World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

By imperilling a paper on gender-transition interventions for youths, evidence-based medicine expert Dr. Gordon Guyatt joins a wider suppressive trend seen in academic publishing in pediatric gender medicine.

I've read that paragraph SIX times now

Speaking of reports/studies, an opinion from Australia of all places,
raising questions about the infamous Cass review in the UK.

They haven't gone away you know….

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15176391/Children-able-choose-gender-age-EU-proposals.html

I see that EU quangos are still trying for force self ID for children (80% of who desist from gender dysphoria as they grow up, if allowed to grow up instead of getting pumped full of puberty blockers). Why can't these insane ideologues leave children alone. The top down attempt to force gender ideology on the citizens of the EU that neither want or support this cracked cult contines it seems.

Maybe another factor is the delegitimising of biological women as a category, in the name of inclusion.

That's definitely not a factor in the lack of research into issues pertaining to women's health. The major factor (as opposed to focussing on niche issues such as transgender healthcare) as to why there is feckall research on issues pertaining to women's health is simply that they're not that interesting to researchers, who are predominantly men. It's one of the reasons why Viagra which was initially developed as a blood pressure medication, later developed as a medication to treat erectile dysfunction (as medically urgent needs go, erectile dysfunction is well up there for men!).

The Accidental Aphrodisiac: The Story of Viagra | OpenOChem Learn

I read a review of a book called Invisible Women a few years back. It deals with this and related issues - why women are more likely to die of heart attacks as the symptoms tend to be different and the emergency is not recognised, why women are 47% more likely to die in car crashes - crash test dummies tend to be male, and women are not just small men, their bodies are differently proportioned, and the fact that phones are too big for women's hands.

It does, and it gives plenty of examples of systems designed by men, for men, where they weren't required to design systems for women (the World Fair for example in the Victorian era - the guy who came up with the idea of public toilets, while he was mindful of the fact that the need to relieve onself is a biological imperative common to both sexes, only women were charged to 'spend a penny', the idea being that only women would use the facilities, and it would make a tidy sum for the organisers. It did). And yes there is the example of the crash test dummies being modelled on men (sans family jewels, guess it saves on plastic!), but bad designs are by no means limited to just not being designed for women, history is littered with examples of constructs which weren't designed with men in mind either, but rather 'the average man'. That change was led by necessity too.

But 'the fact that phones are too big for women's hands'? That's an unfortunate side effect of amplification by social media. It's not a fact that phones are too big for women's hands, it's a fact that some people think the world should revolve around them, and social media gives them an opportunity to 'call out' the likes of Apple (and it is particularly Apple and the design of the iPhone comes in for criticism from women with small hands), the claim being that Apple doesn't care to design a phone for women. The evidence of iPhone sales contradicts that assertion. iPhone Mini and Plus models just don't sell as well as regular and Pro/Pro Max models.

Battle of the sexes: Men and women like different iPhone models | AppleInsider

Men And Women Prefer Different iPhone Models, Study Shows

Both articles refer to the same study by CIRP, and then there's 'the iPhone effect', because contrary to popular belief, women can tell the difference between 5.5, and 6 inch… screens, and they prefer a bigger screen 😏

In the above side-by-side pie charts, we split Apple and Samsung audiences by gender. Globally, two-thirds of all Apple device owners are female. The figures are nearly reversed for Samsung, with men making up 62% of their mobile device audience. While not shown in a chart, we did break these audiences down by gender and generation. Doing so revealed that Apple appeals particularly well to Millennial and Gen Z females. In fact, over 4 times as many female Millennials use Apple versus Samsung devices. Within Generation Z, twice as many females use Apple over Samsung. There is a fair amount of speculation as to why younger females use Apple and older males use Samsung. Apple’s sleek design and intuitive user experience may appeal more to women, while the ability to heavily customize Android on Samsung could appeal more to men. 

Gen Z & Millennials Prefer Apple iPhone Over Samsung | Flurry

It's kinda funny this came up, because only the other night I was watching a video by one of my favourite tech reviewers in which she actually explicity made the point that the whole cult behaviour of iPhone users was to put it frankly - weird:

As she explains - it's simply down to personal preferences.

I think that misses the point. There was wide spread revulsion at the time at the killing of Declan Flynn. What happened to McCrea would make the front page of the papers today, but was considered a merry jape at the time - publicly humiliating an effeminate 13 year old boy. He rightly asks how many of the people who laughed at the incident at the time went on to vote for marriage equality and abortion decades later.

