagree, you're transphobic. Nice one.

I tried to get involved with some balanced posts but was repeatedly mis-quoted and purposefully mis understood in an attempt to devalue my position.

I shouldn't have bothered, just like those religious people who force their opinions on you, I aim to just leave well alone and let the circle jerk continue.

The irony that such activists attack others for being intolerant of their minority position whilst being wholly intolerant of alternative views and opinions seems to be lost on them. What really grates is their apparent inability to empathise with other people (again something they attack others for) and show some understanding that for the vast majority their feelings are so alien as to be almost unimaginable.

I have tried to raise points on this thread but like yourself the points have mainly been ignored, or I’ve been told I’m wrong or don’t understand it or simply insulted (sometimes all three in the same post).

About 15 years ago there was an article in the news about a surgeon - I think in Scotland - who had amputated a healthy leg. That was when I became aware of an extreme form of BDD where sufferers believe that one or more of their limbs don’t belong to them. There was a BBC documentary and I did some additional reading on the issue.

The documentary included lots of conversations with people with this form of BDD. Other than their BDD they seemed normal. What struck me was the absolute conviction these people had that the offending limbs did not belong to them. Even those who could see that this was irrational they were consumed by these thoughts. Apparently a fair proportion of sufferers take matters into their own hands if they can’t get the limbs amputated surgically by lying on rail tracks or running into chain saws.

I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of people, whilst sympathising with these sufferers, would not be able to empathise. It is such an automatic thing to feel that your whole body is part of you. I nearly lost a leg in a motorbike accident and the thought of losing it was horrifying to me.

What was interesting about the BDD sufferers is that treatments such as drugs or counselling didn’t seem to have much success and that people who had had their limbs removed reported being happier. Overall it seemed that counterintuitively the removal of healthy limbs actually improved the patients’ quality of life.

Whilst I sympathise with trans people I cannot empathise much. Just in the same way as I couldn’t imagine my arms or legs not belonging to me so I find it impossible to imagine me not being a man. That isn’t the same as imagining what it would be like to be a woman. Just as I could imagine what it would be like to be an amputee.

What trans people seemingly fail to appreciate is the sheer horror that (for some) their greatest wish of having their penis and balls removed is for the majority of men. I couldn’t imagine my penis and balls not being part of me and the thought of losing them is horrible. I suspect if faced with a choice many men would rather lose a limb.

I am not saying that BDD and trans is the same but question whether there may be some underlying, similar mechanisms at work. Gambling addiction and drug addiction are not the same but lots of research has looked to see whether sufferers share an addictive personality type (and looked to see if there might be a genetic element). I am not sure where the research currently stands. From memory it is a bit inconclusive with people on both sides of the argument.

[amusingduck]

8.4L 154 said:

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

AIUI Gillick competence is that people who have the capability to make informed decisions should not be prevented from doing so. Now, it is no longer assumed that they have capacity, which I think is a good thing. It's not all or nothing, it's situational depending on the decision at hand.

Nothing would have stopped her, except a doctor, and there's a bunch of evidence that doctors are under pressure to cave to the patient's demands. I have no issue with doctors making medical judgements, but that's precisely (and only) what they should be.

If the leading clinics can't get that right, we have no choice but to step backwards. The stakes are too high to persist as we are.

[amusingduck]

Esceptico said:

About 15 years ago there was an article in the news about a surgeon - I think in Scotland - who had amputated a healthy leg. That was when I became aware of an extreme form of BDD where sufferers believe that one or more of their limbs don’t belong to them. There was a BBC documentary and I did some additional reading on the issue.

The documentary included lots of conversations with people with this form of BDD. Other than their BDD they seemed normal. What struck me was the absolute conviction these people had that the offending limbs did not belong to them. Even those who could see that this was irrational they were consumed by these thoughts. Apparently a fair proportion of sufferers take matters into their own hands if they can’t get the limbs amputated surgically by lying on rail tracks or running into chain saws.

I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of people, whilst sympathising with these sufferers, would not be able to empathise. It is such an automatic thing to feel that your whole body is part of you. I nearly lost a leg in a motorbike accident and the thought of losing it was horrifying to me.

What was interesting about the BDD sufferers is that treatments such as drugs or counselling didn’t seem to have much success and that people who had had their limbs removed reported being happier. Overall it seemed that counterintuitively the removal of healthy limbs actually improved the patients’ quality of life.

I think someone linked that recently, and AIUI the practice is now banned in the UK.

I don't see why it should be. If there's no alternative, and they're going to do it themselves, they might as well have it done by a professional. As long as they're otherwise of sound mind, they're not harming anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed to do what they like with their body?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Esceptico said:

Whilst I sympathise with trans people I cannot empathise much.

I'm not having a go, but it's been your lack of empathy that has been the major sticking point. Throughout the thread you have discussed trans people as medical curiosities rather than engaging us as real people. I think this is the #1 thing that has got my back up.
(Edit: And, to be honest, I'm not really feeling the sympathy either.)

