Gender Pronouns v God, lawsuit on religious freedom - Admin Warning in the OP

Rodin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The claim is that allowing such children to avail of blockers helped reduce their suicide risk, yet no analysis was seemingly done as to the effect of therapy and other measures being presumably done in concert. I doubt a child who is presenting with suicidal ideation is simply being administered some drugs and sent on their way.

The same lie was told to enable abortion in the case of threatened suicide.
There was no acknowledgement that abortion is not an effective treatment for suicidal ideation or that abortion actually increases the likelihood of mental health problems.

We need to make decisions based on evidence, not emotions.

Tilden Katz

Shield wrote: »

If you said to a doctor "give me [x] medication or there is a chance I will kill myself", it is likely you would be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. If it was that easy, you would have people demanding benzos on the same basis.

The real dilemma here is, how do you find out if these blockers are completely effective and fully reversible, with zero long-term side effects on children without first using children as test subjects?

Answer: you can’t.

Yellow_Fern

Shield wrote: »

If you said to a doctor "give me [x] medication or there is a chance I will kill myself", it is likely you would be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. If it was that easy, you would have people demanding benzos on the same basis.

The real dilemma here is, how do you find out if these blockers are completely effective and fully reversible, with zero long-term side effects on children without first using children as test subjects?

The strongest argument for puberty blockers is that it can be hard to transition after puberty. However this only applies to boys becoming girls. It does not apply to girls becoming boys, which can be done at any age without too much extra trouble. Nevertheless giving these drugs to little girls is increasingly common. If you make this argument you can be labeled bigot transphobe and huge risks. The extant that these drugs are completely effective and fully reversible is hard to get at from a research perspective but you can get a glimpse of this by looking at how how rarely they are used outside of trans sector.

Rodin

If we all just stand back and think about puberty blockers in the cold light of day... it is nothing but an assault on children.
It really isn't being resisted half aggressively enough.
Those who advocate abusing children in this way need to be put in their place.

jaxxx

"Pronouns are based on gender".

Hmm.. ..
____________________

Jaxxx: Anyone here have any dogs/cats/other animals?

*random user puts their hand up

Jaxxx: Yes, you with your hand up!

User: I have 2 dogs!

Jaxxx: And what are their names?

User: Hamish and Lulu

Jaxxx: So a boy dog and a girl dog, respectively?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: I see. Is Hamish a good boy? Does he like his belly rubbed?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: Wonderful. And is Lulu a good girl? Has she got you wrapped around her paws?

User: Oh like you wouldn't believe!
____________________

Dogs.. .. .. aren't men or women, are they? They're male and female.. .. and yet.. .. pronouns apply to them too.. .. So, if dogs aren't men and women, but male and female, and male and female are sexes, and pronouns are not exclusive to humans, thus pronouns cannot be based on humanity's genders, then that must mean.. .. ..

Food for thought.

AllForIt

jaxxx wrote: »

"Pronouns are based on gender".

Hmm.. ..
____________________

Jaxxx: Anyone here have any dogs/cats/other animals?

*random user puts their hand up

Jaxxx: Yes, you with your hand up!

User: I have 2 dogs!

Jaxxx: And what are their names?

User: Hamish and Lulu

Jaxxx: So a boy dog and a girl dog, respectively?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: I see. Is Hamish a good boy? Does he like his belly rubbed?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: Wonderful. And is Lulu a good girl? Has she got you wrapped around her paws?

User: Oh like you wouldn't believe!
____________________

Dogs.. .. .. aren't men or women, are they? They're male and female.. .. and yet.. .. pronouns apply to them too.. .. So, if dogs aren't men and women, but male and female, and male and female are sexes, and pronouns are not exclusive to humans, thus pronouns cannot be based on humanity's genders, then that must mean.. .. ..

Food for thought.

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

jaxxx

AllForIt wrote: »

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

Are you seriously comparing the use of pronouns for animals (which we are btw, we ain't 'special', we're just another species) to inanimate objects? Jesus wept.. .. .. .. I'd get a telescope if I were you cos that went so far over your head that it's probably in the next galaxy.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

If we all just stand back and think about puberty blockers in the cold light of day... it is nothing but an assault on children.
It really isn't being resisted half aggressively enough.
Those who advocate abusing children in this way need to be put in their place.

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

Yes. If they started indulging in this modern woke nonsense, I'd have no interest in spending time with them.

Can’t agree with that position, you weren’t really friends if you can’t support them in such a significant life change. But that is your choice.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

“She” refers to a female of any species, “he” refers to a male of any species, and it is absolutely common to call female and male living things by their sexed pronoun. Pronouns refer definitionally to sex, not gender. Watch literally any wildlife documentary.

I’m honestly baffled as to how you concluded that pronouns are species-specific.

Gentlemanne

jaxxx wrote: »

"Pronouns are based on gender".