I know, I almost did miss his point, but he misses the point that it wouldn't happen today because the sport of tennis has become far more professional than it was when he was a ball boy. You wouldn't see players today engaging in the same sort of behaviour that John McEnroe was notorious for at the time. These days John McEnroe is more likely to be found protesting about a tennis stadium named after one of Australia's sporting icons. McCrea with his anecdote is comparing apples and oranges - effeminate boys are still a common source of ridicule regardless of anyone's attitude to Constitutional or Legislative change.

That's certainly not what he is saying. I don't know how you got that idea. What he did suggest is that taking up the cudgel on behalf of the trans cause since 2015 has been immensely damaging to gay people.

I got that from his overall argument, more specifically when he talks about his assumption that people wouldn't have voted for marriage equality if they were aware of the fact that gay men have open relationships. That's an assumption based entirely upon his opinion of gay men in open relationships, it has nothing to do with legislation regarding marriage equality, and he being a Professor of Constitutional and European Law would know that. You did say though that his opinions are more relevant in the context of the UK rather than Ireland, and that's a fair point. He makes a brief mention of Goodwin in relation to the right of people who are transgender to enter into marriage, but that decision was made at a European level in 2002 and only enacted in UK law as the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, some ten years before 2015. Suggesting that the cudgel was only taken up since 2015 is either a demonstration that he's not familiar with history, or, he's being deliberately misleading in order to make the points he's making. I'd prefer to lean more towards the former than imagine he's engaging in the latter. In any case, no damage has been done, as no laws in relation to people who are gay have been repealed. It was only recently for example that SCOTUS determined that employers who discriminate against people on the ground of sexual orientation could be found liable for unlawful discrimination, a decision which I would suggest was as significant as Obergefell v Hodges.

I think it's a more subtle a point than that. It's partly a numbers game. As he pointed out, the gayest place in the world is San Francisco and gay people are still only 15% of the population there. The gay fight was essentially won, but things are going backwards now. And why? Because the fight was won, and through a measure of arrogance, the campaigners had to move on to something else to remain relevant, despite knowing this fight was unwinnable.

Again he's being very selective with his anecdotes, either unaware of the historical context, or deliberately ignoring it. San Fran has a higher percentage of gay people than other cities in the US because of activists like Harvey Milk and the numbers of men who when they were expelled from the military at the time, rather than return home, they decided to stay in San Fran. Effectively, they were a community, who didn't always have the same aims, but they had more in common than the issues they held different opinions on. If anyone's trying to move onto something else to remain relevant, it's McCrea, although as such by moving onto something else, he's hoping to become relevant. The point he's making ignores the reality that Constitutional or Legislative change in a democratic society isn't driven by appealing to the majority, it's driven by recognising that a minority which are currently not recognised as equals in law, are entitled to equal treatment in law.

Again, that's something McCrea should know, but he seems to overlook. In the context of this thread if I may use an example - it would be like if someone is seeking medical treatment and the provider suggests they hold on a minute while the doctor takes a beat on the public's opinion as to whether the patient should receive treatment or not, and what form that treatment should take. Thankfully for the patient in question, that's not how the public healthcare system, or legislation and professional guidelines which regulate the medical profession, actually function in reality. That's why his point about Mpox and gay activists 'not wishing to air their dirty laundry in public' doesn't actually hold - medical professionals weren't making the same association between Mpox and gay men as McCrea is willing to, simply because it's not true. That kind of association between a disease and gay men was made in the 80's in relation to AIDS. It wasn't true then either, the association was a stereotype fuelled by ignorance.

It's not an attempt to put him in the same box, he is in the same box as Murray. It's why I say he comes across as 'Douglas Murray Lite' - the message is the same, it's just toned down, a bit like Pope Frank was considered progressive, but fundamentally he still maintained the ideas of the Catholic tradition in relation to homosexuality. McCrea is easier to tolerate than Murray is all I mean. The difference though between Murray and Linehan should be obvious - while Murray's caustic rhetoric is tedious, he's considered by his peers to be a public intellectual. Linehan on the other hand, is nothing more than a public nuisance - he used a stereotype of transgender people for comedy effect in one of his tv shows, it was criticised as promoting a negative stereotype by someone who was transgender, and he couldn't take the criticism, instead deciding that he'd show people who are transgender who's boss. That's working out about as well for him as expected.

It's nothing to do with the sport of tennis. It's about societal attitudes and how different they were in 1990. it could have happened at any form of sporting or other entertainment where a child was available as a spontaneous, off the cuff prop.

If this exact thing happened today, it would be front page news. It's not even conceivable that it could happen … it simply couldn't because it could only have happened decades ago in the past, like in 1990.

