Gender Discussions #3

[Bitofthebubbly]

The lack of empathy shown towards Keira Bell in some circles is astounding- this is someone who was let down by the system she was depending on. She might have won but she will have to live with the changes made to her body for the rest of her life.

Agreed. I can’t even read the comments on Facebook, they’re awful. Most people commenting on there haven’t even bothered to even try to understand the situation. They just see she was an adult when she had her mastectomy and switch off, failing to see the wider picture of this court case and how important it is to the safeguarding of children.

Also a lot of people seem ignorant to the process think that she has won lots of money as a result of this case. Much like when a woman reports a grape against a bloke who happens to be famous and people start calling her a gold digger. Misogyny is a hell of a drug and takes many forms.

 

[BostonFernGreen]

@Lava i really enjoy your contributions so thank you for sticking around when the majority of the thread is gender critical. It’s fascinating to hear all sides.

Before I did any research I was firmly pro trans rights, mainly because I always support the vulnerable and the underdog and I intuitively felt that was what a trans person MUST be. I assumed that and that was a valuable lesson. It is so arrogant to assume vulnerability and need in an entire group of people.

I would now class myself as gender critical plus firmly pro trans rights and support. The two can go together.

I just wanted to flag up a common misconception about puberty blockers. Children do have them to treat precocious puberty. That’s because early puberty carries some risks. For example, developing breasts early increases exposure to oestrogen over a lifetime and therefore possibly increases the risk of breast cancer.

So when prescribing those things for a physically healthy child with gender dysphoria it isn’t like for like and the comparison does not stand. You can’t take evidence for treating one condition and use it for another. The body doesn’t work like that. For example some antibiotics work against one particular bacteria. You could not then say how outrageous nobody is giving them to me tor this other infection.

An intervention by a doctor or nurse has to pass a threshold of evidence in order to be paid for by commissioning groups and in order to be practicing within the strict rules of professional conduct.

We need to carefully weigh the evidence and during the court case, it simply was not there. Why did the Tavistock not collate the numbers as they went? If they are campaigning for better treatment for these young people they have a duty to convince the world and other medical practitioners. They have the experience. Where is it presented?

If you were in court to defend yourself because something you did caused actual harm to a young woman, and you had a file of evidence to demonstrate that yes, harm was caused in this case, but your actions were reasonable because look, in 99% of cases, the outcome was measurably good, would you just leave that file of evidence at home? If so, why?

 

[Mel Donte]

I just wanted to flag up a common misconception about puberty blockers. Children do have them to treat precocious puberty. That’s because early puberty carries some risks. For example, developing breasts early increases exposure to oestrogen over a lifetime and therefore possibly increases the risk of breast cancer.

So when prescribing those things for a physically healthy child with gender dysphoria it isn’t like for like and the comparison does not stand. You can’t take evidence for treating one condition and use it for another. The body doesn’t work like that. For example some antibiotics work against one particular bacteria. You could not then say how outrageous nobody is giving them to me tor this other infection.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I had assumed that precocious puberty was treated with blockers for mainly psychological reasons.

The Tavistock is facing accusations of child abuse from one side and transphobic gatekeeping from another. It's an unenviable position.

 

[Glortard]

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I had assumed that precocious puberty was treated with blockers for mainly psychological reasons.

The Tavistock is facing accusations of child abuse from one side and transphobic gatekeeping from another. It's an unenviable position.

It has been facing allegations from a variety of people including medical professionals that proper procedures where not in place including ensuring children had access to counselling over time before making life changing decisions but they where being forced to rush ahead with the prescription of blockers.

Yet you claim to label that it is facing accusations of child abuse which is one more example of you totally distorting the truth.

There has been numerous articles about the concerns at the tavistock none of which have mentioned child abuse. I am talking about new articles and not some random loon ball on twitter shouting stuff.

In Scotland the now we have a law going through The Forensic Medical Services Bill which in essence allows someone access to forensic exam in the event of grape or a sexual assault even if they have not chosen yet to contact the police. One of the amendments following consultation with numerous groups including survivors is that the word gender needs to be replaced by sex to ensure that woman are able to have the services of a woman doctor/nurse trained in this procedure. The SNP government are not for changing and want it to remain as gender (which has no bearing or indeed definition in any other laws).