Hmm.. ..
____________________

Jaxxx: Anyone here have any dogs/cats/other animals?

*random user puts their hand up

Jaxxx: Yes, you with your hand up!

User: I have 2 dogs!

Jaxxx: And what are their names?

User: Hamish and Lulu

Jaxxx: So a boy dog and a girl dog, respectively?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: I see. Is Hamish a good boy? Does he like his belly rubbed?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: Wonderful. And is Lulu a good girl? Has she got you wrapped around her paws?

User: Oh like you wouldn't believe!
____________________

Dogs.. .. .. aren't men or women, are they? They're male and female.. .. and yet.. .. pronouns apply to them too.. .. So, if dogs aren't men and women, but male and female, and male and female are sexes, and pronouns are not exclusive to humans, thus pronouns cannot be based on humanity's genders, then that must mean.. .. ..

Food for thought.

Pronouns are literally just words that can function as nouns. When you say "yer man" instead of a guy's name, that's a pronoun.

Just because we are very binary about a dog or a cat depending on whether they've got bollocks or not doesn't mean human beings can't use words that best represent who they are as a person.

volchitsa

AllForIt wrote: »

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

But for living animals, we don't use their pronouns at random. That's why you get funny anecdotes like kids from the city calling cows "he" - the only reason it's "funny" is because it's demonstrably wrong.

(Your point about a ship probably says something about gender stereotyping, about women as prized possessions, like ships. It definitely doesn't prove that living objects have variable genders. They don't - they're either male or female, and we care enough to ascertain which they are, it's always based on their genitals/biological make up, not on their feelings.)

Rodin

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

It's not a therapy.
You shouldn't give it legitimacy by calling it one.

Stopping a child's normal physical development is wrong. Full stop.

TomTomTim

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Pronouns are literally just words that can function as nouns. When you say "yer man" instead of a guy's name, that's a pronoun.

Just because we are very binary about a dog or a cat depending on whether they've got bollocks or not doesn't mean human beings can't use words that best represent who they are as a person.

What? You're not though, you're using a term that is inaccurate based on nearly every metric bar feelings.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

It's not a therapy.
You shouldn't give it legitimacy by calling it one.

Stopping a child's normal physical development is wrong. Full stop.

You've picked apart one word of what I said but addressed nothing I said in effect. I've been clear on here already: I am an engineer, not a doctor, and nobody has demonstrated to me here or ever that it is, as you argue, conclusively wrong. I do not have enough information to reach that same conclusion.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but the Keira Bell case found that children could not be expected to understand the full meaning of taking cross-sex hormones, and thus puberty blockers (which for reasons that are unclear seem to lead inexorably to cross-sex hormones), so that informed consent is not possible.

Bell's case was that she was set on the pathway that led her to a double mastectomy and years of hormone treatment, which was not actually what she needed.

The appeal will be coming up soon, but there's little reason to think that the new evidence that has come up since then would change the judgment radically.
For instance, the Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic, the defendant, published results of a study it had been leading for a decade just the day after that judgment went against it, and those results don't show significant improvement in the mental state of children treated with hormones vs those who were not treated. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to suspect that the reason the results weren't made available the day before is that they didn't suit the Tavistock's claims.

Gentlemanne

TomTomTim wrote: »

What? You're not though, you're using a term that is inaccurate based on nearly every metric bar feelings.

I didn't even mention a single term so I'm not sure what you're referring to or how you can be so unequivocal about it.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

On a personal level, I equate it to circumcision, though obviously a far more serious act. It's inflicting a medically unnecessary procedure on a child who lacks the maturity level to give informed consent.

As an aside, I'm curious why gender dysphoria is treated differently than other forms. I doubt one could make a credible argument for the benefits of amputation for someone suffering from body integrity dysphoria.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

As said, there is a dearth of research. For some strange reason, some people seem to think that a lack of research means that puberty blockers are fine to be prescribed to developing minors when I would think that that lack of research should mean the opposite - practicing caution.

With any new therapy, there is a cost benefit analysis. When even the specialist centre says that the suicide risk is low, I’m not seeing how the potential risks are worth it.

Shield

Overheal wrote: »

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed

There’s one published in the British Medical Journal that showed 50% of those on blockers lost bone mineral density. It’s called “Gender dysphoria: puberty blockers and loss of bone mineral density” and since we are allowed to quote a line or two of an article in discussion, I have gone with this one:

“Any loss of bone mineral density in adolescence is abnormal and may compromise peak bone mass. That most trans and gender diverse adolescents (on blockers) lose bone mass is therefore concerning”.

I cannot understand why we, as a a society, are not losing our minds over this.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

On a personal level, I equate it to circumcision, though obviously a far more serious act. It's inflicting a medically unnecessary procedure on a child who lacks the maturity level to give informed consent.

As an aside, I'm curious why gender dysphoria is treated differently than other forms. I doubt one could make a credible argument for the benefits of amputation for someone suffering from body integrity dysphoria.