Even the interviewer Hugh Linehan, who was objective/independent to a fault, for the whole interview, prefaced it by saying it might "explain to younger listeners how different the world was only a short time ago".

I get that plodder, that it was meant as an example of attitudes then and how he makes the point that these people thought of themselves as 'gay-friendly' and here they were laughing at the tennis star imitating him (while, just for context - at the same time they would have been aware of the decision in David Norris' case at the ECHR). I've no doubt it was humiliating for him personally. It's just I wasn't expecting such a benign example is all. Linehans 'younger listeners' bit just struck me as odd tbh, as though anyone under the age of 50 is listening to an Irish Times podcast.

I found it shocking because I was still knocking around TCD in 1990 (officially left in 1988) but it wasn't surprising. Some people in the crowd probably thought the behavior was boorish, but many thought it was funny and the Irish Times agreed.

Yeah I get what you mean when you said you found it shocking, but I think the idea of if it happened today it'd be front page news, is just completely blowing it out of proportion. I'd agree the behaviour was boorish, but a guy behaving like an asshole isn't uncommon, let alone newsworthy, and a guy putting on effeminate mannerisms making fun of a child? It'd make a few people's social media feeds for about 5 minutes before they went on about their day. I have no doubt there would be some media outlets would want to make a thing of it though for their own purposes. For example, both liberals and grifters were championing Dave Chapelle's comedy as an expression of free speech not so long ago, they're having a melt-down now and suddenly they have to make the point that Chapelle is a Muslim and all the rest of it, because he said there was more free speech in Saudi Arabia than there is in the US -

‘That Oil Money Must Have Been Sweet’: Chappelle Under Fire For Anti-US Remarks Made In Saudi Arabia

It's just Dave Chapelle being Dave Chapelle, that's why it's not made any headlines in mainstream media, no more than the idea a tennis star entertaining the crowd by being the kind of asshole that would use a child as a prop would make headlines - it'd be pretty much expected if the guy was known to be an asshole already.

Michael McDowell making the same points in today's IT, referring to the same podcast, book and anecdote from it, and some of the same quotes.

Behind a paywall plodder -

Liberals must stop adopting lazy, woke stances on complex issues – The Irish Times

Micheal making statements like that using vague references to the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 (the act that decriminalised homosexuality) must think we all have short memories. I don't expect he would want to remind people of the many, many times he adopted lazy stances on complex issues -

Fears of more legal child-sex loopholes | Irish Independent

As the application of the Chesterton's Fence thought experiment in relation to decision making goes, that particular example is a doozy.

No I confirm, you definitely are missing the point. I won’t re explain it, as @plodder has done so already

It's clearly not for my benefit you're assuming I missed the point, I got the point.

but I will add that when I read the article by Ronan McCrea, the appalling Irish Times coverage of the incident reminded me very much of a Martyn Turner cartoon in the IT that has stayed with me ever since, about I forget which Irish politician who was off on a controversial African junket at the time.

Turner showed him being boiled alive in a pot by half-naked natives with bones through their noses.

It’s so odd to see the reality of these “right-on” politically correct types when the mask slips. It’s not the first time I’ve seen incidents that lead me to think that the most outraged anti racists or male feminist allies etc are often the worst people of all, with no basic ethics, just opportunism and a general self righteousness whatever their current religious/ideological grandstand.

There was no mask slippage though, it'd be silly to infer any greater significance to events that just weren't there. I get that the point was 'ohh the hypocrisy' and what not, but that kind of finger-pointing in itself is just opportunism and a general self-righteousness from people who don't share their perspective. It's silly, and it's tedious, and I get what you're saying, but do I think it's odd? No, it's fairly typical behaviour regardless as you say whatever their current religious/ideological grandstand. By way of example, the Late Late Show one night had Kenny Everett and Sinéad O' Connor on, and Sinéad saw it as an opportunity to stick it to Everett about his apparent support for Clause 28, or Section 28. Sinéad assumed that Everett should act a certain way, or argue a certain way or whatever, but those expectations were based upon her perspective. Everett of course being Everett, not only did he not share her perspective, but he explained what he believed was a better way to achieve the same goal -

I don't imagine anyone who doesn't already share McCrea's perspective is likely to feel the same way about the future of gay rights, transgender issues, immigrants, liberalism and so on, as McCrea does, which is why while McCrea is of the opinion that liberals having taking on transgender rights advocacy is going to cause a backlash against people who are gay, in reality his opinions are nothing more than the usual fearmongering nonsense from a paternalistic perspective of assumed authority.