Peak Trans

Really the entire thing can be summed up as follows...

- As a self-aware legal adult who fully understands the consequences involved... do whatever you want, however accept that it is YOUR choice and not everyone will (or must) agree with, validate, or celebrate it with you and they are perfectly entitled to feel that way - so long as they are respectful and tolerant. That's what true freedom of expression is.

- Anything involving children or minors however is very different. By all means be supportive as they figure out who they are, but encouraging any sort of surgery, hormones, blockers or so on for (young) children ranges from irresponsible to outright idiotic and dangerous and is really more about the "responsible" parent's/adult's views on the subject than the child themselves. Such "adults" should be let nowhere near children IMO. Those are the "parents" who should have vulnerable children taken from them.

But regardless of which side you come down on, the reality is still that virtue-signalling, feelings, and ideology do not trump biology/genetics or scientific/medical facts.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sweet Jesus - can the "achingly progressive" crowd get a grip here ???

From about age 4 or 5 I was into what would be termed "boys things" - I loved (and still do at age 48) football, cricket, rugby, golf. I hated dresses, wore trousers - practically sulked for days at my First Holy Communion dress. I've never had many female friends, played with boys then - friends with blokes now.

My parents said I was a tomboy, one of the lads - and it was perfectly normal. Quite right too!

I'm a straight female, I always have been - I likely always will be. Nowadays with different parents I'd likely have the girls bandaged down and be injected with testosterone before I could spell it.

I am a staunch ally of the LGBT community, I walk the walk for them, they know I have their back. This is not an LGBT issue in my opinion but rather than in the rush to be "woke" (is that the right word ?) we are forgetting one very important fact.

We've forgotten that sometimes kids and adults like what they like, they are who are they are - the stereotypes are wrong. Forcing kids to have medication to make them something they may not be is wrong.

See this is why I question the current gender fluid movement along with parents forcing/allowing young children to make life changing decisions !

People seem to be so quick to attach a label nowadays

A girl that wants to play with boys toys and dress like a boy is not gender fluid/non binary etc, they just have an interest in those things.
Same for boys looking to play with girl toys etc.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Back in the olden days when we had sense - there is an illness called Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder.

They are technically (slightly) mental illnesses. However, it must be pointed out that not all mental illnesses are bad - I have GAD for example.

The condition is still in the DSM-V but there is a campaign to have it declassified. I think it would be a mistake as is it helping the GENUINE people going through this and helping them avail of treatment, surgery etc.

Sadly the modern day thinking (c.f. New York and it's idiotic 31 genders - http://trove42.com/new-york-city-recognizes-31-gender-identities/) does not like this. Will it take a rape on a female changing room before this "self identifying" nonsense is gone ???

This is the bit I don't understand..

I had GAD for 12 years. I get the stigma. I personally never gave a sh1te and was very open with friends, family and work from day 1 but that did open me up to all sorts of reactions so i understand the stigma attached to the term and I can understand people not wanting to be associated with it.

But whether i like it or not, I had a mental illness for 12 years.

As I understand it, the WHO are reclassifying Gender Dysphoria as Gender Incongruence from Jan 2022 but it appears to be for societal reasons as opposed to medical.

They also make the point that the care remains the same regardless of the reclassification so again, it seems to be a far more of an attempt to remove any stigma then any kind of change in how it's viewed medically.

Even those in favour of beginning gender reassignment in children are using terms like health care and treatment.

I also understand the nuance with regard to the disease being the discomfort felt by the individual (depression / anxiety) as opposed to the fact that they feel they're the wrong gender.

But surely that's just ignoring the elephant in the room. ie. the fact that they feel that they are the wrong gender as they likely wouldn't have the other symptoms if they didn't have that to contend with.

So my question is, if it's not a mental illness*, what is it ?

*I'm not saying that it is..

I always assumed it was along the lines of other dysphorias such as anorexia or Alien Limb Syndrome.

Rennaws wrote: »

.

If transgenderism isn't a mental illness, what is it ?

A neurological condition.

We used to call homosexuality a mental illness, our scientific understanding of differences change over time and so does our treatment of them.

Lux23 wrote: »

We used to call homosexuality a mental illness, our scientific understanding of differences change over time and so does our treatment of them.

I understand and fully accept that but yet again, why are we conflating homosexuality with transgenderism ?

Honestly, people constantly do it on here but no-one seems to be able to explain why

Is there a link and if so what is it ?

Lux23 wrote: »

A neurological condition.

I had GAD for 12 years. It was most definitely a mental illness.

I currently suffer from a neurological condition..

I take drugs for neuropathic pain. Strong anti convulsants with major side effects. I also take opioids as they're the only thing that works. It sucks but i'm lucky. The drugs don't work for everyone. The pain never fully goes away but that's my life and i intend to enjoy it.

