So disgusted tonight

It's my understanding that traditionally, only those diagnosed with gender dysphoria could receive any kind of treatment on the NHS. And those with AGP were weeded out from the outset.

Activists making a mental health problem a civil rights issue put a stop to that.

The same way they want to eliminate gender dysphoria from being a criterion to get a GRC.

The expansion of the trans umbrella to include transvestites as well as transsexuals was pushed for by Press for Change (people like Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle, who are both transsexuals).

See this post on a thread from last year.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4319779-fetishes-and-autogynephilia?reply=109850521

Datun

I believe gender reassignment should continue to be a protected characteristic. I believe the circumstance in which a transitioned person should be able to claim sex discrimination is either if they are discriminated against because of their sex, or if they are discriminated against because of someone’s perception that they are the opposite sex to their own biological sex (so, if a transwoman is denied a pay rise because their boss hates women and thinks they are one). Otherwise there should be no ‘opt-in’.

There's a balance to be had between protecting children (which is absolutely vital- TRAs should not be given free rein to indoctrinate children and teenagers completely unopposed) and policing adults.

Super skinny/uber buff celebs are dangerous role models for young people. But we would never refuse them access to the gym, or say they shouldn't exist! We just open discussion with our young people, and we provide alternative role models and ways of thinking. The existence of (law abiding) trans people is not a threat to young people. "No debate" is the threat.

(for context, I'm a secondary school teacher)

I should add that if it is conclusively proven that there is little or no evidence base for benefit from physical transition, then no, the NHS shouldn’t fund it because then they would be funding harm.

I know that people often say, when talking about this issue, the adults should be free to do what they want - within certain confines like legality. And obviously, I understand and agree with that sentiment entirely.

But transgenderism is different. The nature of transitioning means that you can opt into protected characteristics. The nature of the activism around it means that people are deliberately conflating different things.

Everyone understands that a young, possibly lesbian girl, who wants to present as a boy, is completely different from a male, middle-aged transitioner who has historically cross dressed.

Pretending that these things are the same and therefore should be subjected to the same checks, balances and rights, is causing a problem.

Who wouldn't want to see young girls not feel the need to transition because of sexism and homophobia?

Who wouldn't want to see young, effeminate men, reconcile that being male does not need to involve toxic masculinity. Or any masculinity.

Who wouldn't want to see the reasons for transition being addressed? And that's a genuine question, who doesn't want that?

We are told that transitioning is not something that is ever undertaken lightly, that it's often the ultimate, last ditch attempt to overcome gender dysphoria. Where has the gender dysphoria come from? And why can't we try and stop it?

The nhs isn't funding support for detransitioners much though.

‘I don't know, tabby, is providing a full list of 'gender affirming' surgery and life-long medication on NHS, pretty much on demand, a question of individual freedom and autonomy, or should it be considered in its impact on the wider society that will be footing the bill?’

This brings us to pretty fundamental questions! The individual versus the collective etc.

I believe society could legitimately choose not to spend its resources on this. That’s democracy. I am not sure, in the case of people who have experienced sustained gender distress over many years, that it would be the right choice.

That’s a fantastic way to explain it! Wholly agree

foilball you are absolutely right, nobody should decide if someone transitions or not. Where others do have a say is when we the taxpayers have to fund the process. Change what you like but pay for it yourself.

@tabbycatstripy* same- I don't believe in "gender" at all really. But then again, I don't believe in God, but I have no issue with anyone describing themselves as a Christian. I don't even mind referring to a priest as "father" as a courtesy, but I reserve the right to point out that he's not my actual father.

I don't know, tabby, is providing a full list of 'gender affirming' surgery and life-long medication on NHS, pretty much on demand, a question of individual freedom and autonomy, or should it be considered in its impact on the wider society that will be footing the bill? Far higher percentages of teenagers and young adults identify as trans, and expect medical transition, on NHS, than ever before. It is not clear what could be causing this, bar social contagion.

And that is assuming we manage to somehow stand our ground on sex-based rights and keep the 'new kind of woman' to their correct, male, spaces.

