Excellent BMJ Article Responding to Previous One Featuring ATH

I'm waiting for a special edition of Call the Midwife - featuring manufactroversy round the coercive assignment of sex/gender at birth.

DIsappointed in New Scientist but I fully understand why scientists and researchers feel the need to keep away from controversy - their professional lives are precarious enough.

Yes! Thrilled to see this. It's excellent, from start to finish.

I'm so glad people are starting to find their voice. I still think politicians will be the last group who do though.

Really really good.

Placemarking.

Wanderabout
I hope you don't mind, but I have cross-posted this article in HCP chat.

Yes Bore I've sent an email to Inside Health. Though since the programme likes to get right into the latest and most definitive research I wonder if they will struggle as a major issue is the shocking lack of ethical, peer reviewed research with a decent sized cohort.
ReluctantCamper Disappointing to hear More or Less ducked the challenge, it would have been better not to even cover the issue.

More understanding is required into the complex interactions between autogynephilia (a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female) (5), sexuality and sexual preference, male to hyper-sexualized female transgenderism, and hormonal or surgical treatment. - from linked BMJ article

Further elaboration:

Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. - Autogynephilia: an underappreciated paraphilia. - NCBI

Further there's mention of Male to hyper-sexualised female transgenderism in the BMJ article - it's good to see that recognised as a distinct category of its own, that has already often been observed by many MNetters. I suppose a shortened form of the descriptive phrase is MtHSF

So now the BMJ can say it, I assume I can as well :)

Thanks for those links UndercoverGC

And if any of the BMJ authors do read MN - THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some of the names on there are hugely influential.

Margaret McCartney has previously written on trans issues here:
www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1312
commented on by Richard Byng here: www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1312/rr-6
Sounds as though Richard's wife might be on here - hello!

Thank you to the authors of this BMJ piece for standing up for facts

More or less did a tiresomely obsequious piece on the number of trans people in the UK, complete with unchallenged opinion piece by GIRES.

Most disappointed in Tim Harford, thought he was made of better stuff

good to see medics finding their consciences. I will read this with interest later as currently have a 3 year old hanging off me!

*Think I'll have an extra piece of toast and marmalade in celebration.
*
Celebrations galore here with a honey and banana sandwich for lunch 😋

Iused2BanOptimist. Let's do it then!

This is interesting

The ‘new scientist’ magazine has drunk the kool aid too which indicates how terrified scientists are of upsetting people.

Bore yes yes! I was thinking the same thing.
I also like More or Less which "sometimes debunks - the numbers and statistics used in political debate, the news and everyday life" though I suspect the trans suicide rates argument would be too much of a hot potato for this programme, which is essentially light hearted whilst getting to the nub of the facts.

I think I'll contact BBC R4 Inside Health and suggest they do a feature on this. It's about time the BBC's uncritical support of all things trans, especially transkids, was challenged with some facts.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019dl1b/contact

What are the chances, do we think, of Medical Misogynist Dr Adrian Haddock calling out the authors of this piece on Twitter and setting his rabid attack pack on them? Not high, I'd suggest, given he prefers to bully and dox lone GC women.

Would someone care to tweet him a link to the piece and ask for his comments?

Tried to put quote in italics but didn't quite work out!

Thanks for posting this article. Just for the record, from the article written by four health professionals, "^^Although internal subjective identity, legal status and external appearance can change or be re-aligned, a person’s underlying biological sex cannot.

I note the reference to autogynephilia, a thing that I have often seen referred to on these boards as not existing.

Woke, in the old-fashioned sense, to Rosa and Rosemary's article yesterday, and to the Transsexual Voices statement (currently being improved in acknowledgement of criticisms). And got up this morning to discover Janice Turner's article, this excellent BMJ piece and the Margaret MaCartney link. Like diving into a pool of cool clear rationality. Thanks MNers.
Think I'll have an extra piece of toast and marmalade in celebration.

Very useful quotes.

The article ought to persuade the government to go back to the drawing board on the protected characterisitc of "gender reassignment" (Equality Act), until such time as there is better research.

More understanding is required into the complex interactions between autogynephilia (a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female), sexuality and sexual preference, male to hyper-sexualized female transgenderism, and hormonal or surgical treatment."

Why has this taken so long? Better late than never though. Thanks for this.