Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pundit on boards in armchair casually and expansively dismisses prominent psychologist, researcher and sexologist who has worked for several decades in this area including with many dysphoric and trans people as merely having a ''political'' view.

Blanchard is easily dismissed. He is hyper focused on his own theories and won’t consider any alternatives. His studies are rife with methodological problems and his (at the time unproven) theories that cis women do not experience autogtnephilia have since been completely debunked by actual studies.

I’m sure he has a lot of knowledge us “armchair pundits” don’t. That doesn’t make him a good scientist.

It’s not really surprising he endorses a book that tries to explain away a phenomenon that would cast doubt on his own dodgy theories.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Yes you did?

How strange, I could have sworn that when I wrote that sentence it was much longer and had a totally different context than that which you are implying...

Pardon me while I go and confirm, you may not hear from me again.

volchitsa wrote: »

Why not? Most transgender people take hormone treatment, usually life long, and many go on to get major surgery that, even apart from the risk of the surgery itself, often leaves them infertile, for trans women at least.

Whereas being gay, which seems to be the preferred comparison for trans activists, only requires people being left to get on with their lives. No medical intervention at all.

I'm not sure what your point is really - you seem to think that all people with disabilities need life long medical interventions which is not the case at all.

Shield wrote: »

Would a review from Kenneth J Zucker, the chair of the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, be of any value?

…

I would say Kenneth’s authoritative view is of huge significance here, wouldn’t you?

I think you’re missing the point I was making. I wouldn’t recommend anyone rely upon any one single source for evidence of anything.

Zuckers opinion of the book which gives him the same nod as his colleague Blanchard (they were both on the same workgroup contributing to the DSM 5, which is not without issues of its own), is of course going to be complimentary. He too, however, makes no specific comment on any scientific evidence in the book (there isn’t any, to be fair ), but rather comments on how thought provoking it is, and how the author “doesn’t shy away from the politics that pervades the field of gender dysphoria”. It’s an entirely accurate assessment of the book - it’s all about politics! What the author does appear to shy away from, is presenting any evidence which could possibly be regarded as having any scientific merit. It’s like an anti-vaxxer presenting Andrew Wakefield’s opinion on Covid - it makes for a convincing argument if one is already convinced, it’s just confirming their suspicions, which immediately makes one feel smarter at least.

Or, to put it another way - it’s like hiring a child psychologist from Sweden who is regarded as one of the world’s foremost experts on autism, to give his opinions in an inquiry about children’s ability to consent to medical treatment which may include puberty blockers. It presents something of a credibility issue when he sees autism everywhere and is determined to validate his own hypothesis by claiming that instead of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, it must be some form of autism!

Annasopra wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is really - you seem to think that all people with disabilities need life long medical interventions which is not the case at all.

That's not what I said at all.

Your view is that being trans is not a disability and that anyone who says otherwise is taking a negative view of trans people and saying their lives were worthless.

What does that say about your views of the disabled? That it's reasonable to take a negative view of them and even perhaps to think that their lives are worthless?
I don't see how else to interpret your words.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/202101/review-irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier

..... neurobiological evidence has found that gender identity resides in the hypothalamus and, as such, is largely immutable.

Put rather simply, it is literally true that trans individuals have the body of one sex, yet the brain of another.

I all but face-palmed at this lack of understanding of how androgen exposure in utero, irrespective of chromosomes, can influence hypothalamic development and influence gender identity in turn.

Reading Irreversible Damage , I found myself with several serious critiques. In the main, I had concerns that Shrier’s attention to science was, at times, superficial.

I think it is worth saying that there is absolutly no evidnece whatsoever that 'androgen expousre in utero' which affects the development of the hypothalamus is what causes one to have a so claimed gender brain/body mismatch.

If the medical science community really belive that this is the explanation, then what research are they conducting to enure that this can be prevented with medication so that noone is ever born transgender in the first place thus avoiding all the mental anguish and need to physically transition.

AllForIt wrote: »

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/202101/review-irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier


I think it is worth saying that there is absolutly no evidnece whatsoever that 'androgen expousre in utero' which affects the development of the hypothalamus is what causes one to have a so claimed gender brain/body mismatch.

If the medical science community really belive that this is the explanation, then what research are they conducting to enure that this can be prevented with medication so that noone is ever born transgender in the first place thus avoiding all the mental anguish and need to physically transition.

