Philosopher responds to Jane Clare Jones et al

I think it’s important to recognise that in fields of medicine which concern the operation of the mind there are abundant examples of consensus later being shown to be mistaken. Our understanding of autism is an excellent example. There is much we believe today that will no doubt be shown to be wrong.
Anyone peddling certainties in this realm should attract scepticism.

I am not sure the research will ever be done because 'gender' is what is between your ears, so I am told.

So why does it affect which toilets you use, or which sports team you play on?

One bit he has got right IMHO is that for some people the stereotypes are not really the thing!

Yes if you watch 'Good Morning Britain' or whatever it is called you will see loads of parents with kids who are boys who like pink and dolls or girls who do not etc.

If you read the local paper there are plenty of stories there, "I dressed up with my sisters and now want to be a girl" etc. But when it comes to teenage girls who suddenly start wanting to be boys at 13 it seems much more mixed.

Yea, autism is a big factor or so I believe.

These females don't necessarily like traditional 'boy's pursuits' but they do feel dysphoric. I also assumed many were lesbians but increasing hear about gay trans boys, e.g. attracted to males.

So I do think it is quite complex and mixed.

But if we kept sex-based protections and protected children from surgeries and drugs then trans people could identify as they wish and be much more supported in society. The worries around children's health and protection of womem are the things that cause so much division and I am not sure this man in his article really tackles either.

Can we examine, for example, the potential role of undiagnosed ASDs, or past abuse, in teenage girls presenting as transgender? Or is it transphobic to suggest that something other than being transgender might underlie that presentation?

But what exactly does 'being transgender' mean?

big oil I think it would be viewed as trabsphobic! We do research what goes on on people's minds yes, but I fear we are in new territory now. Old certainties are gone. Your reality now has the right to break into my reality!

merrymouse I totally agree with your post at 17:21.

My issue with the article is the rather pompous wall of text, refering to the reader as dear, and constantly saying he may be wrong but in a way that you know he thinks he isn't.

That and dismissing a gender critical position based on his view that other people he trusts don't agree with it! Hardly scientific or academic!

That is such a silly point about “the medical industry” (presumably he means profession). Even if there were consensus within the profession, which there is not, that consensus could be mistaken. See, for example, the refrigerator mother theory which mums of ASD kids were routinely beaten up with 40-50 years ago.

This is true, a consensus can be really wrong. But it is a little trickier for most of us, who are not experts in a scientific field, to say well, we know better than all the climate scientists, or all the doctors who say vaccination is good. The burden to oppose that seems fairly high and if you are going to do it, you really need to get into the details of the research.

I think for many of us what we are saying is that there is not medical consensus despite claims that there is, and if it seems like there is it is only because disagreement has been actively squashed.

Well, lots of research is done in relation to what happens between peoples ears; my concern is, in this climate, whether that will be done in the right way. Can we examine, for example, the potential role of undiagnosed ASDs, or past abuse, in teenage girls presenting as transgender? Or is it transphobic to suggest that something g other than being g transgender might underlie that presentation?

I am not sure the research will ever be done because 'gender' is what is between your ears, so I am told. So it's all very personal to each individual.

What I would like to see is reseaech into gender dysphoria which it seems for some (especially teenage females) is acrually a sexual dysphoria with the body not with clothing etc.

I'm really happy to follow medical consensus where it actually exists and is evidence based - otherwise doctors would still be bleeding people and telling women they have wondering wombs.

I just don't think a medical consensus exists on this issue, mainly because the research and analysis doesn't yet exist.

It really isn't any of my business why somebody thinks they are trans. Nobody seems to be able to explain it in a way that doesn't involve sexist stereotypes, but people are free to believe in many things.

I'm inclined to agree with this as far as adults are concerned, but when it comes to children, I think we do need to know why they think this. Healthy children are being put on lifelong medical pathways because they are unhappy about their 'gender'. Adults are encouraging these children to believe they can change sex, when in fact, the path they are on will simply lead to sterility and little or no sexual function as adults.

With children it is all about stereotypes. Children should be allowed to play with what they want and wear whatever types of clothes they want, not encouraged to believe that they can change sex.

Adults should be free to express themselves as they want, but we should all be clear that changing sex is not possible and males should be kept out of female spaces.

That is such a silly point about “the medical industry” (presumably he means profession). Even if there were consensus within the profession, which there is not, that consensus could be mistaken. See, for example, the refrigerator mother theory which mums of ASD kids were routinely beaten up with 40-50 years ago.