Now we have grape crisis Scotland who are fully funded by the SG now coming out in support of it remaining gender. You can see from the replies that the overwhelming majority are against this. However this is the same organisation that employ a trans women as a grape crisis manager who never indicated that they where a trans person despite that being an option on the application form.



Another critical article on the bill

Mobilising the payroll

For anyone hoping for an outbreak of sanity and decency, this is a bad sign. grape Crisis Scotland, who are almost entirely dependent on the Scottish Government for funding, have chosen this evening…

wingsoverscotland.com

 

[mcfeez]

See you may very well have read this and will be coming back any moment with the figures, but the problem is if you don't, you've created a situation where people reading this thread will think 'oh yeah, I read somewhere that 59% of transwomen are assaulted in prison' when it's based off you also saying 'I do remember reading...'

It's a load of supposition. We shouldn't be posting any stats without links. Ok, we do it all the time - it's not specifically having a go at you. But it creates memories of stats that may or may not be true.

People make claims on this thread a lot with no citations, its an online forum for discussion, not a published academic paper. I haven't seen others called out so robustly so it sort of does seem like you are "having a go" at me to be perfectly honest.

Regardless, the paper I believe the factoid I read was from is a bit old tbh. I think I recall reading it in university now that I remember and citing it then in an essay for a US politics module. Its titled "Where the margins meet: demographic assessment of transgender inmates in mens prisons" and is California specific.

 

[Icing _on_ the_cake]

@Lava i really enjoy your contributions so thank you for sticking around when the majority of the thread is gender critical. It’s fascinating to hear all sides.

Before I did any research I was firmly pro trans rights, mainly because I always support the vulnerable and the underdog and I intuitively felt that was what a trans person MUST be. I assumed that and that was a valuable lesson. It is so arrogant to assume vulnerability and need in an entire group of people.

I would now class myself as gender critical plus firmly pro trans rights and support. The two can go together.

I just wanted to flag up a common misconception about puberty blockers. Children do have them to treat precocious puberty. That’s because early puberty carries some risks. For example, developing breasts early increases exposure to oestrogen over a lifetime and therefore possibly increases the risk of breast cancer.

So when prescribing those things for a physically healthy child with gender dysphoria it isn’t like for like and the comparison does not stand. You can’t take evidence for treating one condition and use it for another. The body doesn’t work like that. For example some antibiotics work against one particular bacteria. You could not then say how outrageous nobody is giving them to me tor this other infection.

An intervention by a doctor or nurse has to pass a threshold of evidence in order to be paid for by commissioning groups and in order to be practicing within the strict rules of professional conduct.

We need to carefully weigh the evidence and during the court case, it simply was not there. Why did the Tavistock not collate the numbers as they went? If they are campaigning for better treatment for these young people they have a duty to convince the world and other medical practitioners. They have the experience. Where is it presented?

If you were in court to defend yourself because something you did caused actual harm to a young woman, and you had a file of evidence to demonstrate that yes, harm was caused in this case, but your actions were reasonable because look, in 99% of cases, the outcome was measurably good, would you just leave that file of evidence at home? If so, why?

Similarly, 6 months ago or so I didn't really have any critisims. I'm LGBT+ and so I know quite a few people who are trans/non-binary who have asked for certain pronouns and I generally want to be welcoming and accepting of people.

However, now that I've actually been thinking about things, I feel I have a lot more questions. Like, I think much of what we see as being 'feminine' or 'masculine' are largely things we've invented as society and which also change over time. I'd be seen as laddish by Victorian standards and most of my male friends would probably be seen as girly or effiminate. In some cultures both men and women wear skirts, in other cultures clothes aren't even a thing. So much of what we do is simply upbringing and how well our personality melds with the norms of the society that we are in.

So when I look into mermaids or into stories like Keira's, I worry that we are regressing back into stereotypes and funnelling people into something that could be damaging for them too quickly. The affirmation model that Mermaids supports might sound great on the face of it, but I once met a teen who by 15 years old was telling me how they'd cycled through two LGBT+ identities ("I was asexual until I was 12 but now I'm bi").