There is though, and the scientific and medical ‘community’ are conducting all sorts of research into possible explanations for various phenomena including how androgen exposure in utero affects the development of the hypothalamus and how much these factors contribute to the development of gender identity, sexual orientation and so on -


Brains of transgender people also show certain differences. Scientists found that a structure called central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (if you want to sound smart-ass) or BSTc (if you’d rather go with a simple one), which is also located in hypothalamus and essential for masculine sexual behavior, is about twice as big and contains twice the number of neurons in men as compared to women. They also found that Male-to-Female (MtF)-transgenders have a female-sized BSTc (one FtM person was also tested and his BStc showed male characteristics).

What’s interesting is that these differences were preceeding the hormonal therapy and were not influenced by sex hormones in the adulthood. So basically it seems that BSTc matches the gender a trans person feels they belong to and not the gender stated in their passport.

There is more: it was found that there is remarkably less androgen receptors in MtF brains as compared to cis men. This difference could have led to a less effective testosterone signaling, resulting in a lacking “masculinization” of the brain. Also (to continue to bombard you with evidence), an MRI study found that the shape of corpus callosum, a huge bundle of fibers connecting our hemispheres which also differs between males and females, reflects transgender people’s gender and not biological sex (just like with the BSTc size).

As you can see, sexuality and gender are immensely complex topics with many factors contributing to who we like and whether we feel comfortable in our body. And I haven’t even touched other important aspects having a hand in this: genetics, epigenetics, birth order, environmental influence... Science still has a long way to go in unraveling the question of how exactly these things are determined. Still, brain-wise we have some guidance in this mess: seems like the fluctuations in the androgen level before your birth play a role in determining whether you brain will develop in the gay or straight direction and whether you will feel male or female. Anyway, whoever you decide to take home -- this cool girl or that cute guy (or both), have fun and don’t forget about protection!


Wired this way: sexual orientation and gender in the brain.


As far as the second part of your post goes and why scientists and medical and clinical professionals and researchers don’t appear too interested in coming up with some magic beans formula that suppresses the transgender identity and therefore avoids the possibility of anyone experiencing distress as a result of prejudice and discrimination… I think it’s probably easier to address prejudice and discrimination fuelled by ignorance than it is to suggest that someone needs to be fixed in order to avoid being stigmatised by other people.

The context in which the piece was written is to counter the narrative being perpetuated by Abigail Shrier that the phenomenon of what she observes as girls being attracted to the idea of being a man is entirely a social construct, or environmental, that being exposed to influences like Beyoncé’s “If I were a Boy” is influencing young girls to want to become men -


Easily triggered readers are eager to malign this book as transphobic. Some even go so far as to want it banned or burned because they categorize it as damaging hate speech. I guess they didn’t notice that Shrier never says a bigoted word about transgenderism. She even compliments adult trans people whom she interviewed. For those readers paying attention, it is both veiled and obvious that the rabbit hole down which they are traveling leads to the negative effects of feminism. These girls feel there is something wrong with femininity. They don’t want it. Society has taught them that the goal should be to follow in the footsteps of traditionally masculine roles. Shrier points to songs like Beyonce’s “If I were a boy,” to help girls come to that conclusion along with a barrage of social media encouraging the phenomenon of trans boys.


Book Review: Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier


This is why I wasn’t surprised that Shield would suggest that a book which gets a nod from Ray Blanchard, you know it’s worth reading. I’m guessing Shield hasn’t actually read the book for themselves. I don’t want to believe they’ve read the book and still think it was worth reading when it’s choc-a-bloc full of comedy gold nuggets like that. I don’t want to believe anyone is that stupid, but God damn, it’s difficult when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is though, and the scientific and medical ‘community’ are conducting all sorts of research into possible explanations for various phenomena including how androgen exposure in utero affects the development of the hypothalamus and how much these factors contribute to the development of gender identity, sexual orientation and so on -


Brains of transgender people also show certain differences. Scientists found that a structure called central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (if you want to sound smart-ass) or BSTc (if you’d rather go with a simple one), which is also located in hypothalamus and essential for masculine sexual behavior, is about twice as big and contains twice the number of neurons in men as compared to women. They also found that Male-to-Female (MtF)-transgenders have a female-sized BSTc (one FtM person was also tested and his BStc showed male characteristics).