Personal disclosure I’ve had a circumcision and it was for a postnatal medical reason (my brothers are not circumcised). There are cases where a procedure which can be abused does not mean it always is.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

Personal disclosure I’ve had a circumcision and it was for a postnatal medical reason (my brothers are not circumcised). There are cases where a procedure which can be abused does not mean it always is.

How does one ethically test publicly blockers? What might a clinical trial involving minors look like? And if some of the test subjects suffer long-term effects - oh well?

One eyed Jack

Overheal wrote: »

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

It’s a fairly limited area of research, and because the treatment of gender dysphoria in children is still largely experimental and so much is still unknown, it’s difficult to establish anything objectively conclusive either way either for or against the treatment with regards to the ethics of the treatment.

There’s the one study that Shield linked to, and asked why we as a society aren’t losing our minds over it. The most obvious answer is that people generally don’t care about things that they aren’t directly impacted by, there are other reasons too, but that would be the main one. It’s understandable though that clinicians working in the area of treating children experiencing gender dysphoria would be concerned with all possible outcomes of any treatment. It would be unreasonable to expect that we as a society should prioritise issues which affect other people which we aren’t directly affected by.

As for the literature and studies and so on, gender dysphoria in children is relatively unexplored territory in medicine and science compared to literature and studies relating to gender dysphoria in adults, precisely because of the ethical considerations involved in which all circumstances are considered and a determination made with regard to whether any potential beneficial outcomes outweigh any potential negative outcomes for the individuals concerned in each individual case -


Suppression of Puberty in Transgender Children


That’s an article which should be considered in a US context, doesn’t necessarily apply in the UK, and the reason I mention that is because quite apart from any medical or scientific evidence informing ethics one way or the other, there are also legal issues which must be considered, and already soon after the Bell case in the UK, there was another case where it was determined that parents maintain the right to give consent to medical treatment including puberty blockers. In an Irish context, the issue of children’s capacity to give informed medical consent to treatment for gender dysphoria with puberty blockers remains unclear -


Lack of clarity on use of puberty-blockers for gender dysphoria treatment in Ireland


EDIT: The judgement in the case mentioned in the article above is well worth a read as it demonstrates as an example the complexity involved in each individual case -

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/AB-v-CD-and-ors-judgment.pdf

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

How does one ethically test publicly blockers? What might a clinical trial involving minors look like? And if some of the test subjects suffer long-term effects - oh well?

That’s a concern for medicine, I defer to the professional community on that. Inevitably any drug to be approved for prescription to children must undergo human trial.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Personal disclosure I’ve had a circumcision and it was for a postnatal medical reason (my brothers are not circumcised). There are cases where a procedure which can be abused does not mean it always is.

Ah yea, like I know there's legitimate medical reasons for one. I'm talking about the elective ones that many in the US get.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a concern for medicine, I defer to the professional community on that. Inevitably any drug to be approved for prescription to children must undergo human trial.

That was one of the reasons cited in the Keira Bell judgment: the judges found that nobody could expect teenagers to give informed consent to what is in many respects experimental treatment.

Overheal

volchitsa wrote: »

That was one of the reasons cited in the Keira Bell judgment: the judges found that nobody could expect teenagers to give informed consent to what is in many respects experimental treatment.

I’m not too familiar with it, but presumably if a teen is well informed then there isn’t the ethical dilemma.

Many times in college I’ve been handed papers from professors telling me they were using my work in a study, I was given a consent form and told the risks (usually none). If a clinic wants a teen to trial a treatment I don’t see the problem if the teen and the parent/guardian both give informed consent that it’s an experimental treatment. If in that case the institute did not disclose that told them “yeah this is fine just trust us it’s proven science” that’s a whole other bill of beans.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not too familiar with it, but presumably if a teen is well informed then there isn’t the ethical dilemma.

Many times in college I’ve been handed papers from professors telling me they were using my work in a study, I was given a consent form and told the risks (usually none). If a clinic wants a teen to trial a treatment I don’t see the problem if the teen and the parent/guardian both give informed consent that it’s an experimental treatment. If in that case the institute did not disclose that told them “yeah this is fine just trust us it’s proven science” that’s a whole other bill of beans.

It wasn't a study. It was treatment that hasn't been fully studied when given for gender dysphoria, which is different and the risk factor is also completely different to your case.

The finding wasn't that teens cannot consent to anything ever, it was that pre or early pubertal teens cannot fully understand the significance of particular risks such as impaired sexual function or infertility for the adult they would become, no matter how well or how often it is explained to them. The fact that the benefits and risks hadn't been fully studied meant that even adults weren't 100% sure themselves, so it wasn't reasonable to expect children to understand the nature of the risk they were taking.


Here's a link: https://thecountess.ie/keira-bell-case-explainer/
And here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148

Overheal

volchitsa wrote: »

It wasn't a study. It was treatment that hasn't been fully studied when given for gender dysphoria, which is different and the risk factor is also completely different to your case.

