Radio 4. Right now. Is freaking me out.

If the AMA has the evidence to back up their claims, they wouldn't need to appeal to the DOJ to get journalists and anyone else questioning them shut down and prosecuted. It's interesting how the investigation and court cases into the Tavistock Clinic's conduct has, thus far, shown that the similar stance taken by them has resulted in malpractice and harm to minors.

They did 10 years ago.

Quite

It was an idiotic response by someone who knows they've been outclassed

Yes. See also 'I am not a vet but I know what a dog is.' (KJK)

Just so I’m clear, it’s ok to liken someone you (wrongly, as it happens) assume to be anti-GC to someone capable of bashing an animal’s head in but not ok to call the people who make that attack a viper. Got it.

I thought you were being compared to a man famous for losing court cases, but ok!

I disagree with the shutting down debate comments

That wasn't very clear. I meant that I have not found that GC posters have shut down my comments.

Do you think males should have access to women’s sports?

Prisons and changing rooms?

And what is your view on compelled pronoun use

Only after I was attacked.

except it wasn’t an attack when it was at me, it was irony.

Just so I’m clear, it’s ok to liken someone you (wrongly, as it happens) assume to be anti-GC to someone capable of bashing an animal’s head in but not ok to call the people who make that attack a viper. Got it.

Classic MN

No, bless my scientific education and years of field experience. This is my head talking, not my heart.

Well the AMA & AAP have come out to say the bans will have damaging effects on mental health, depression and suicide. So how about we listen to them?

I disagree with the shutting down debate comments. I posted upthread that I liked the Rylan series and thought it had successfully covered a range of different types of men, including Freddie. Nobody was rude or insulted me.

On another thread I posted that I thought it was OK to serialise Paris Lees' autobiography on TV given that it will appeal to some licence fee payers. One person said that they thought the BBC should be impartial. That was it. All very polite.

I listen to R4 a lot. I think there are some posters who don't - in my opinion - recognise that things have changed from the days when Radio 5 Live refused to have someone from Fair Play for Women on the Stephen Nolan show while interviewing a trans cyclist who had made threats to those who opposed to trans women competing in women's cycling. Other people will think that the changes are insufficient and I am fine with that. What I do know is that Radio 4 has lost a lot of listeners for various reasons, including its coverage of equality and representation in the media. They need to be open to discussions about why some existing people are switching off and why they can't attract a new generation of listeners.

Which ad hominem arguments have I put forward? I have only (until this point) responded to posters with links, facts and some questions pertaining to the readership of the Guardian.

"Ad hominem is an argument strategy that focus on the person making an argument. This involves an attack on any aspect of the opponent’s personality, like their intelligence, reputation, or group affiliations. The attack can be subtle, such as casting doubt on a person’s character, or overt, like insulting someone."

You wrote: You guys are so far off the mark, it would be laughable, were you not such nasty vipers... you nasty hornets come stinging...I don’t want to be associated with the likes of the GC on MN. It’s rancid.

That is attacking the people, not the argument. I see the thread has moved on though.

On the contrary, I think it's very common and always has been. We didn't use to treat it through expensive surgeries or creating lifelong dependency on expensive drugs, though. I wonder why?

Bless your heart

I disagree. I listen to experts and believe entirely that they are doing their best for the good of their patients. I don’t necessarily think they always get it right, and mistakes are made, but I don’t believe it’s some sort of massive conspiracy to erase women or gay people. And it’s ok for me to believe that.

except on Mumsnet where it’s the GC way or no way.

The banned trans healthcare you speak of is irreversible surgery and hormone therapy. And those legislators have listened to the many medical practitioners and detransitioners who have warned of the irreversible damage being done to children who are affirmed without question and set on a lifelong medical pathway - when the statistics for post puberty desisting, if a wait and see and talking therapy approach is used, is huge.

Are you actually saying that gender dysphoria didn't exist 10 years ago?

I don't think you need to be a doctor to conclude that cutting up children for a "problem" which didn't exist ten years ago is fundamentally wrong. You just need to be a decent human being with a moral compass.

Honestly, that is not for me to decide - I am not a doctor. And unless you are an appropriately licensed medical professional with enough experience in the field, it’s not your call, either.

The problem with turning this into a culture war is that politicians will make rules according to votes, not professional expertise. See also the war on drugs.

They need appropriate healthcare now. For some it will be physical interventions, for others it will be psychological.
I agree they need help. But no children need surgical "help" especially as studies show that most children with dysphoria grow out of it. The problem is when hormonal and surgical therapies and unquestioning gender affirmation are the only routes allowed.

Sure, it’s irony when you do it and arrogance and ‘picking on’ when I do it. I was debating with one poster because they were the ones I disagreed with. It was a back & forth. I did take the piss, which wasn’t fair, and I apologised. Then you jump in and are much nastier, and even now you double down.

Perhaps you didn’t, but there are at least 2 posts on this thread likening me to a fox killing bloke because I defended the BBC and Guardian. I haven’t put forward my views on trans because last time I tried to engage in any sort of debate, I was, again, attacked for no reason - even though, actually, I’m not a believer in gender stereotypes, so probably have quite a lot of common ground here. You do your cause no good at all because instead of engaging with facts, studies, evidence, you present half-truths. Like the women above who talks about the liberal states in the US and their dangerous pro-trans agenda, yet makes no mention of the 13+ who have banned any kind of trans health care for minors, leaving, according to one article I read (Telegraph, I think), tens of thousands without appropriate support - a move condemned by the medical institutes of the USA.

That’s why people accuse you of spreading hate - you won’t ever discuss or try to understand the other side.

Which ad hominem arguments have I put forward? I have only (until this point) responded to posters with links, facts and some questions pertaining to the readership of the Guardian.

Do I think people can change biological sex? No, as a scientist, I do not. But does that mean I don’t believe people are born transgender? No, it doesn’t. I fully believe there are people whose sense of self doesn’t align with their biological entity. Whether that sense of self is socially constructed or not doesn’t make a difference - these people need help now, not millennia from now when we’ve overthrown the patriarchy and done away with gender stereotyping. They need appropriate healthcare now. For some it will be physical interventions, for others it will be psychological.

This is it. You couch it in ‘oh but we’re just debating’ but what happens is that anyone who disagrees is targeted. I’ve been likened to the twat who bludgeoned a fox to death because I defended the BBC on here.

No, you weren't. I jokingly posted 'Is that you, Jolyon?' because you sounded just like him. Talking down (to one particular poster consistently), ignoring what others were saying and boasting about your superior intellect.

Picking you up on it in an ironic way isn't targeting you. I was a comment based on what you'd written here and the way you'd said it. Which you went on to apologise for, recognising how arrogant you'd been.

Yes. Check out the Iranian “women’s” football team. In some countries, transing, rather than being openly gay, is the only way to survive.

Yes isn't it somewhere like Tehran that does the most sex change operations because the are so homophobic?