Forgive my cynicism, but given my personal experience of both mental and neuropathic issues and the countless hours of research i've done trying to find answers and cures to both, i'm struggling to see how transgenderism is in any way a neurological condition.

I can certainly see how neurology may provide some of the answers but this all seems like a big word game to me with everyone dancing around the fact that it's fundamentally psychological in nature.

Can you share a link to support the assertion that transgenderism is a neurological condition ?

I'm not being lazy, I did go looking but couldn't find anything and I haven't seen it mentioned in anything else i've read to date on either transgenderism or neurological matters.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'll agree with the first point. Your gender (of which there are ONLY 2) is not related to your sexual preferences.

However, all this "cis" stuff is Americanised nonsense that has no place outside of their college campuses (and not even there TBF).. or maybe NYC with it's 31 genders! :rolleyes: - it certainly isn't applicable to this country, and shouldn't be given any credence here.

At times I wonder if it would be more comfortable to see the world in black and white...

Folks I'm bowing out. Theres just no reasoning with you here without saying something that will cause grief for the mods.

Incredibly disappointed in so many of you. So open minded on many issues but like a slap back to bad old catholic Ireland on this one

Usage of the term “cis” implies we are a subset who should be recognised separately and treated as such..

Classic identity politics..

We aren’t a subset of anything. We are what we are and it doesn’t require a label.. We are men and women. Plain and simple.

Labels are only required when identifying smaller minority subsets of the population..

It’s a clever tool, but it’s based on a fallacy and so won’t last..

As soon as I see it in a post I stop reading tbh

Calhoun wrote: »

So we must replace Catholic Ireland with the new religion of left leaning and contradictory views. Just do as we are told no questions asked?

We are talking about welfare of Irish children here, we have seen the abuses that happened when we let other groups do our thinking for us.

Not only that but you also want to redefine us while you got about it all, no longer male or female but now labelled. These labels as seen in the US then used to discredit people's opinions.

Jesus H Christ, would you do yourself a bloody favour and read over my posts. Find me anywhere where I mentioned the abuse of children.

And yes if we must replace catholic Ireland with a left leaning religion where people are free to be themselves while doing absolutely no harm to others bar making them think outside of the restrictive black and white binary then yes what is the bloody harm. Ask all the questions you want to, there's no such thing as a stupid one, just a stupid answer.

In regards to redefining people, sometimes adjectives are bloody useful, particularly when someone asks a question and it's a tricky one. Nobody is defining anybody, you define yourself and fcuk anyone who tries to paint you into a corner.

Look I get that this can be a confusing issue for people and people often react with fear and anger towards what they don't understand. What is inexcusable however, is the blatant transphobia that has been evident in this thread since the OP. Yes some people are agitating for people as young as preteen to be prescribed puberty blockers, I'm not one of them. Similarly during the troubles some people were agitating for all sorts to be done to the British, was that all of Ireland?

Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to make the decision to be who they are? In my opinion they should be once it has been established that they are of sound mind and that after receiving the appropriate council, they walk into it fully armed with the facts and with eyes wide open.

Calhoun wrote: »

You didn't mention abuse but as I said you want people to follow blindly what is being said from one side That is what happened with the Catholic Church in Ireland , people let men in cloth dictated how they lived their lives and look at the abuse that happened. In this case we are actually talking about children, so hence why folk aren't going to not question something.

Also I think you are confusing free thinking with another group as that has abandoned the left a long time ago, we only need to look at the narrative coming from other jurisdictions. They like to particulaly use those narratives to shut down other folks freedom.

You maybe moderate on your views but just like the transphobia is putting you off some of your peers have been putting people on the other side of the fence off. Sure one of the first rebukes in the post was to label someone a pedo to shut conversation down.

I disagree mainly because I see this being a gateway thing, give an inch on allowing children decide on medical treatment and a mile will be taken.

Ok that's fair enough and I can see the valid concern there. I guess it's a tragedy of discussion boards that the loudest and more extreme voices get in there first and suddenly heckles are raised on both sides. Personally I don't think I'm following blindly but I'd be moderately on the side of what is being recommended after considering where the advice has come from. Perhaps that didn't come across too well in text and particularly when said text was written with the heckles raised.

I must say that I would have grave reservations about how some of the group I have highlighted in bold above go about things. That's extremely counterproductive in my eyes to be putting it very mildly. As I'm sure you know, daring to question that and sticking your head above the parapet is fraught with danger though, even if you're supposedly on the same side as them. Be yourself, when it's your decision to be that way is my qualified take on that. Like, forcing your child to dress as the opposite gender is fcuked up child abuse. Supporting your child if they express a desire to do so is good parenting in my eyes.

I really hope I've managed to express myself better here. It is an important topic of discussion and it deserves a high standard of debate.

P_1 wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, would you do yourself a bloody favour and read over my posts. Find me anywhere where I mentioned the abuse of children.