The finding wasn't that teens cannot consent to anything ever, it was that pre or early pubertal teens cannot fully understand the significance of particular risks such as impaired sexual function or infertility for the adult they would become, no matter how well or how often it is explained to them. The fact that the benefits and risks hadn't been fully studied meant that even adults weren't 100% sure themselves, so it wasn't reasonable to expect children to understand the nature of the risk they were taking.


Here's a link: https://thecountess.ie/keira-bell-case-explainer/
And here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148

On the flip BBC also tracks this alongside this lawsuit where a 14 year old, to the contrary, is suing because they are not processing their gender reassignment fast enough.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55015959

The scales of justice are being tried.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

On the flip BBC also tracks this alongside this lawsuit where a 14 year old, to the contrary, is suing because they are not processing their gender reassignment fast enough.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55015959

The scales of justice are being tried.

The issue is compounded by the fact that, when not put on GnRH agonist drugs, the majority of children presenting with gender discomfort will desist, and the majority of desisters will ultimately be homosexual. Of those put on GnRH agonist drugs, the vast majority will go on to transition medically and surgically. Which suggests that there is some clarifying effect of natural puberty that helps those who suffer gender discomfort in childhood.

Since the medical aspects of transition are lifelong (a male body will always attempt to revert to a male hormone balance in the absence of synthetic hormone treatment, etc) and both medical and surgical interventions can and do have permanent negative effects and health impacts, then even if puberty blockers were shown to be safe and fully reversible there would remain an ethical question around funnelling gender-uncomfortable children into a medical route that would almost certainly see them undergo lifelong medical interventions and permanent surgical procedures, when if the GnRH agonists had not been prescribed, more than half of those children/adolescents would have likely desisted.

It seems that there is a lot of work that could be done in disabusing children of the harmful gender stereotypes that form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis, rather than reinforcing them, and also in letting young people know that different sexualities are normal, acceptable, and "questioning" is almost expected in adolescence. The fact that TRAs have managed to get the discourse to a place where even suggesting that has some people squawking "bigot" all over the place is a travesty.

I do have some thoughts on the actual subject of the thread as well, but no time to formulate them into anything coherent enough for text at the moment so I'll post again when I do.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not too familiar with it, but presumably if a teen is well informed then there isn’t the ethical dilemma.

Many times in college I’ve been handed papers from professors telling me they were using my work in a study, I was given a consent form and told the risks (usually none). If a clinic wants a teen to trial a treatment I don’t see the problem if the teen and the parent/guardian both give informed consent that it’s an experimental treatment. If in that case the institute did not disclose that told them “yeah this is fine just trust us it’s proven science” that’s a whole other bill of beans.

What?

And I don’t know what to say about your college example. You were an adult. And it was not your body being tampered with. I can’t fathom how you would think that’s an appropriate comparison.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

On the flip BBC also tracks this alongside this lawsuit where a 14 year old, to the contrary, is suing because they are not processing their gender reassignment fast enough.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55015959

The scales of justice are being tried.

Yes that’s part of it, a necessary setting of the limits on both sides of treatment which is why it’s important to be able to discuss it freely without risking an internet pile-on, or being “cancelled” for having the wrong opinion.

And actually delays in treatment don’t mean that Keira Bell is wrong either: it’s the long waiting lists that lead to teens like her, when they are finally seen, being shovelled on into the treatment path ASAP instead of staff having time to really discuss the kid’s individual situation.

No treatment at all because people are all on a waiting list is not a solution that anyone should want to this IMO. We need to be able to identify what helps and what doesn’t. Not just refuse to care for them at all.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It seems that there is a lot of work that could be done in disabusing children of the harmful gender stereotypes that form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis, rather than reinforcing them, and also in letting young people know that different sexualities are normal, acceptable, and "questioning" is almost expected in adolescence. The fact that TRAs have managed to get the discourse to a place where even suggesting that has some people squawking "bigot" all over the place is a travesty.

I do have some thoughts on the actual subject of the thread as well, but no time to formulate them into anything coherent enough for text at the moment so I'll post again when I do.

And once you’re done disabusing people of their ideas about their gender identity in order to reinforce your own standards of gender stereotyping, you could start disabusing people of their ideas about sexual orientation reinforcing ideas of heterosexuality given that most children grow up to be heterosexual adults. That would suit the kind of people who are represented by the teacher and his wife in the opening post. The only issue once you’re done disabusing people is that you’ll have people identifying themselves as non-binary as a rejection of the gender stereotypes you consider to be harmful, and you’ll still have people who are transgender, and you’ll still have people who are transgender who are heterosexual, and people who are transgender who are homosexual.

In effect, all your efforts to disabuse people will have been for nothing as you’ll still end up with the same outcomes anyway which you currently object to.

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

What?

