transgender medicine

Yes the source organisation is concerning. I'm suggesting it is promoted as the face of gender critical thought

You mean not suggesting, right?

I am not telling anyone how to think- this is just my viewpoint. However, this is the 4th time in a couple of days that I have seen posters proudly link to well-known or obvious right wing sources saying 'great, they support our message' without looking at how incredibly harmful towards women these organisations really are. They might broadly support the same goal, but for such different reasons.

Would you in all honesty be happy to share that on facebook or twitter? I think I would be unfriended by most if I did tbh.

BF was just an example. They could come out with an anti-trans video and I bet someone on here would link to it and people would say it's good that the issue is getting a wider audience.

Duplicate/triplicate referencing of one text and non peer reviewed papers is concerning, should we ignore this fact just because a far right Christian group has also noted this fact?

This.

@PoulaFisch look at the references on this article you've linked to, how many are duplicate references?
Who peer reviewed it?

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/transgender-health

Duplicate/triplicate referencing of one text and non peer reviewed papers is concerning, should we ignore this fact just because a far right Christian group has also noted this fact?

If you're happy to read this article and take it as fact, then great, but that doesn't make those who question bigots.

The man knows the history from the inside. That's an interesting perspective. Yes the source organisation is concerning. I'm suggesting it is promoted as the face of gender critical thought.

Britain First were not involved at the beginning of the transgender movement so that's a silly comparison.

If you're not just attempting to reinforce your own prejudice

Actually I think we all have our own biases or pre-judgements (sometimes a better word to use than prejudice as it makes the point in a slightly better way).

If you only read things that reinforce your bias it doesn't help you to understand where the other party comes from.

The subject here isn't about ideology as such. This is about evidence based medicine. If you believe in evidence based medicine, you SHOULD read stuff that is both for and against.

Reading it does not commit you to agreeing with it. It gives you a chance to examine the strength of evidence and whether arguments for / against have methodology flaws. You should look for ideological bias in the data. As in with all medical issue. Challenging your preconceptions in medicine is an essential part of the process of expanding our understanding of issues and determining when and where studies are utter bollocks and are not worth the paper they are written on. This is how we should judge medical issues primarily rather than because we like what the subject is about.

It helps you to better argue your position ultimately.

Where you go from there, is another issue: implementation of the science requires it to be feasible and work as intended in practice, the understanding that not all people are the same and they might have other considerations that need to be taken into account and all of this has to comply with ethical practices to ensure trust and power between HCP and patients (and possibly their guardians) is always maintained.

I would not treat arguing about medicine in the same way as I would treat arguing about politics. Its a different kettle of fish.

Except there are other people you can go than Hitler to get your information about vegetarianism.

Surely there are other people you can go to for gender-critical views though? It doesn't have to be religious extremists who believe that being gay is sinful.

These groups believe that the sexes have innate and pre-ordained roles- it's the very opposite of the feminist belief that gender ideology is damaging for women. So if you gladly share videos from said group, saying they are excellent and informative, aren't you by implication suggesting that the reason why you oppose self-ID isn't that important (whereas I think it's very important)?

There are some groups that are just a no-go, no matter what they say. Jayda Fransen and Britain First could do a detailed and informative video about the potential harms to women of self-ID. I would never support it or share it because BF are a bunch of hate-mongers that I would never in my life associate myself with, no matter what they say. Call me narrow-minded if you want, but that's my take on it.

Predictably, this thread is now on Twitter.... They clearly have a lot of moles. I saw the thread linking the Magdalen Berns video has been zapped too.

MsMcWoodle I think the point is rather that if you are a vegetarian and want to persuade others to your viewpoint, you don’t give them information sheets/videos written by Hitler...

Except there are other people you can go than Hitler to get your information about vegetarianism. And you might not want to ask The Carnivore Society or Aberdeen Steakhouse, either.

A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that...
I don't think that debate should be shut down unless it incites violence. I like to see people condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

YY, I have exactly the same position as you with regard to freedom of speech.

Apropos of nothing but reading through that statement from the Endocrine people it struck me that the biological essentialists in the science world, the people who are convinced that there are innate biological based differences in the behaviour/personality of men and women must be absolutely cackling over this. This is promoting neurosexism via the backdoor. If gender is innate in trans people, it's innate in all of us.