@Lava I would have used to think that puberty blockers are the right thing but now I'm not so sure and the fact that the Tavistock seems to have a high staff turnover doesn't suggest that staff working there feel assured in what they are doing. The telegraph (not a paper I usually like to quote tbh), reported 35 resignations in 3 years. Also, thanks for the Katie Herzog mention, I'll read her article in the Stranger.

Access Restricted

 

[maytoseptember]

I don't want to take away treatment from trans people

The main issue I have is what do you define as “treatment”? Dysphoria is a mental health issue and should be treated as such, however it seems the hardline trans activists (probably AGPs) had their way, which means the first line treatment is now affirmation, hormones and surgery.

Hormones obviously have significant side effects (especially for females taking high dose testosterone). I’m also pretty certain we’re facing an epidemic of young women regretting their double mastectomies - Keira Bell being only one example.

But isn’t it strange that hardly anyone talks about how primitive and mutilating “bottom” surgery is? The long term outcomes are horrific. For the very small number of MTFs who opt for it (most would never want to lose their penises, for obvious reasons) it’s a case of creating a hole where a hole doesn’t belong. Battling to keep that hole open. Trying to keep it clean. It’s no way to live. The same applies to FTM surgery, stripping arms of muscle and attempting to create a facsimile of a pen.

This is a long winded way of saying I think the medical profession sleep-walked into the affirmation model: offering harmful drugs and surgery instead of mental health support. Greedy and unscrupulous doctors saw a way to make money and a name for themselves by doing experimental (and pretty unsuccessful) surgeries. In no other area of medicine would this approach be tolerated. I don’t have any data in front of me, but I’m pretty sure that the rates of mental illness in gender dysphoric people, pre and post transition, is largely the same. So if medical transition doesn’t help, why is it still being done?

 

[JustHereForTheAgriculture]

Here’s what I don’t get about children and puberty blockers. If trans women are women and a pen is female if the owner of it says they are female, how can a child be in danger of going through the wrong puberty? Why is sex only real in this case? Surely then it shouldn’t matter what puberty a child goes through and any blockers, hormones and surgeries are purely cosmetic. Seems to me that the push for puberty blockers goes completely against the idea of self id as we’re trying to have a generation of trans people who better ‘pass’ which makes no sense if the ‘gender’ that they’re trying to pass as isn’t sex related.

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for informed adults having the choice to medically transition. But why is there such an issue about kids going through puberty if sex isn’t real?

 

[mcfeez]

So when I look into mermaids or into stories like Keira's, I worry that we are regressing back into stereotypes and funnelling people into something that could be damaging for them too quickly. The affirmation model that Mermaids supports might sound great on the face of it, but I once met a teen who by 15 years old was telling me how they'd cycled through two LGBT+ identities ("I was asexual until I was 12 but now I'm bi").

Off topic, but the number of young teenagers who now identify as asexual is quite alarming. I, as a teenage girl, personally didn't have much interest in sex until my late teens (17/18) and had met a boyfriend, other than the usual curiosity.

I think it's totally normal for younger people to realise they are gay or bi at a younger age now than many people would have in the past, as there is slowly become less pressure to conform to the "default" heterosexuality. But there are quite a large number stating they have no sexual desire at all at a very young age.

 

[Bitofthebubbly]

The Ovarit Rag | Substack

Comments on feminism and platforming controversial speech from the women who ran Ovarit. Click to read The Ovarit Rag, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers.

ovarit.com

Just posting this here as it’s an excellent thread from Ovarit that debunks the notion that puberty blockers are completely harmless, sources included.

 

[Icing _on_ the_cake]

Off topic, but the number of young teenagers who now identify as asexual is quite alarming. I, as a teenage girl, personally didn't have much interest in sex until my late teens (17/18) and had met a boyfriend, other than the usual curiosity.

I think it's totally normal for younger people to realise they are gay or bi at a younger age now than many people would have in the past, as there is slowly become less pressure to conform to the "default" heterosexuality. But there are quite a large number stating they have no sexual desire at all at a very young age.