You are so fixated on the medical and biological side to the total exclusion of the personal and human side. To the point where, for example, I feel like you would rather talk about me than to me. If that makes sense.

And I have to ask what you hope to achieve by this? To "prove" that trans woman should just go back to pretending to be men, and being called "wimp" and "sissy" again?

I am not meaning to be confrontational. Please take the above as genuine questions. I am honestly not trying to pick a fight here; I am trying to understand your goals and motivation.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Sunday 6th December 20:34

[Esceptico]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

I'm not having a go, but it's been your lack of empathy that has been the major sticking point. Throughout the thread you have discussed trans people as medical curiosities rather than engaging us as real people. I think this is the #1 thing that has got my back up.
(Edit: And, to be honest, I'm not really feeling the sympathy either.)

You are so fixated on the medical and biological side to the total exclusion of the personal and human side. To the point where, for example, I feel like you would rather talk about me than to me. If that makes sense.

And I have to ask what you hope to achieve by this? To "prove" that trans woman should just go back to pretending to be men, and being called "wimp" and "sissy" again?

I am not meaning to be confrontational. Please take the above as genuine questions. I am honestly not trying to pick a fight here; I am trying to understand your goals and motivation.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Sunday 6th December 20:34

Fair questions.

I was thinking yesterday of asking you some personal questions about your experience of being trans but thought I had probably burnt my bridges with our discussions to date.

If it came across that I only view you as a medical curiosity then my apologies. I have watched documentaries on trans people and their efforts to transition and been very moved by their experiences. The only trans person I know face to face is my wife’s friend’s son but he is only 17 and our relationship is not such that I feel I can ask him questions.

I am however also very interested in the medical side and trying to understand why you feel like you do. By understanding trans people better that would hopefully throw light on how the brain works and how our self identity is generated.

Not sure what I am hoping to achieve. Do we ever achieve much on PH? At least this is one forum one can raise points for discussion that would be censored elsewhere (eg the Guardian).

Also, you may not believe it but I am considering the points you raise and follow links. I am open to persuasion and have changed my views on a number of issues over the years.

[320d is all you need]

InitialDave said:

320d, is your username a joke, or do you actually own/drive a diesel?

I have a 320d, an E46. With an automatic gearbox. Why does that matter?

[InitialDave]

320d is all you need said:

I have a 320d, an E46. With an automatic gearbox. Why does that matter?

Was going to make a crack about you posting on a car enthusiast forum while clearly not being one, but honestly not sure you'd pick up on the point being made about gatekeeping behaviour if I did, so going to leave it.

[320d is all you need]

InitialDave said:

320d is all you need said:

I have a 320d, an E46. With an automatic gearbox. Why does that matter?

Was going to make a crack about you posting on a car enthusiast forum while clearly not being one, but honestly not sure you'd pick up on the point being made about gatekeeping behaviour if I did, so going to leave it.

I mean, do you assume that because I have a 320d I'm not a car enthusiast?


(So by that, I presume no I'm not getting your point ! )

Edited by 320d is all you need on Sunday 6th December 22:54

[Esceptico]

320d is all you need said:

I mean, do you assume that because I have a 320d I'm not a car enthusiast?


(So by that, I presume no I'm not getting your point ! )

Edited by 320d is all you need on Sunday 6th December 22:54

Yep. According to many on PH if you don’t own at least a Ferrari, preferably a full set of hypercars, you are not an enthusiast and all of your opinions are invalid. It gets worse in that people claim that your opinion is invalid if don’t fit other criteria too eg not allowed an opinion on Ferrari if you don’t own one.

It is part of a wider societal trend where only subjective experience counts ie your views on racism are immediately more important or valid if you are not white.

[General George Smiley]

I’d argue if you owned those (Ferrari etc) cars you weren’t an enthusiast unless it was old school before they were designed for the eastern markets

[anonymous-user]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Esceptico said:

Strange you aren’t able to comprehend basic English.

Ok, I'm going to add "supercilious" to the list, to go along with "know-it-all".

I know this is days old now, but fk me, pot/kettle.

[anonymous-user]

8.4L 154 said:

Cis women are coping more flack for not conforming to gender stereotypes than trans women.

Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean women getting flack for dressing like blokes, that sort of thing? (genuine question, I'm no expert)

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Esceptico said:

I was thinking yesterday of asking you some personal questions about your experience of being trans but thought I had probably burnt my bridges with our discussions to date.

Well, it's probably fair to say that I have answered every conceivable question (within reason) on this thread already. But I acknowledge that it is a massive thread and it would be a marathon task to read back over the whole thread.

Esceptico said:

If it came across that I only view you as a medical curiosity then my apologies.

That's entirely ok. I think we can all be guilty of being interpreted in ways that we did not intend or perhaps anticipate or mean. It's how we deal with this information that sets us apart, so thank you for saying that.

Esceptico said:

Not sure what I am hoping to achieve. Do we ever achieve much on PH? At least this is one forum one can raise points for discussion that would be censored elsewhere (eg the Guardian).

Perhaps. Just so long as we bear in mind we are still talking to real people. But I think we have already put that one to bed.