And I don’t know what to say about your college example. You were an adult. And it was not your body being tampered with. I can’t fathom how you would think that’s an appropriate comparison.

In college you are only in some cases 2 years older or a year older than the NHS says you are too young to give informed consent so it seems like a fair comparison to make, it exemplifies how informed consent can be given. Obviously the NHS argument is more complex, noting that adult science doesn’t even fully grasp the risks of the treatment being offered.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And once you’re done disabusing people of their ideas about their gender identity in order to reinforce your own standards of gender stereotyping, you could start disabusing people of their ideas about sexual orientation reinforcing ideas of heterosexuality given that most children grow up to be heterosexual adults. That would suit the kind of people who are represented by the teacher and his wife in the opening post. The only issue once you’re done disabusing people is that you’ll have people identifying themselves as non-binary as a rejection of the gender stereotypes you consider to be harmful, and you’ll still have people who are transgender, and you’ll still have people who are transgender who are heterosexual, and people who are transgender who are homosexual.

In effect, all your efforts to disabuse people will have been for nothing as you’ll still end up with the same outcomes anyway which you currently object to.

That’s a word salad but you seem to be saying that the outcomes would be the same anyway, for children who are gender confused. In reality those numbers have grown recently, and children don’t control the narrative, but adults do. So coming up with the same outcomes isn’t certain.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s a word salad but you seem to be saying that the outcomes would be the same anyway, for children who are gender confused. In reality those numbers have grown recently, and children don’t control the narrative, but adults do. So coming up with the same outcomes isn’t certain.

On the contrary, it’s absolutely guaranteed that the same outcomes would be likely given that we’re at the point in Western society we’re at now where individuals have the right to control their own narratives. I gather that doesn’t sit right with some adults whom are made feel uncomfortable about it.

Let’s just take one single narrative that’s a constant theme throughout these types of threads - the argument that women and girls require separate spaces from men and boys, and concessions in civilised society for their own safety and so on.

How does one square that argument with the idea of disabusing people of harmful gender stereotypes and acknowledging people’s freedom to exercise their liberation from those harmful stereotypes?

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

In college you are only in some cases 2 years older or a year older than the NHS says you are too young to give informed consent so it seems like a fair comparison to make, it exemplifies how informed consent can be given. Obviously the NHS argument is more complex, noting that adult science doesn’t even fully grasp the risks of the treatment being offered.

Oh there's no question in the NHS as to whether minors can give consent in most instances: the Victoria Gillick case in the 1980s decided that they could. https://www.themedicportal.com/blog/gillick-competence-and-fraser-guidelines/

The issue here was whether hormonal treatment for minors falls under those guidelines or whether it exceeds the limits of "Gillick competence", as for example euthanasia usually does. In those cases parents or in some cases judges may have to make the final decision.

Overheal

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh there's no question in the NHS as to whether minors can give consent in most instances: the Victoria Gillick case in the 1980s decided that they could. https://www.themedicportal.com/blog/gillick-competence-and-fraser-guidelines/

The issue here was whether hormonal treatment for minors falls under those guidelines or whether it exceeds the limits of "Gillick competence", as for example euthanasia usually does. In those cases parents or in some cases judges may have to make the final decision.

Sounds grounded in jurisprudence and is not just reactionary legislation so. Good stuff

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

In college you are only in some cases 2 years older or a year older than the NHS says you are too young to give informed consent so it seems like a fair comparison to make, it exemplifies how informed consent can be given. Obviously the NHS argument is more complex, noting that adult science doesn’t even fully grasp the risks of the treatment being offered.

You think consenting to share college work you have done is the same as a minor consenting to trial something that could damage their body irrevocably? The stakes are the same to you? I can’t believe that I have to point out that your college work is inanimate and a minor’s body is an animate living thing. If permanent damage is done to that individual’s body, there’s no going back. I find it hard to believe I’m typing those words and have to point out the difference here. I hope you are just being disingenuous because the alternative is alarming.

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

You think consenting to share college work you have done is the same as a minor consenting to trial something that could damage their body irrevocably? The stakes are the same to you? I can’t believe that I have to point out that your college work is inanimate and a minor’s body is an animate living thing. If permanent damage is done to that individual’s body, there’s no going back. I find it hard to believe I’m typing those words and have to point out the difference here. I hope you are just being disingenuous because the alternative is alarming.

Obviously, my work is inanimate, and nowhere did I try and argue that it was. Nowhere did I say that the studies are the same, the risks are the same, or anything like that. So, I'm not sure how else you got to that conclusion.

Just because the studies I participated in had no risk and had no permanent or temporary side effects, does not mean that there is not a similar process [Scientific Method, Ethics] for getting informed consent from a subject before they undergo a scientific trial of any kind, whether there are no known risks, or known life-altering risks, known unknowns, etc, ranging from the mundane consent form to informed counsel sessions in the case of a gender reassignment.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

Obviously, my work is inanimate, and nowhere did I try and argue that it was. Nowhere did I say that the studies are the same, the risks are the same, or anything like that. So, I'm not sure how else you got to that conclusion.

