Trans media watch are lobbying mnhq

I find it staggering that (in the US anyway) you can change the sex noted on your birth cert, making a lie out of your entire life up to that point. An online friend's daughter has done that at the age of sixteen. Whatever about a sixteen year old girl announcing that she wants to be male and injecting herself with testosterone, altering her birth cert to retrospectively change her name and sex is just insane in its attempt to negate reality.

Amazing post monkey.

I really do hope MN stand firm. I did suspect something may be going on behind the scenes with the whole deleting people calling out misogyny thing. It was rather odd.

MN is in a terrible position here, but they could very well be the tipping point. This site is huge. I do wonder if trans-media watch will have the guts to go to the press about this 'transphobia'. Doing so would be a disastrous move on their part, but if MN stand firm it may be the only option left. Getting this out into the open will encourage more people to scour MN (more revenue also... ) for these apparent 'transphobic' posts. And in turn alert more people to exactly what is going on/being proposed right now. I believe that the majority will not see the posts as transphobia at all, if they actually read the full thing rather than screaming bigot and running off as some seem to do..as they are not actually transphobic one bit. I have seen the odd transphobic post but it has been deleted swiftly. MN does NOT allow transphobia. Sooo many people still think a transwoman is someone who has gone full hormone therapy and SRS and 'lives as a woman' which is why the immediate reaction is sympathy and second tends to be 'you horrible bigots'. They do not even know that 'transgender' has changed meaning completely to the point where even I am technically classed as 'trans' for not having any gender identity. I simply feel like me, I do not feel like a woman at all. I AM a woman, but I feel like a person and thats it. I do not know anything of this mystical 'womanly feeling' and therefor I am trans.

MN will be a very hard nut to crack, as most on here are parents who WILL (when presented with the truth) see how damaging the current narrative is to children. When 2 year old kids are being used as pawns, parents will wake up, I do have faith in that. Infact so many people I know had their 'tipping point' fairly recently, with the story about the child being forced to 'be' a girl against his wishes. MN is an especially hard place to bleat on about 'gendered' differences given campaigns such as 'let toys be toys' which go entirely against the trans narrative, yet are almost universally accepted by members on here. You would be hard pushed to find many members who agree that there are 'girls toys' or 'boys toys' yet children as young as 2 are 'trans' and sent down that route for playing with toys associated with the opposite sex. Its just mental.

As for medical stuff..I find it insane that this trans thing may be screwing medical statistics. I really do thing trans peoples details should be recorded completely separately from others. This way we could also learn more about the effects long term hormone uses have, and blockers. If we just pretend the drugs aren't involved, the research will never be there.

As for a world where gender doesn't exist, that sounds lovely. But accepting this whole trans thing is NOT a way to do that, infact the entire trans-narrative enforces 'gender' even more. I agree that in a world where men and women were truly equal, none of this would matter one bit. But we do not live in that world and never will unfortunately.

Anyway, I waffled a lot there. But again I really really hope MN stands firm on this.I find the current rules fine. They delete transphobia as they should. They just do not seem to agree that any questioning/debating of the trans narrative is transphobia. This is a new large problem, any criticism or anything less than full acceptance of every issue...is transphobic.

Your passport gives your sex.

We could be gender neutral if we dismantled the patriarchy. The people who are invested in keeping that system strong must be challenged. That includes transactivists.

My take on this is I wish we were much more gender neutral eg why does my passport have to give my gender? And if we could all wear what we like, many fewer gendered clothes (I was very much a tom boy as a teenager etc) we would all be a lot happier. In general I avoid all drugs as what is natural tends to be best in life but if men or women want surgery or to take drugs or wear what they like good luck to them.

However I want total freedom of speech. MN should never give in to men bullying women into what we say. There are more than enough places on line where women can hardly get a word in edgeways as men stop them speaking (and in real life). We must not let it happen here.

Be kind. Listen. But be entitled to express your views.

Prawnofthepatriarchy

Yeah I saw that, but this was several months ago. Giving figures about funding. You had to click on a link of a link, I've tried to find it though but can't.

Think that may have been me, Datun. A link to an article on the NHS Choices website. It reports concerns about the fact that a majority of those who decide the classifications are linked to the pharmaceutical industry.

DSM5 has also been criticized for being politically motivated, with TRAs (among other pressure groups) making demands that suit their agenda rather than reflect practice.

TRAs are enthusiastic about child transition because it supports the "born this way" narrative that did so much to further the LGB cause.

I don't buy into the big pharma conspiracy theory myself - when I look at the cost of synthetic hormones (you can find the prices in the British Formulary), the synthetic versions are basically "cheap as chips." (My HRT for menopause symptoms is less than the cost of the prescription charges, for instance).

^KateInKorea*

I also found an article, before the election, where he was saying people should use the bathroom of their biological sex ! ( can't find it, I've tried).

So I'm guessing he will just go with which ever way the wind blows to his advantage.

YetAnotherSpartacus

I read on a previous thread that pharmaceutical companies are highly invested in transgenderism.

Which sounds horribly cynical but it's making me wonder.

rufus I think it's mad that you can change your sex on your medical records. Biology matters. Different dosages of meds, different heart attack symptoms and different reproductive parts that need screening for cancer (to name a few)

Actually, I suspect that trans individuals pose health dilemmas all on their own. Medical science has reasonable understandings of how male and female bodies work and what they may be prone to ... but add to that cocktails of drugs that alter some endocrine functions and provide bodies with washes of drugs that are effectively unnatural and it's anyone's guess what the effects could be.

rufus I think it's mad that you can change your sex on your medical records. Biology matters. Different dosages of meds, different heart attack symptoms and different reproductive parts that need screening for cancer (to name a few)

You can't actually change sex, you can form yourself into an approximation,of what society expects a man or woman to look like, but you'll still always actually be male or female, and that matters.

www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?action=click&contentCollection=Job%20Market&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Light at the end of the tunnel maybe?
(Disclaimer: I am not a Trump fan.)

beyond

Yes I did wonder if an increased number of DNA's would impact on funding. It certainly wouldn't surprise me.

The male cancers are not screened for due to the unreliability of the tests so there won't be any impact there. Cervical cancer funding will be the most likely to suffer. Deep joy.

There really do need to be separate stats for transgender. For example:

MtF's who develop prostate, testicular and penile cancers (assuming no SRS for the latter two)
MtF's who develop breast cancer (higher risk when taking HRT)
FtM's who develop cervical, ovarian, vulval, breast cancer etc. (again assuming no surgery)

And I'd guess that someone with GID would be likely to not volunteer for those tests.

FFS.

Errol

Yes - if they are registered as male and haven't advised the GP/health authority that they have changed gender. On that basis they also won't be invited for breast screening either.

Datun

If they are registered as female and haven't advised the GP/HA of their change of gender then I suppose that might happen. They would certainly be included in the stats for women who did not choose to take up the screening. Whether that would affect overall funding I honestly don't know.

VoodooPeople

Does that mean, despite the fact they may not go to the appointment (!), They will nonetheless be included in the figures of women who do not develop cervical cancer?

If you start adding more people to count, then the percentage of people with cervical cancer will go down? Or have I got that wrong?

Hope surgery goes/went well and you recover swiftly beyond

Yes errol

That is what i have just read