It's all very difficult tabby and very complex.

It's a supposed medical, psychological and social condition, tied heavily to LGB now and so political. There are other serious issues also that get you deleted here if not careful, but are being increasingly evidenced.

Therefore all areas of society are affected by the idea of GD. It can't be "banned."

For children, education and social work is the biggest problem, along side social media.

And they're the ones complicit in how children can be abused by Gender Ideology.

I do not understand why other adults allowing this will not see/accept what a massive safeguarding issue this is for our young children and the damage they are complicit it.

Owen Jones is a hateful dangerous man

‘I have no desire to dissuade adults from transitioning to whatever degree makes them feel confortable. But I still believe that biological sex is real, and often more important than gender identity.’

Same, except I don’t believe in an objective or provable ‘gender identity’ at all. I also don’t believe transitioning should give people access to the few spaces put aside for the opposite sex, and I don’t believe people can be forced to use particular pronouns or express any belief they don’t personally agree with.

If they had said "children" I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But honestly, adults should be free to live their lives however they wish. The statements made in this video certainly don't represent my own GC views (although of course I don't condone abuse/threats of violence)

I have no desire to dissuade adults from transitioning to whatever degree makes them feel confortable. But I still believe that biological sex is real, and often more important than gender identity .

From 'it's a difficulty'

HJ continues:

You know?
I mean, I know that sounds heartless and I'm trying to say exactly the opposite of sounding heartless.
I'm saying every one of those people - for 50, 60, 70 years - is going to need things that the rest of us just don't need, because the rest of us are just our sex.
So the fewer of those people there are, the better, in a sane world that I hope we will reach.

end of quote

Now it does indeed sound heartless, but what I think she is saying is that if people can be supported through feelings of discomfort with their sexed body that may be transient (which is the role of therapy, surely?) then it might be that the number of people opting to have surgery and become lifelong medical patients may be reduced and that would be a good thing for them. Accepting that medical / surgical transition will absolutely be the best outcome for some of those people, but we know from detransitioners that it isn't the right path for everyone.

Violent threats are not something that should be tolerated.

They are violence against women and need to be called out loud and clear - and to my mind anyway the main focus and issue.

‘But the few studies we do have don't seem to show that transitioning increases the happiness and well-being of those who undergo it.’

I think you’re right.

Yes, Lemon. The aggressive expansionist strategy has been a failure and resulted in a backlash. People might now reject the whole thing, which would be a shame because trans-identifying people aren’t doing anything wrong by trying to make themselves feel comfortable.

But the few studies we do have don't seem to show that transitioning increases the happiness and well-being of those who undergo it.

So it might be confirmation bias, in the short term, or for a few of them, but it still doesn't address the question of what is the reason for the transition in the first place.

Well I agree this is part of the problem, I don’t know where the line is exactly but to me genuinely trans is akin to the old transsexuals and not genuinely trans to the old cross dressers.

In modern terms it’s hard to quantify and I think that’s where part of the main problem that arises in determining the balance of the right middle ground.

Right now where we have ‘can be Mary on a Tuesday’ - I am of the opinion it’s just a firm all round no for access to any female only space.

If say we have fully transitioned transsexuals separated from Bob who’s also Mary then I may change my mind on that for lower risk spaces.

And obviously the death threats are vile and unacceptable (also unsurprising).

As a sidenote I'm very glad that the issue of why people transition is being addressed. It needs to be talked about and looked at. All of it.

Forensically.

And yes, the violent reaction needs to be unpicked, too.

‘My question would be what is the motivation for transition that is considered beneficial and positive enough to be causing the outrage over the concept of reducing numbers.’

I think it’s confirmation bias. They transitioned (they feel) happily so they assume everyone is happy and will continue to be happy. But actually we don’t know enough about it yet. If you pump a twelve year old full of Lupron and then a sixteen year old full of the wrong hormones for their body, where do they stand when they’re sixty? What will their heart, their brain, their bones, their cognition look like? What will be their likely psychological state? We don’t have that information and won’t have it for several decades at the right scale to understand the risks.