I think the point being made is that you didn't mention anywhere about the abuse of children, which is exactly what was done at the time when children were separated from their parents and subjected to experimental treatments, and these people were supported and funded by the State.

And yes if we must replace catholic Ireland with a left leaning religion where people are free to be themselves while doing absolutely no harm to others bar making them think outside of the restrictive black and white binary then yes what is the bloody harm. Ask all the questions you want to, there's no such thing as a stupid one, just a stupid answer.

It's not nearly as benign as you make out though. You're thinking inside your own black and white binary world when you can only perceive people being themselves and causing no harm to others, when the fact is that there are people campaigning for harm to be done to children so that they as adults can feel better about themselves. That's where the harm is, and to ignore that or pretend there is no harm is what causes people to question the ideology even more, because they see that harm is being done, and wonder why are a small minority of people playing down the harm being done or attempting to put people off asking questions by claiming they are transphobic.

Instead of reaching for the transphobic label when you don't like the ideology being questioned, it would be more in your interests to acknowledge that the vast majority of adults who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not opt for medical transition, and their discomfort is instead alleviated by acceptance. There are people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who choose not to even socially transition as it's not their dysphoria causes them mental distress, but the lack of acceptance from their families, their peer groups, their work colleagues, and even some people within the transgender community who refer to them pejoratively as 'transtrenders' - those who have chosen not to undergo either medical transition or gender confirmation surgery.

It's actually people who have chosen to medically transition or go as far as having gender confirmation surgery are in a minority who want the power to dictate to the majority how they should be able to raise their children, or else risk having their children removed from their care. That too, is just as much a restrictive black and white binary as the one you are rallying against. The difference isn't motivated by transphobia, it's motivated by a difference of perspective.

Using terms like 'cis' to refer to people who are not transgender, and it's a term that is generally used in the pejorative sense, is attempting to shift the paradigm of gender congruity to one where 'cis' is perceived as something undesirable. It's a political and linguistic manoeuver which doesn't really work if it's proponents reject a label they find undesirable, while at the same time suggesting that their attempt to label people is merely a benign classification of their opposite. It's transparent that their motivation is anything but benign.

In regards to redefining people, sometimes adjectives are bloody useful, particularly when someone asks a question and it's a tricky one. Nobody is defining anybody, you define yourself and fcuk anyone who tries to paint you into a corner.

Except that's not really true, is it?

The reason why objections on either side exist is because people do define people in ways in which they find useful, and with regard to children, attempts to define children as transgender before they've even reached puberty is something which people are going to find objectionable. It's an attempt to paint children into a corner by pathologising observed behaviour and attitudes towards themselves and towards others. Children define themselves according to behaviours and attitudes they observe in others. Adults define children's behaviours and attitudes according to themselves. I have no issue with telling other adults who try to define my child according to their standards, that I would appreciate if they didn't do that. If they attempt to continue to do it, I'm still not going to be rude about it, but I would suggest that they keep their projections of their issues onto my child, to themselves. That may have them perceive me as transphobic, but from my perspective, their behaviour and their attitude towards others is that of an asshole. In terms of how my child is raised, my perspective carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than their perspective.

Look I get that this can be a confusing issue for people and people often react with fear and anger towards what they don't understand. What is inexcusable however, is the blatant transphobia that has been evident in this thread since the OP. Yes some people are agitating for people as young as preteen to be prescribed puberty blockers, I'm not one of them. Similarly during the troubles some people were agitating for all sorts to be done to the British, was that all of Ireland?

It's very easy to categorise a difference of opinion as an expression of fear and anger of something that people don't understand, or blatant transphobia or whatever else. But differences of opinion are based on different standards, and simply labelling a difference of opinion as the person being afraid of or angered or misunderstanding or blatant transphobia really doesn't contribute anything towards further understanding. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Similarly, as you suggested earlier - Irish people generally have a sense of what's the right thing to do, and the more extreme elements in any movement do not represent the majority. Why then would you assume that the majority of people who disagree with your opinion don't understand or are afraid, angry or transphobic? It's a bit of a leap, which you yourself point out is rather fallacious logic.

Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to make the decision to be who they are? In my opinion they should be once it has been established that they are of sound mind and that after receiving the appropriate council, they walk into it fully armed with the facts and with eyes wide open.

That's not really the question that people are asking though, is it? What people are questioning is other people's authority to define what those children should become, according to their perception. Children of that age cannot possibly be fully armed with the facts or their eyes wide open when they are not fully developed adults themselves for one thing, and secondly when nobody, even the world's foremost experts in science, medicine, law, sociology, psychology, psychiatry endocrinology and so on, can offer them any guarantees of outcomes whatsoever. At least as adults themselves, then they are in a far better position to understand their condition and their options and the potential outcomes for themselves as adults that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.