What’s interesting is that these differences were preceeding the hormonal therapy and were not influenced by sex hormones in the adulthood. So basically it seems that BSTc matches the gender a trans person feels they belong to and not the gender stated in their passport.

There is more: it was found that there is remarkably less androgen receptors in MtF brains as compared to cis men. This difference could have led to a less effective testosterone signaling, resulting in a lacking “masculinization” of the brain. Also (to continue to bombard you with evidence), an MRI study found that the shape of corpus callosum, a huge bundle of fibers connecting our hemispheres which also differs between males and females, reflects transgender people’s gender and not biological sex (just like with the BSTc size).

As you can see, sexuality and gender are immensely complex topics with many factors contributing to who we like and whether we feel comfortable in our body. And I haven’t even touched other important aspects having a hand in this: genetics, epigenetics, birth order, environmental influence... Science still has a long way to go in unraveling the question of how exactly these things are determined. Still, brain-wise we have some guidance in this mess: seems like the fluctuations in the androgen level before your birth play a role in determining whether you brain will develop in the gay or straight direction and whether you will feel male or female. Anyway, whoever you decide to take home -- this cool girl or that cute guy (or both), have fun and don’t forget about protection!


Wired this way: sexual orientation and gender in the brain.


As far as the second part of your post goes and why scientists and medical and clinical professionals and researchers don’t appear too interested in coming up with some magic beans formula that suppresses the transgender identity and therefore avoids the possibility of anyone experiencing distress as a result of prejudice and discrimination… I think it’s probably easier to address prejudice and discrimination fuelled by ignorance than it is to suggest that someone needs to be fixed in order to avoid being stigmatised by other people.

The context in which the piece was written is to counter the narrative being perpetuated by Abigail Shrier that the phenomenon of what she observes as girls being attracted to the idea of being a man is entirely a social construct, or environmental, that being exposed to influences like Beyoncé’s “If I were a Boy” is influencing young girls to want to become men -


Easily triggered readers are eager to malign this book as transphobic. Some even go so far as to want it banned or burned because they categorize it as damaging hate speech. I guess they didn’t notice that Shrier never says a bigoted word about transgenderism. She even compliments adult trans people whom she interviewed. For those readers paying attention, it is both veiled and obvious that the rabbit hole down which they are traveling leads to the negative effects of feminism. These girls feel there is something wrong with femininity. They don’t want it. Society has taught them that the goal should be to follow in the footsteps of traditionally masculine roles. Shrier points to songs like Beyonce’s “If I were a boy,” to help girls come to that conclusion along with a barrage of social media encouraging the phenomenon of trans boys.


Book Review: Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier


This is why I wasn’t surprised that Shield would suggest that a book which gets a nod from Ray Blanchard, you know it’s worth reading. I’m guessing Shield hasn’t actually read the book for themselves. I don’t want to believe they’ve read the book and still think it was worth reading when it’s choc-a-bloc full of comedy gold nuggets like that. I don’t want to believe anyone is that stupid, but God damn, it’s difficult when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

I read the book and yes it's a bit cringe in parts. She didn't give enough credit to the argument that transition helps people and focused too much on the contagion effect on it and environmental factors.

I don't think she knew enough about the subject to really do it justice. I found her a bit naive or something.

While the issue of contagion is something to highlight and she has done that. I do think that its worth reading but it is biased.

I would agree with the earlier review that you posted. It's actually the fairest one I have seen. Any other review comes across very hard on one side or the other.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That does not even make sense.

From an operational point of view it makes sense to consider all factors, and it would appear from their assessments and experience that transgender men do not pose the same risk to other men as transgender women do to other women -


This service is planned to only meet the needs of transgender women in the women’s estate. Operationally no equivalent need has currently been identified for transgender men in the male estate because, as far as HMPPS is aware, there are no transgender men within the male estate. If the operational requirement arose for transgender men in the male estate, the operational need for transgender men may be for a unit which is to safeguard them from potential harm in the male estate. The Transgender Complex Case Board will however have to consider this carefully when making decisions around transgender men moving into the male prison estate.

…

There has currently not been any need for an equivalent unit in the male estate for high risk transgender men. There appear to be two significant factors – there have not been any cases of a high risk transgender man being moved into the male estate who presents a high risk of harm to other men. The proportion and degree of vulnerability seen in the women’s estate is not seen in the male estate. The scale of the male estate means that it is more able to meet specialist needs e.g. vulnerable prisoner units.


