Stephen Whittle’s blog on Genderquake - with a detailed briefing for panelists

The thing that always hits me like a bucket of iced water is if puberty blockers are essential and benign, if the (attempted) suicide rates are so high, if the radical treatments are likely to be beneficial in all sorts of ways, then trans activists should be pushing hard to get rigorous scientific studies of these matters going as a matter of urgency to provide a solid basis for the benefits that will come and the harms that will be avoided. This could then be used to lobby effectively for changes to be made in medical treatment and in the law.

That would be a priority surely? But hardly anyone in the trans activist community seems to be pushing for more to be learned in an objective scientific sense.

Agree they could just ask normal sceptically minded questions about scientific and medical facts being presented and statistics about suicide risks etc

Absolutely in academia. But I worry that scientists and medics may be heading into the same climate. I have been told about lobbying (presented as training) that is being targeted at NHS and legal decision makers at the highest level and that as part of that the impression being given to the NHS that this law (to allow gender self ID) is definitely coming in. NHS practitioners have said that their Trust has told them it IS coming.

But the truth is no legal change has happened and is not conclusively going to happen. Yet Women are being actively harassed and bullied just for trying to have the public debate that should precede any fundamental legal change such as legal gender self ID.
You have to ask yourself why there would be such pressure against anyone merely speaking about the facts or evidence or political arguments around this?

relevant thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241837-Why-has-the-trans-lobby-been-so-successful

I agree flowers - although really the onus is on them to prove the scientific consensus wrong, not us to fail over ourselves to explain.

A campaign of awareness for scientific and medical professionals is a good thing. I imagine many are scared to put their head over the parapet, especially in academia.

Exactly. Ben Goldacres work is great - as is David Colquhoun’s and Sense about science. They’ve happily taken on every single quack or poor practitioner out there, regardless of size. For them to be wary of throwing their hats into the ring on this issue (if they are aware of it, and I’m not sure if they are) shows the sheer power of the TRA lobby. Their tactics are like the Scientology harassment methods, only with added Twitter. The sheer volume of personal attack they’d face? I’m not sure I’d want to deal with that tbh

The thing that frustrates me most about so many of the issues raised on this board, much of what is being presented as being about 'trans'. BG and DC could work outside of the debates and critique the science. They don't need to engage in the language issues, space issues or rights issues - they could just look at the science being touted about sex.

With regard to physical treatment, the professionals involved are clear that there is insufficient evidence and they are feeling their way, so there is not that much to expose in relation to this other than if they can evidence that treatments are based on dodgy ideas about sex.

Some parents and their gender dysphoric children are persuaded that if the child transitions they will be so much happier that their mental health problems will go away and the risk of self-harm will also go away. The argument is that much of the mental illness is caused by having to live in the wrong body.

Now, if that were true, it would be a pretty strong argument. Going through surgery, losing fertility and all the rest would be worth it because at least the child would be alive and happy.

However, there isn't strong evidence that that's the outcome, is there?

I think it's really important that people make life-changing decisions on the basis of good evidence, well explained by somebody who isn't already biased in one way or the other. I don't have confidence that Mermaids, Stonewall, GIRES and others of the same stamp are giving that sort of advice.

Fermat i’m not a dr or lawyer but I understand that it’s an individual judgement by a dr on a child under 16 weighing their ability to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment. It’s about capacity to consent. The dr also need to take into account whether it’s in the best interests of the child to have the proposed treatment let’s say puberty blockers.
If the medical profession and everyone else are being fed misleading facts about puberty blockers and misleading facts about suicide risks I am worried that would have a misleading influence and bearing on both what the young persons assessment of the risks is and the drs assessment of their capacity and best interests, if capacity is judged on ability around weighing and retaining facts about risks and benefits. Hope that makes sense but hopefully a medical doctor or lawyer will come along soon to clarify.

Excellent cartoon :D

'Harmony Sparkle' lololol

I liked this tweet by @Feminisyheretic.

Unless Goldacre has actively refused, I wouldn’t assume refusal.

You can search "bengoldacre trans" on twitter to see that several women have raised the issue with him there to ask him to cover it. He can hardly be unaware of it, considering his position. He is making a choice not to get involved.

I think Brian Cox is awesome but he stays out of this too, even though his wife has been targetted for some nasty shit by TAs.

Yup, I'm inclined to think that without a genuinely free press and free speech we are all totally screwed. It has unfortunate consequences in terms of spreading genuine hate speech and intrusions into people's privacy - but for hate speech, I'm inclined to think the old adage about sunlight being the best disinfectant is the right one. Allow people to say stuff, but free speech should also give a right to rebuttal to explain why it's wrong and hateful.

I thought you would have .

I knew what you meant :)

Bah. I tried to write:

an unregulated press that occasionally behaves badly

Recently, watching the way the media has been covering this issue, I'm coming to think that an regulated press that occasionally behaves badly is better than a regulated press that always behaves correctly. When we next meet I'm going to say to my mate that I was actually wrong when we argued.

Absolutely agree.

The single best thing we can do is get this with a sensible slant and comment in the mail, the sun and the express

Years back I had an argument with a journalist mate over the Leveson inquiry. His support of an unregulated press was so unwavering to me it looked like a religious belief. I thought regulation was needed.

Recently, watching the way the media has been covering this issue, I'm coming to think that an regulated press that occasionally behaves badly is better than a regulated press that always behaves correctly. When we next meet I'm going to say to my mate that I was actually wrong when we argued.

"they know that if this is discussed by the average man in the street they will be told it’s ludicrous."

I agree bowl which I why I am not bothered by DM and the like covering it, despite the sneeriness of the TRAs when they do. The wider and more mainstream the coverage, the better.

I've done an online quiz which apparently tells me if I am transgender. Despite saying at the beginning that I am female, the quiz tells me I am 57% trans male to female. Must be because I ticked that I was a bit of a tomboy. I am speechless. All sorts of silly comments were on the website expressing joy at being defined as trans . I am giving up!

Shut down. But shit works too ...

I also think if active anti quackery people DO feel too scared to address anti science and anti medicine lobbying by TRAs, that is a story in itself and should be highlighted.

Exactly. Ben Goldacres work is great - as is David Colquhoun’s and Sense about science. They’ve happily taken on every single quack or poor practitioner out there, regardless of size. For them to be wary of throwing their hats into the ring on this issue (if they are aware of it, and I’m not sure if they are) shows the sheer power of the TRA lobby. Their tactics are like the Scientology harassment methods, only with added Twitter. The sheer volume of personal attack they’d face? I’m not sure I’d want to deal with that tbh.

I’ve said it before but this whole issue needs to be put in the tabloids - it’s not going to be won in journals, it’s going to be won when papers like the DM pick it up and bring it to a wider audience. The people who got the GRA through did it quietly. They want to get the reforms and self ID through quietly as well. They are terrified of wider debate - thats why they are trying to shit down and harass anyone who speaks on this. they know that if this is discussed by the average man in the street they will be told it’s ludicrous.

The single best thing we can do is get this with a sensible slant and comment in the mail, the sun and the express. That’s going to peak millions.

So many sneery Dawkins loving male atheists and self proclaimed skeptics seem to make an exception for this particular faith based belief. How the cognitive dissonance doesn't melt their brains, I don't know.

Joan I don’t know if Goldacre or anyone else has refused to do so. But perhaps you know more about this?
Unless Goldacre has actively refused, I wouldn’t assume refusal. I also think if active anti quackery people DO feel too scared to address anti science and anti medicine lobbying by TRAs, that is a story in itself and should be highlighted.