World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

Martine Croxall made her own editorial decision on the bbc the other day, the eye roll says a hell of a lot

The problem with your argument should be obvious - according to you, other people KNOW what you think they know. According to themselves, they think they’re men, and cervical cancer screening doesn’t apply to them, and that’s even if they’re aware of a cervix at all, given that you’ve already provided evidence that half of women couldn’t point to their cervix on a map of the female anatomy. I’m discounting the possibility of a total hysterectomy which would mean they definitely don’t have a cervix -

How do I know if I need to have a cervical screening?

You’ll need to have cervical screenings if you have a cervix – whether or not you identify as female. If you’ve had a total hysterectomy, you won’t have a cervix, which means you won’t need to go to cervical screenings. If you aren’t sure what you need, check with your healthcare team. 

https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com/uk/sexual-health-advice/trans-men-and-cervical-screening

Their wish to be recognised and referred to as men isn’t putting anyone else at risk, only themselves. The language other people use though, that’s not putting anyone else in danger either, given that from the survey I posted earlier, the majority of women rely on family and friends for healthcare related information, and online searches second, whereas only half will bother with the NHS services for their healthcare related information -

The top 5 sources respondents rely on for health information are:

• family or friends (74%)
• Google search (71%)
• other online search engines and blogs (69%)
• GPs or other healthcare professionals (59%)
• the NHS, including their non-emergency helpline and the NHS website (54%)
  

Well indeed, finally after far too many years of confusion & delusion the house of cards is now rapidly falling. Interesting chat below from Talk TV. Firstly there is a discussion about UK courts and the fact that judges are no longer bound to use "preferred pronouns", and secondly they talk about the BBC Martine Croxall story, where she corrects the teleprompter …

It's not a scientific term certainly, but that's not to say it doesn't have a meaning.

This kind of constant repetition is definitely part of it. What kind of mind thinks that just by repeating something like … a mantra … will make it true?

Nice segue there to something that is highly controversial, and absolutely doesneed to be subjected to scientific standards and scrutiny.

It has no scientific merit or value whatsoever, nobody said it doesn't have meaning. I understood the way volchista meant it when she used it in a way that suggested very young people who claim an identity different from that which they are expected to have, are brainwashed, meaning that they have been taught to believe it's true, not that they have come up with the idea themselves.

What kind of mind thinks that just by repeating something like a mantra will make it true? Well, the kind of mind that believes that just by repeating something like a mantra will make it true. I'm going back a couple of years now but the example that immediately comes to mind was a show called 'My Husbands Not Gay' that aired on TLC back a couple of years ago.

Spoiler - their husbands are gay.

The whole conversion therapy nonsense has already been subject to scientific standards and scrutiny, that's how it has been determined that not only is it nonsense, it's harmful nonsense. The only reason it's still regarded at all, let alone considered controversial, is because it's permitted by the First Amendment in the US, like those fake abortion clinics.

It's long but worth reading, for a clear timeline of some of the most extreme positions taken by the trans lobby, and how many trans people had severe doubts but were dismissed by their own side - or worse, accused of wrongthink and betrayal.

I think you'll find that's a feature, not a bug, of any movement throughout history you'd care to think of. In terms of Women's Suffrage, the Pankhurst family were a bit… special. Emily disowned her daughters for not falling in line with her ideology, but it wasn't all bad for at least one daughter who disagreed with her mother's violent tactics, instead she wrote about how well she was treated while in prison (that still doesn't make any sense to me, but hey ho), before being sent to Australia by her mother where she… shall we say 'fell in with the wrong crowd' (the right crowd of course from her point of view!) -

The key to Adela’s fall from grace lies perhaps not in her contribution to the campaign for votes for women in the UK, but in the more controversial causes she gravitated towards once the battle was won. She denounced contraception, abortion and even nursery schools for undermining maternal instincts and responsibilities. She campaigned heavily against Australian participation in World War I (the WSPU had suspended its activities, in order to support the war effort).

After dabbling in the newly emerged Australian Communist Party and subsequently rejecting the ideology, Adela’s politics shifted to the right, and she went on to be associated with the Australia First movement, an anti-communist, anti-immigration political party. In the 1930s, Australia First was an anti-semitic and proto-fascist organisation which favoured an alliance with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Due to her activities with Australia First, Adela was interned in a camp for political prisoners in March 1942 where she remained for several months.

She died in Australia in 1961, having had, seemingly, a very happy family life there. Yet despite being named alongside 58 others on a statue of Millicent Fawcett recently unveiled in London, Adela Pankhurst has been largely ignored by popular histories of suffrage.

https://theconversation.com/adela-pankhurst-the-forgotten-sister-who-doesnt-fit-neatly-into-suffragette-history-101918

You're doing the same when you characterise Strangio as a transidentifying female lawyer. I get why, because it makes sense from your point of view, but Strangio themselves does not share your opinion -

I was assigned female at birth, but I have never had a female body. If it takes longer to convince the world of that than it would to simply say that I was born with a female body but am now male, I am invested in that longer path, because ultimately we will all be better off when we can challenge the idea that our body parts define us.