Just because the studies I participated in had no risk and had no permanent or temporary side effects, does not mean that there is not a similar process [Scientific Method, Ethics] for getting informed consent from a subject before they undergo a scientific trial of any kind, whether there are no known risks, or known life-altering risks, known unknowns, etc, ranging from the mundane consent form to informed counsel sessions in the case of a gender reassignment.

In your example, you weren’t undergoing a scientific trial. Do you think you were?

Many times in college I’ve been handed papers from professors telling me they were using my work in a study, I was given a consent form and told the risks (usually none).

You think the above is the same as taking part in a scientific trial?

volchitsa

Tilden Katz wrote: »

In your example, you weren’t undergoing a scientific trial. Do you think you were?

You think the above is the same as taking part in a scientific trial?

I don't think that really matters much anyway as Overheal, who I believe is in America, didn't know that the basic concept that competent minors can consent to medical treatment is securely enshrined in UK law, and that the Keira Bell case was about defining the limits of that competence to consent.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s a word salad but you seem to be saying that the outcomes would be the same anyway, for children who are gender confused. In reality those numbers have grown recently, and children don’t control the narrative, but adults do. So coming up with the same outcomes isn’t certain.

If I may come back to this for a minute, as I think you may have missed the point I was making, and I didn’t initially pick up on the way you were referring only to children who you say are ‘gender confused’. I wasn’t only referring to children who you say are ‘gender confused’. I was referring to Cymro’s ideas about what constitutes in her opinion ‘harmful gender stereotypes’ and her point that there was a lot of work to be done in disabusing people of these harmful gender stereotypes.

I’m assuming that by this Cymro means gender stereotypes which are outside the gender stereotypes that she is comfortable with, without any regard for anyone else’s welfare and their opinions on gender stereotypes or how gender stereotypes influence their beliefs, opinions, behaviours and attitudes towards other people, ie - if Cymro believes a stereotype is harmful, then it is, and no other perspective is relevant in her determination.

That’s why I suggested that her determinations would suit the people being represented by the teacher and his wife in the opening post. Their opinions aren’t based upon any attempt to be objective, their opinions are based entirely upon their own subjective prejudices, and they confirm their prejudices with evidence which supports their prejudices, as opposed to recognising or acknowledging the evidence which contradicts their beliefs or claims or opinions. They expect that other people who do not share their beliefs or opinions should simply conform, as that is what in their opinion is best for children and best for society. Unsurprisingly, they are the primary beneficiaries of that standard, it’s not unreasonable that they would argue in favour of a system which advantages and elevates them and their opinions and their welfare over the welfare of anyone else. To put it in terms you’re familiar with - they want to maintain control of all the narratives, and do not wish for anyone else’s narrative to interfere with theirs, which is admittedly, the predominant narrative in Western society regarding considerations of gender identity.

This is simply called gate-keeping. Similar to the way in which you asserted that children don’t control the narrative, the implication being that it’s adults who control narratives. It’s also why I pointed out that this simply isn’t true, and why I wasn’t only referring to children whom you regard as ‘gender confused’. The children themselves don’t appear to be confused about their gender, in many cases they’re absolutely certain about their gender, and they’re certain about the gender they’re not. It’s adults who are confused by this, because what they’re being told, flies in the face of their perception. Children’s agency is a hell of a thing, and the recognition of children having rights where they didn’t before is also a recent development in conjunction with recognition of the rights of people who are transgender - 50 years ago, neither children nor people who are transgender were generally regarded as being entitled to any rights.

Similarly, when you make the point that the number of children who are ‘gender confused’ has grown, in reality it hasn’t. Recognition of the phenomenon has grown, whereas historically it was assigned to other reasons, not recognised at all, or simply ignored in favour of maintaining the predominant narratives of gender in society - that there could be only two, and they were clearly defined by gender stereotypes. Further research has shown that this simply isn’t the case, as if it ever was. But what happened, and what is still happening to some extent today, is that adults wish to maintain and promote gender stereotypes which suit them, rather than acknowledge that there exists phenomena which do not conform to their standards.

It’s an issue not just in society, but it influences how children whom you suggest are ‘gender confused’ are regarded in terms of the provision of healthcare, education, welfare, etc. It’s why the teacher is up in arms about the policy in the school in the US which places an obligation upon him as a teacher to recognise the fact that he does not have the authority to impose his own standards on the children in his care, that he must respect the fact that children are individuals in their own right, who have the right to their gender identity be regarded and respected, irrespective of the teachers own beliefs and opinions and standards about gender.