Well it certainly made me feel quite funny because that's what I am - asexual! Being asexual isn't much fun - my dating pool is small and my first boyfriend, who knew upfront that I was asexual, spent most of his time trying to see how far I'd go. When we broke up, he said that he had been hoping that he could change me. So here's me with something that I can't help, that I have very complicated experiences and feelings about, and then there's this person saying this is something they just had as a phase before moving onto something else. If this was an adult (like Jack Monroe), I'd have been pissed. But it was a kid so I was merely amused.

With me, I first came across the term when I was 25 when reading a Guardian article and it explained very well my experiences through my teens and twenties. However, looking back, could I have known when I was 13, 14, 15 had I known about it? I don't think so. Maybe in uni? To some extent it may depend on when you first start dating - or if you reach quite a certain age without still having any interest - that you will probably understand if you are/ where you are on the asexual spectrum.

I had crushes (though not many) during high school but didn't date (high school wasn't a fun time and most of my peers were focused on getting wasted behind Tescos). I think I first realised something was quite different for me when I expressed absolute disgust about my experience of kissing someone on a date. While I don't mind some kissing, I still, even with boyfriends I've loved, find it something I only have so much appetite for.

I don't think I could have known much of this as a 14-year-old with no experience. As for anyone below 12, I would have thought 'asexuality' pretty much the standard experience!!

 

[Vee6]

But isn’t it strange that hardly anyone talks about how primitive and mutilating “bottom” surgery is? The long term outcomes are horrific. For the very small number of MTFs who opt for it (most would never want to lose their penises, for obvious reasons) it’s a case of creating a hole where a hole doesn’t belong. Battling to keep that hole open. Trying to keep it clean. It’s no way to live. The same applies to FTM surgery, stripping arms of muscle and attempting to create a facsimile of a pen.

This is a long winded way of saying I think the medical profession sleep-walked into the affirmation model: offering harmful drugs and surgery instead of mental health support. Greedy and unscrupulous doctors saw a way to make money and a name for themselves by doing experimental (and pretty unsuccessful) surgeries. In no other area of medicine would this approach be tolerated. I don’t have any data in front of me, but I’m pretty sure that the rates of mental illness in gender dysphoric people, pre and post transition, is largely the same. So if medical transition doesn’t help, why is it still being done?

As a nurse who has seen many wounds I do think about the healing process of these surgeries. The reality doesn’t seem to be mentioned very often. And long term I can’t see how a neo tina can be maintained, when the bodies instinct is to close and heal wounds.
Scott Newgent has put some pretty horrific photos on twitter of phalloplasties that have gone wrong. Makes me so sad.

Just thinking out loud now about puberty blockers...say if a boy of 12 took puberty blockers to buy them ‘some time to think’. And as his peers aged around him, their brains developing as normal teenagers and physical changes of puberty. What if at age 16 he decided not to go down the usual path of cross sex hormones. Decided he had made a mistake and wanted to be a boy. Would he actually start to grow again? Or would he need to take testosterone to kick start things? In the case of jazz Jennings and J Green ( they obviously decided to continue transitioning) they had micro penises as they had no gone through male puberty and the surgeons struggled to do their surgery. Back to my point. Would that 16 year old have a child’s body forever? Or is this all part of the great unknown because they typical go onto cross sex hormones? And in this scenario, if your 16 but stunted at age 12, your not going to be on the same level as your peers intellectually, how will that effect friendships? Sorry if I’m taking nonsense I’ve just done two 12 hour shifts

 

[maytoseptember]

Off topic, but the number of young teenagers who now identify as asexual is quite alarming. I, as a teenage girl, personally didn't have much interest in sex until my late teens (17/18) and had met a boyfriend, other than the usual curiosity.

I think it's totally normal for younger people to realise they are gay or bi at a younger age now than many people would have in the past, as there is slowly become less pressure to conform to the "default" heterosexuality. But there are quite a large number stating they have no sexual desire at all at a very young age.

The idea of actually saying “I was asexual until I was 12” makes me want to weep. Like it hadn’t occurred to them that, aged under 12, they were a child with basically no concept of sexuality and sexual attraction. Or, even worse, they had to justify not being sexually attracted to anyone when they were a child.