Quite why someone would want to be accepted by people who they know have no respect for them has always mystified me, but what mystifies me more is why those people would think that anyone should actually want anything to do with them in the first place when they characterise their targets as being not one of them, uncivil, etc. I was reminded of this recently due to a Democrat candidate running for election in 2026, she was raised Republican, but had a bit of an eye-opening moment when she turned 16 and realised the whole 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' was a myth she'd been taught to believe. Recently she came under fire (she's been under fire a lot tbf!), for giving two fingers to some people who saw it as their duty to tell parents who were bringing their children to a 'drag queen story hour' at the local library, that they were going to Hell -

Our political views and social outlook couldn't be more different, but there are some things I agree with her on. People who take it upon themselves to declare that anyone who doesn't share their views is going to Hell, deserve to be told to fcuk off.

The off-label use you describe is actually due to an adverse effect, common to SSRI's and many other drugs - they adversely affect sexual function. This effect is not always reversible, and post ssri sexual disfunction is gradually being accepted as a treatment-induced harm.

The post I was responding to was making a point about the safety and efficacy of drugs being used off-label, to which I was pointing out that the use of drugs off-label is common in medicine to treat conditions which the drugs weren’t designed specifically for. Anti-depressants were never designed for use in the treatment of premature ejaculation, and the last time I checked, which was a while ago, the figures for impotence in men prescribed anti-depressants to treat depression was about 30%. Impotence in those circumstances is considered the lesser of two evils as it were, in the same way that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (I like the way you did that though, “wrong-sex hormones” indeed 😏) are considered the lesser of two evils in the treatment of what is known in medicine and science as gender dysphoria, formerly known as a sex change.

It’s not at all unusual that in their struggle for greater accuracy and acceptance of their terminology, proponents have only managed to shoot themselves in the foot. It’s why the whole “biological males”, “biological females” nonsense doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks before it is rightfully mocked mercilessly, while it’s proponents claim that it’s more accurate, and that their right to freedom of speech is being violated, as though their right to freedom of speech actually is being violated by being held to the same standards as everyone else in society.

Minor detail cos I get where you’re coming from, but the effects of the drugs used in the treatment of gender dysphoria aren’t reversible, at all. That’s the whole point. It never should have been claimed that the effects were reversible, but I understand why the claim was made that the effects are reversible - to assuage parents concerns about the treatment. Because just like the way John Money had exploited parents ignorance in order to conduct experiments on children to demonstrate evidence of his hypothesis that sex was malleable and children experiencing gender dysphoria could be made to fit in with society’s expectations and norms and standards, the proponents of the treatment were basing their assumptions on bad science, bad science that relied on Money’s reputation as an authority, or an expert in the field of sex and sexual dysfunction.

Money’s experiments were a complete failure, they contradicted his hypothesis, but that didn’t stop him, and it didn’t stop his ideas from gaining traction enough that they became regarded as standard practice. By the time his fcukwittery became public knowledge, it was too late as the practice was already regarded as the standard of treatment and people who were desperate seeking help for their children were already claiming the practice was beneficial for them and their children. It was a combination of parents who were told to lie, parents who if they didn’t lie would be denied any further help, and parents who genuinely believed that their children were being treated for gender dysphoria and that it was beneficial and medically necessary. That’s how the whole idea of using suicide as emotional blackmail got legs.

SSRI’s evidence base is fine, depends on what conditions they are designed to treat, same as the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is fine for what they’re designed to treat, the evidence base for off-label use to treat conditions they weren’t designed to treat is what’s sketchy. That’s not to say there’s none, there is evidence to support their use, but the quality of the evidence is poor, and I didn’t need a 400 page review to know that much. The Cass Review was only ever intended for use by the NHS to justify the fact that because the NHS had no research of their own, they had to go back to the drawing board and produce research for the UK population.

It was of no relevance whatsoever to how medicine is practiced in any other country, which each have their own public healthcare systems, except for the US, which is the only developed country without a system of universal public healthcare, and because the majority of people there have no health insurance, they rely on coverage by their employer to pay for drugs, or they rely on the likes of Planned Parenthood to provide drugs as the funding is covered by various Federal Healthcare programs… well, it was at least, until recently, not sure if it’s still the case with the way Republican legislators are moving so quickly over there while Democrats appear to be left holding their dick in their hands 😒

And, if someone is prevented from using the terms "biological male" or "biological female", then that is definitely an infringement on their right to free speech.

Nobody is being prevented from using the terms, they’re just mocked mercilessly when they do, because it’s the sort of language more often associated with incels and the… frankly, pathetic way in which they choose to characterise and refer to women. They too like to portray themselves as victims of society, they’re not though, just to be clear, and even if it were the case that people are being prevented from referring to other people in ways which those people do not wish to be referred to, that’s still not an infringement on anyone’s right to free speech or freedom of expression.