I looked in to the review cited which concludes that gender identity is bioloigcal and found that the papers reviewed involved very small numbers of participants. Well you know that's quite funny, small scale studies comparing men and women found significant differences, ergo gender differences are biological. The proof is incontrovertible. In large scale studies those 'differences' largely disappeared. Well who'da thunk it.

Yes it is good to read from a wide variety of sources, isn't it? I found understanding the Endocrine Society's role in transgender health has added to my understanding. It's looked at from a critical viewpoint in some detail in the video.

I am watching the ‘Reparative therapy’ video. It’s enlightening. Apparently there is no gay (or trans!) gene and it’s all caused by bad male role models in childhood or by sexual abuse or bullying. It can be repaired though- salvation is possible!

Also, you become gay because your own body does not produce sufficient maleness/femaleness, so you look for it in another person. Good stuff.

If you're not just attempting to reinforce your own prejudice,

And there it is again. The narrow genderology doctrine is the only permitted one, anything else is prejudice.

People that address me in this way are imposing their prejudice on me.

I haven't read and watched all the links yet, but I am interested in how to deal with sharing a POV with someone I rarely agree with. I think it's a useful reminder to check your own bias when you agree with something said by, for example, Britain First.

I would think we are all wrong about some things, no matter how right we are about others.

It is so hard to discuss trans issues these days, that only more bolshy groups are prepared to do it. By definition then, a lot of the interesting stuff will come from dubious sources. Doesn't mean it is wrong.

Should they have been ignored due to some of their other questionable views?

Yes given that one of these views is that it's possible to pray the gay away.

It's good to hear all sides. Opposing viewpoints and some more info about this doctor and the organisations he belongs to are here:

www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/07/anti-lgbt-hate-group-releases-anti-trans-position-statement

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/201705/the-american-college-pediatricians-is-anti-lgbt-group

www.snopes.com/fact-check/americas-pediatricians-gender-kids/

If you're not just attempting to reinforce your own prejudice, those links may also be worth a look.

And for further reading, The Endocrine Society's position.

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/transgender-health

Happy Reading. :)

The video linked by crispbuty indicates that there are a small number of people who have gender dysphoria. It is these people the 2004 legislation was intended for. It is the expansion of the trans umbrella which conflicts with the maintenance of sex as a protected characteristic to the detriment of women and girls

I disagree with the conservative Christian view on most things, and specifically around gay rights, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong. Better to look at what they are saying and think critically about what is being said and make your own mind up from your perspective.

Some senior Catholics were among the very few to speak out against Hitler, for example. www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/oppositionrev_print.shtml

Should they have been ignored due to some of their other questionable views?

It's a really good video in terms of the information provided. Refute the claims he makes, by all means. I do not endorse the wider organisation.

Yes, it would seem gender ideologists impose an extremely narrow permissible viewpoint, only approved voices can be heard speak, no one who says anything off their message cannot be listened to.

Nobody is telling you you can't watch it. You can listen to the message all you want and spread it far and wide if you wish.

I think that people should be able to watch what they want and make up their own minds

Which is incidentally exactly what I did... I am just one voice though- others on this thread said they thought it was excellent.

A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that...
I don't think that debate should be shut down unless it incites violence. I like to see people condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

@crispbuttyfan I understand why you would think that however as the narrator (an endocrinologist) states - opposing views are actively discouraged so how else are we meant to find out about anything that is not "gender affirming" when GC views are shut down and the narrative is based on #nodebate?

Yes, it would seem gender ideologists impose an extremely narrow permissible viewpoint, only approved voices can be heard speak, no one who says anything off their message cannot be listened to.

just don't be surprised that mumsnet has a reputation for transphobia...

And there you go, the prejudice and manipulation on display for all, nice girls don't or you will get a reputation.

So we can't watch the man in the video because crisp disapproves of his reputation and if we do crisp will disapprove of our reputation.

Attempted censorship of mumsnet users seems to be a popular pastime these days. Shame we won't shut up.

I agree wholeheartedly HerFemaleness and I have decided to grow a thick skin and don't let it bother me to be called a bigot either. So be it. I can never think these groups are okay.

Funnily enough, I think that people should be able to watch what they want and make up their own minds.