And I also don't think there would be such controversy about the Tavistock if there were medical consensus on treatment.

Is there a worldwide medical consensus?

To have a medical consensus it seems that somebody would have to come up with a definition of trans that includes some and excludes others. However, that goes very much against the zeitgeist.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far.

I understand why you might think this, and feel that going against the established medical position, for most non-medical people, amounts to a kind of conspiracy theory, just like vaccination conspiracy theories.

However what I would say is that while that may be an understandable assumption, it really is an assumption. What you find when you start really digging into the medical side of all of this is that the medical elements that have had consensus are really quite conservative, and the more modern approaches like puberty blockers, or affirmative care, etc, have very little evidence, were essentially experimental, and that somehow these were suddenly seen as the "standard" that needed to be met. The doctors and researches who did not agree were not small numbers, or unimportant, they were simply pushed out by politics - not medical consensus at all.

It does sound a bit crazy, but maybe it helps to realise that it is not the first medical fad of this kind. Psychiatric disorders are particularly prone to misunderstandings and fashion.

FWIW I found the thing that really made me realise that something was rotten was reading about Dr Zucker. Here was a man who had some of the greatest expertise in the world about childhood gender problems, who was the editor of the main journal on the subject, driven out of his job, and it had nothing to do with "medical consensus" unless you considered that he, the members of his clinic, and many others didn't count. Looking at how groups like the CBC or BBC have covered these cases is also quite an education.

None of the arguments stand up to any scrutiny.

most cis people are all too ready to dismiss a motivation for transition that they can’t relate to

1). People who identify as 'cis' do apparently believe they have a gender, and are generally happy to believe in gendered souls and all forms of trans ideology. People who don't identify as 'cis' shouldn't be called 'cis', and the writer shouldn't make any assumption about their identity.

2). It really isn't any of my business why somebody thinks they are trans. Nobody seems to be able to explain it in a way that doesn't involve sexist stereotypes, but people are free to believe in many things.

The problem is the conflation of sex with gender identity, which affects policy, services and sex based rights, and imposes gender ideology on all.

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

My problem is the medical industry doesn't seem to have showered itself in glory with trangender treatments, especially of children.

This "obsure blog" in the British Medical Journal by a professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford university is all I would have thought was needed to stop all prescribing of puberty blockers. But it seems not. I think it's down to lobbying, rather than conspiracy.

blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

But why is it believe by some to be a real issue (so like arguing the existence of ghosts or the lock ness monster) rather than a neurological condition (like believing you are a wizard or cat)?

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

Or we could remember that the medical industry have been taken in by quackery before. Lobotomies once enjoyed 'medical consensus'.

I have certainly never seen evidence that humans can have 'brains trapped in the wrong sex body'.

No, me neither. I believe in the existence of gender dysphoria as a psychological condition similar to body dysmorphia. I believe that it is very distressing. I think only a tiny percentage of the people claiming to be transgender have this condition.

I will read later and keep my big gob shut (see, I said I was going to keep my big gob shut!).

(But with regards to Does admitting transwomen make women's spaces less safe? He says not. How can a man possibly have the insight to answer that question?)

Who is this person? Is he from a reputable institution? I could not locate any identifying information.
I ask because in my admittedly limited exposure to philosophical writing I have not found descriptions of competing positions as “bogus” or intellectually valueless. The discussion is usually a little more, ah, nuanced and sophisticated.

I don't believe people transition for all those reasons, those that seem to be rejected by the trans community.

Why do you think people transition, Lisa?

You do realise all the "current pathways" and "worldwide medical consensus" come from one organisation that obviously doesn't get challenged much? There is plenty of mainstream evidence that there are concerns with this approach.

GC people occupy themselves with these things because they perceive they are harmful to children who do not have the capacity to meaningfully consent, for the most part.

Then the issue I have is that, again, from my perspective the article is also right about ignoring all over evidence to try to preserve or make a counter argument.

What do you mean by this? I don't ignore evidence - what I do is read, think, and decide what makes sense.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far.

Can you explain more about this?

I can't be doing with all obscure blogs and interpretations that both sides seem to love to do.

I linked to 4th wave now because I thought it might help you understand about different types of people who are all described as 'trans', since you said something about transwomen all being different. I didn't link to it for my benefit, it was because I thought it might help you.

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

I do neither. I'm a scientist. I read and make up my own mind.