I read a really interesting thread on Twitter this week blaming the rise in young people identifying as asexual on antidepressant drugs. Which struck me as very plausible (well that, and social media of course).

 

[Icing _on_ the_cake]

The idea of actually saying “I was asexual until I was 12” makes me want to weep. Like it hadn’t occurred to them that, aged under 12, they were a child with basically no concept of sexuality and sexual attraction. Or, even worse, they had to justify not being sexually attracted to anyone when they were a child.

I read a really interesting thread on Twitter this week blaming the rise in young people identifying as asexual on antidepressant drugs. Which struck me as very plausible (well that, and social media of course).

I think they can dampen down sex drive? I've been on anti-depressents, but not having one to start with it made no difference for me.

I don't know what the story for this girl was. Maybe living in the rural countryside, being LGBT+ made her special or unique? Or maybe a lot of her friends were gay/bi and she felt the need to be something too? Or maybe she just didn't fully understand herself yet? But yeah, it's just one example why the realities of the affirmation model are more complicated than we'd like them to be, especially when it comes to kids and teens. I'm not advocating for people to be disbelieved (I'm not out to my parents for that very reason), but that when someone is very young you can't necessarily assume that what they say now is what they'll say forever.

 

[BostonFernGreen]

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I had assumed that precocious puberty was treated with blockers for mainly psychological reasons.

The Tavistock is facing accusations of child abuse from one side and transphobic gatekeeping from another. It's an unenviable position.

Lots of people think that because it is presented as such, usually with emotive language.

I think the misconceptions raise interesting points about our attitude to healthcare. I’ve seen tweets etc. Saying the ruling is denying children lifesaving treatment. The NHS resources are finite and squandering them on unproven hormone treatment then treating the lifelong fallout may very well deny children life saving treatment. Money and time spent on this is money and time not spent elsewhere.

I also note that Susie Green says no other group are subject to this sort of process before getting treatment and so it must be transphobia. This is shocking misinformation. All treatment is subject to tough rules and so it should be.

Every medical intervention provided by the NHS/registered healthcare professionals is bound to process. The process does not care about the identity of the person at the end (that’s a separate discussion - where should the patient identity feature and how.)

The reason these patients now have to apply to the courts is not because they’re trans. It’s because puberty blockers and cross sex hormones have not passed the threshold of risk vs benefit and consenting to this would be difficult if you were an adult. Children cannot grasp the complexities. How can someone make a decision for a future self who does not exist yet?

I infer from the judgement that Tavistock have not been able to objectively outline the risk/benefit which makes consenting young people almost impossible. The courts have not said no. They have acknowledged the difficulty but left open the possibility to assess on a case by case basis.

Note that a teenager with cancer would be allowed to consent to chemo or surgery. The process would be very careful and parents would likely be involved. But the understanding is that most people would like the chance to live. The purpose of healthcare is to extend life and make it as active and productive as possible. The aim then would be to make sure the young person is as informed as possible of the risks vs benefits.

If the average person could not state the evidence for a given intervention clearly, that would be ok. But these are doctors. To pass the many exams they have had to repeatedly demonstrate they are able to collate data, interpret it, share it with peers, act on it. That the doctors in this case failed to do that isn’t the fault of gender critical transphobes. They cannot have suddenly lost the ability to weigh evidence, surely? All of them?

They were even given the chance to go away and sort their affairs out and return with the data. They declined. If anyone believes the court then should have said “Oh great, we can see you are very capable and clear eyed”, they’re deluded. It would set a dangerous precedent and contradict the foundation of modern medicine. I cannot believe anyone thinks this would be wise. Oversight is never a bad thing.

Here is an analogy. One person prepares thoroughly for an exam and goes in, performs well and gets an A. Her peer may or may not have prepared but turns up and says they’ve forgotten their pen. They are given the option to borrow a pen but they say no thanks. They’ll just sit in the room. They should be graded with an A though. They did prepare well, they just didn’t care to demonstrate it.