This is a good article I think which addresses many of the points Cymro brought up in her post which I purposely didn’t address as they’ve been done to death already in other threads, but the main thrust of the article is to point out the gate-keeping over gender identity and how it has fuelled discrimination against people who are transgender as opposed to recognising variances in gender identity in their own right, and approaches to addressing and alleviating gender dysphoria, which is a completely separate phenomenon -


Transgender Trouble: 40 Years of Gender Essentialism and Gatekeeping

seamus

Shield wrote: »

There’s one published in the British Medical Journal that showed 50% of those on blockers lost bone mineral density. It’s called “Gender dysphoria: puberty blockers and loss of bone mineral density” and since we are allowed to quote a line or two of an article in discussion, I have gone with this one:

To note, that is not a study published in the BMJ, it is a letter published in it.
That is to say that it is a discussion on the data, it is not data itself.

You'll note in this response the tone that the effects on bone density are well known and well monitored while the course of medication is being taken, and steps are taken to minimise it. The discussion is about the best way of monitoring and treating it, not about whether puberty blockers should be outlawed.

Society is not "losing our minds over this", because it's not a gigantic issue and it's being tightly managed.

Gatling

seamus wrote: »

Society is not "losing our minds over this", because it's not a gigantic issue and it's being tightly managed.

That's because it's been made into a toxic discussion where a small cohort are controlling the narritave ,if you speak up or question this ideology your labelled as a transhobic bigot,and women especially face a severe backlash on and off line including losing their jobs and careers ,
It's not being tightly managed ,as we seen in the Travistock institute no real oversight ,no real record keeping ,and the system being abused to guarantee no one speaks out .

Tilden Katz

seamus wrote: »

To note, that is not a study published in the BMJ, it is a letter published in it.
That is to say that it is a discussion on the data, it is not data itself.

You'll note in this response the tone that the effects on bone density are well known and well monitored while the course of medication is being taken, and steps are taken to minimise it. The discussion is about the best way of monitoring and treating it, not about whether puberty blockers should be outlawed.

Society is not "losing our minds over this", because it's not a gigantic issue and it's being tightly managed.

In the response above, its authors admit that the topic of how bone density is affected by puberty blockers requires further study. It’s not reassuring that they admit that they don’t know how the medication will affect the individual taking it. How can the prescription of these drugs be “tightly managed” when they are lacking such knowledge? They as good as admit here that the individuals taking these drugs today are test subjects from whom they will glean information about whether or not bone density is affected.

Until we elucidate the role of these different factors on PBM, it will be difficult to optimise the bone health of TGD young people receiving GnRHa.

seamus

Key word there being "optimise", Mr. "new" poster.

This kind of discussion goes on all the time about all sorts of drugs. About optimising their use. We don't know everything about everything, a lack of absolute knowledge doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed. The goal is minimisation of harm, on balance. This is why we use radiation to annihilate childrens' immune systems before cancer kills them. We use puberty blockers to help treat gender dysphoria before they kill themselves.

A recent study suggested a potential link between neurological defects and paracetemol in pregnancy, which has been allowed for decades. So is this an experiment too, because we provided this drug despite lacking such knowledge? No, it's medicine.

Tilden Katz

seamus wrote: »

Key word there being "optimise", Mr. "new" poster.

Excuse me? So unsure of your position that you have to take a swipe? I am indeed NOT a new poster. I've nothing to hide there at all. Anything else you'd like to say on that, Seamus?

This kind of discussion goes on all the time about all sorts of drugs. About optimising their use. We don't know everything about everything, a lack of absolute knowledge doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed.

About these, basically nothing is known about the long-term effects.

This is why we use radiation to annihilate childrens' immune systems before cancer kills them. We use puberty blockers to help treat gender dysphoria before they kill themselves.

For the child with cancer, certain death is the other option. I cannot believe you have gone for the suicide stats in children confused about their gender as a comparison. Even the Tavistock clinic, the specialist centre for treating this medical issue, didn't go there. They admitted that the suicide risk is low when they were pressed. Child with cancer - WILL die without these harsh treatments. Child who believes they are the wrong gender - nowhere near so clear cut what the outcome will be. And puberty-blockers are a time-sensitive medication as puberty is one little period of life, meaning that to start using them, other avenues probably don't have the time and space to be explored. Comparing the physical disease that is cancer is a dreadful comparison.

A recent study suggested a potential link between neurological defects and paracetemol in pregnancy, which has been allowed for decades. So is this an experiment too, because we provided this drug despite lacking such knowledge? No, it's medicine.

Yup, that study is alarming. I can't believe that you think that's a good argument for proceeding with more untested medications.

Shield

seamus wrote: »

Society is not "losing our minds over this", because it's not a gigantic issue and it's being tightly managed.

I would say that it IS a gigantic issue and worth losing our minds over. 50% of children on blockers had reduced bone density. That's not an insignificant number by any means, wouldn't you agree?