I imagine as well as having regard for the safety and welfare and rights of all prisoners in their care and avoiding circumstances such as happened in the case of Karen White, they’re equally keen to avoid circumstances like this arising in the future -


The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to prevent systemic breaches of inmates human rights when they were unlawfully strip searched at a privately-run jail.

The searches involved four inmates at HMP Peterborough in 2017, including one inmate who was menstruating.

Sodexo runs the prison and admitted it had breached MoJ privacy rules through its failure to properly train staff.

The MoJ should have had effective safeguards in place against privacy breaches, the High Court has ruled.

The inmates involved in the strip searches in July and September 2017 were three women and a transgender prisoner, who was transitioning from female to male.


HMP Peterborough inmates were illegally strip-searched

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's odd, isn't it.

Not when viewed in the context of operations within prison facilities it isn’t, no. Is there an actual point you’re trying to make? I thought we’d moved past the whole throwing something out there and hoping something sticks method of discussion? If not, then this story from the Daily Mail is Abigail Shrier levels of Chicken Licken style moral panic -


Married transgender women prisoners who were denied phone calls or visits with each other win High Court fight after challenging decision to only let them communicate by letter


Using the logic that sex offenders should be placed in the opposite sex estate of their victims, carries with it it’s own set of potentially disastrous consequences, but I wouldn’t suggest thinking about it too much. It might become obvious why the HMPPS have to consider ALL factors, and not just the ones which certain lobbyists consider should be the only relevant factors worth considering in how inmates are treated in prison.

It’s worth noting btw that HMP Whatton is the largest prison in Europe for adult male sex offenders -


Inside Europe's biggest sex offenders' prison

volchitsa wrote: »

I wonder how much research it took to ascertain that trans men havesomething like female levels of strength and trans women maintain male levels of stregnth?

I bet some graduate from the School of the bleeding obvious got well paid for that bit of stunning research.

Their reasoning isn’t based upon the levels of strength of either sex though? It’s based upon a number of criteria specific to the conditions of inmates in the prison. Either “female levels of strength” or “male levels of strength” are fairly nebulous concepts which don’t actually mean anything in the context of ability or capacity to commit sexual violence against other people, and assessments are done on an individual basis as well as having regard for the rest of the prison population and the facilities which are provided in prison, whether they can be provided for in the women’s prison or the men’s prison and so on.

I’m not surprised that lobby groups would fund research which supports their sweeping generalisations intended to influence policy decisions. The same lobby group that isha uses to make her points are the same lobby group that tried to suggest the rise in the number of reports of female perpetrators of child sexual abuse was due to men who commit sexual abuse of children being recorded as women.

Even graduates from the school of the bleeding obvious would struggle to explain away the simple fact that it was because more reports of female perpetrators of child sexual abuse were being reported, is the reason for the rise in the number of female perpetrators of child sexual abuse being reported between 2015 and 2019 -


Female child sex abuse 'remains taboo' while victims struggle


Just to provide an Irish context btw on the issue of female perpetrators of child sexual abuse -


In conclusion, the current findings suggest that female perpetrated abuse affects 1.5% of the population, which translates to over 68,800 people in the Republic of Ireland. However, conviction rates and awareness of this type of abuse are still relatively low compared with male perpetrated abuse. As noted by Peter (2009), although female perpetrated abuse is less prevalent than male perpetrated abuse, denying a woman’s capacity to sexually abuse children only succeeds in silencing this type of abuse. It is only through the acknowledgement of, and research on, such abuse can we provide informed evidence-based prevention and education programmes, and appropriate treatment and assessment procedures for such abuse.


Female Perpetrators of child sexual abuse: characteristics of the offender and victim


And that’s notwithstanding the fact that regardless of their sex, the vast majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are known to their victims, with estimates that 90% of abuse is committed within families and close relationships as opposed to the commonly peddled politically motivated myth of women and children being attacked by men in dresses or men using the gender recognition act to gain access to women and children in order to commit abuse. They don’t need to, and they would be under even greater scrutiny in places like women’s prisons or domestic shelters, etc if they tried to gain access to these places, yet that’s supposed to make sense?

It would only make sense to anyone who’s a complete pinhead, but otherwise? It makes no sense whatsoever.