If we begin to just take everyone’s word for everything based on the idea that if we don’tit’s very mean, we lose an essential framework which we rely on for actual lifesaving treatment. The impact of that is everyone’s business. It is not about depriving trans people of care. It is about ensuring their care meets the same standards of all other care.

It is actually barbaric to feed this idea that trans people are so removed from the average person, so other and weak and delicate. They’re people. Like you’re a person and I’m a person. They need respect, kindness, understanding, not OTT campaigns filled with generalised ideas of suicide.

No adult should repeatedly state that being trans is the worst thing in the world and life threatening. If they didn’t feel tit before they’ll certainly start to.

 

[maytoseptember]

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I had assumed that precocious puberty was treated with blockers for mainly psychological reasons.

I think one of the main reasons is bone growth in girls (I don’t know anything about precocious puberty in boys or whether it even occurs in boys that much?). A girl experiencing a very early puberty will also be expected to start her periods very early, and reach her adult height not too long afterwards.

I’ve just checked, and here’s part of an abstract from a journal article.

Precocious puberty and statural growth

Abstract. Precocious puberty results mostly from the precocious activation of the gonadotropic axis. Although the age limits have recently been discussed,

academic.oup.com

Neoplasm = cancer.

 

[Meh]

@Lava With respect, using your friends anecdotal experience as a basis for your belief that trans people face more danger makes you look a little silly when there are actual facts and figures available

.

THIS.
This is so important.


Basing your viewpoint on an anecdote or experience of a friend is insane. For example: I am a woman who has (thankfully) never suffered sexual violence. That’s my lived experience. Does that mean I should just disregard grape statistics because they don’t match my lived reality? Of course not.

 

[Mel Donte]

.

THIS.
This is so important.


Basing your viewpoint on an anecdote or experience of a friend is insane. For example: I am a woman who has (thankfully) never suffered sexual violence. That’s my lived experience. Does that mean I should just disregard grape statistics because they don’t match my lived reality? Of course not.

How come anyone presenting an even vaguely pro-trans rights argument is expected to present fully cited peer reviewed research to back up their opinions when anti-trans opinions can be presented without evidence or backed up by extremely biased sources like Trans Crimes and Fair Play for Women?

I've been called insane and a conspiracy theorist for attempting to have a nuanced discussion. The title 'gender discussions' is pretty misleading when the majority of posters in this thread seem set on having an anti-trans circle jerk.

 

[Zenchick101]

How come anyone presenting an even vaguely pro-trans rights argument is expected to present fully cited peer reviewed research to back up their opinions when anti-trans opinions can be presented without evidence or backed up by extremely biased sources like Trans Crimes and Fair Play for Women?

I've been called insane and a conspiracy theorist for attempting to have a nuanced discussion. The title 'gender discussions' is pretty misleading when the majority of posters in this thread seem set on having an anti-trans circle jerk.

I might have missed it but it seems like you haven't really linked articles to back up your points and provided only anecdotal evidence. You might change someone's mind here if you do.

Ok so even though you didn't reply I see that you saw that post. If I'm remembering right I said "what you say sounds like a conspiracy theory" not that you are a conspiracy theorist. You never replied, so again on what basis would it make sense for Keira to put herself in that position?

Fair point on biased sources, however you don't really respond to other sources anyways so...?

Also not anti-trans, anti-trans extremist here/TRA ideology. A good amount of lovely trans people on twitter who have a lot of the same thoughts on these topics and get abuse for it by TRAs.

 

[SqualorVictoria]

How come anyone presenting an even vaguely pro-trans rights argument is expected to present fully cited peer reviewed research to back up their opinions when anti-trans opinions can be presented without evidence or backed up by extremely biased sources like Trans Crimes and Fair Play for Women?

I've been called insane and a conspiracy theorist for attempting to have a nuanced discussion. The title 'gender discussions' is pretty misleading when the majority of posters in this thread seem set on having an anti-trans circle jerk.

I think it's more that you were presented with tangible figures of violence towards women vs trans women e.g I said that 0 transwomen were murdered in the UK this year and someone else said that 3 women are murdered a day (sorry if that's not the correct figure, I just can't remember) and you replied with the anecdotal story about your female friends vs trans women and how based on that trans women face more assault