In any event, that article is from 2019, and yet in an article a year entitled "Systematic Review: Puberty suppression with GnRH analogues in adolescents with gender incongruity" from the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, concedes that "it is not a risk-free medication and like others; therefore, it should be used only if recommended by a team of professionals as it may bring other risks".

That's the sticking point that I can't move past. Children are being allowed to make potentially irreversible and damaging decisions about their bodies. We don't let children vote, drink, smoke, tattoo themselves, etc. until they reach a certain age for a good reason. Why does this get a free pass when the scope and severity of any potential damage is still unknown?

In the future, I reckon more fully-grown adults like Keira Bell will be detransitioners or gay/lesbian adults and will ask "How could you? I was nothing more than a confused child".

At a time when former staff of Tavistock are "raising concerns about the “overdiagnosing” of gender dysphoria, the consequences of early medical interventions and the significant increase in referrals of girls questioning their gender identity" (source) I think we should be taking a giant step back here and asking ourselves what on earth we are thinking of.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I may come back to this for a minute, as I think you may have missed the point I was making, and I didn’t initially pick up on the way you were referring only to children who you say are ‘gender confused’. I wasn’t only referring to children who you say are ‘gender confused’. I was referring to Cymro’s ideas about what constitutes in her opinion ‘harmful gender stereotypes’ and her point that there was a lot of work to be done in disabusing people of these harmful gender stereotypes.

I’m assuming that by this Cymro means gender stereotypes which are outside the gender stereotypes that she is comfortable with, without any regard for anyone else’s welfare and their opinions on gender stereotypes or how gender stereotypes influence their beliefs, opinions, behaviours and attitudes towards other people, ie - if Cymro believes a stereotype is harmful, then it is, and no other perspective is relevant in her determination.

That’s why I suggested that her determinations would suit the people being represented by the teacher and his wife in the opening post. Their opinions aren’t based upon any attempt to be objective, their opinions are based entirely upon their own subjective prejudices, and they confirm their prejudices with evidence which supports their prejudices, as opposed to recognising or acknowledging the evidence which contradicts their beliefs or claims or opinions. They expect that other people who do not share their beliefs or opinions should simply conform, as that is what in their opinion is best for children and best for society. Unsurprisingly, they are the primary beneficiaries of that standard, it’s not unreasonable that they would argue in favour of a system which advantages and elevates them and their opinions and their welfare over the welfare of anyone else. To put it in terms you’re familiar with - they want to maintain control of all the narratives, and do not wish for anyone else’s narrative to interfere with theirs, which is admittedly, the predominant narrative in Western society regarding considerations of gender identity.

This is simply called gate-keeping. Similar to the way in which you asserted that children don’t control the narrative, the implication being that it’s adults who control narratives. It’s also why I pointed out that this simply isn’t true, and why I wasn’t only referring to children whom you regard as ‘gender confused’. The children themselves don’t appear to be confused about their gender, in many cases they’re absolutely certain about their gender, and they’re certain about the gender they’re not. It’s adults who are confused by this, because what they’re being told, flies in the face of their perception. Children’s agency is a hell of a thing, and the recognition of children having rights where they didn’t before is also a recent development in conjunction with recognition of the rights of people who are transgender - 50 years ago, neither children nor people who are transgender were generally regarded as being entitled to any rights.

Similarly, when you make the point that the number of children who are ‘gender confused’ has grown, in reality it hasn’t. Recognition of the phenomenon has grown, whereas historically it was assigned to other reasons, not recognised at all, or simply ignored in favour of maintaining the predominant narratives of gender in society - that there could be only two, and they were clearly defined by gender stereotypes. Further research has shown that this simply isn’t the case, as if it ever was. But what happened, and what is still happening to some extent today, is that adults wish to maintain and promote gender stereotypes which suit them, rather than acknowledge that there exists phenomena which do not conform to their standards.

It’s an issue not just in society, but it influences how children whom you suggest are ‘gender confused’ are regarded in terms of the provision of healthcare, education, welfare, etc. It’s why the teacher is up in arms about the policy in the school in the US which places an obligation upon him as a teacher to recognise the fact that he does not have the authority to impose his own standards on the children in his care, that he must respect the fact that children are individuals in their own right, who have the right to their gender identity be regarded and respected, irrespective of the teachers own beliefs and opinions and standards about gender.

This is a good article I think which addresses many of the points Cymro brought up in her post which I purposely didn’t address as they’ve been done to death already in other threads, but the main thrust of the article is to point out the gate-keeping over gender identity and how it has fuelled discrimination against people who are transgender as opposed to recognising variances in gender identity in their own right, and approaches to addressing and alleviating gender dysphoria, which is a completely separate phenomenon -


Transgender Trouble: 40 Years of Gender Essentialism and Gatekeeping

I have no idea how you've come to all these conclusions about what I think of this or that, particularly since many of "Cymro's opinions as posted by Jack" don't represent anything I actually think. Perhaps you'd better begin by being specific about which gender stereotypes you think I'm comfortable with?