Update on the puberty blockers trial

I guess TRAs would argue that they always existed, and now they are being diagnosed and understood as such?

(I don't agree with this, I think it's due to social contagion, but I'm guessing this is what they would say)

I guess modern fundamentalist gender believers see you as too 'liberal' and your viewpoint challenges their belief system

Which is funny, because they obviously see themselves as the liberal ones, and me as the bigoted one :P

It feels like the goalposts moved very quickly with gender ideology and caught a lot of us (scientists, feminists, concerned parents) off guard. What do you think caused this shift?

I'm really no historian, so take my opinion with a truckload of salt.

I think the shift came as a result of a full-frontal collision.

The T movement has been going on for as long as the LGB one; it was just a lot less visible. But right from the 1960s, there were people campaigning for T rights, and countries passing anti-discrimination laws, and so on. Then more and more people transitioned in the public eye, and the public became accustomed to the existence of trans people, and to granting them small, gradual rights.

The problem, as I see it, is what several others have mentioned on FWR here and there: unlike LGB rights, which respect the integrity of others' rights, T rights ultimately necessarily demand the dismantling of some of the others' rights.

So while LGB activists could go on demanding full equality without encountering practical obstacles, only ideological ones, T activists eventually realised that this approach wasn't going to work for T rights. And they went on the offensive, redefining words, presenting other people's rights (and by people, I mean mostly women) as anti-trans discrimination, and embrigading the young.

Basically, I think the TRAs realised that it was a matter of "Us vs Them", unlike for LGB rights, which were a matter of "Us alongside Them". And from there, it wasn't a quest for T equality anymore, but a quest for T dominance, hence the shift.

Again, that's just what I can see from where I'm standing.

Wow 🙁

Can we count this bit as a small piece of positive news? "The overall size of the waiting list, meanwhile, has fallen by 34 per cent in a year, which may reflect fewer referrals"

Why are trans children such a thing now when they didn't exist in the last century?

Share token
https://www.thetimes.com/article/08e155c2-8cef-4698-a036-180b1d623657?shareToken=0f4549beaad848fd233817712bcc1b11&ver=article

I happened across this headline in the Times

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/children-waiting-list-gender-care-clinic-3lvkl6jnl

I've only been able to read the headline and subheading. Archive hasn't been working for me with Times articles for a while now. Just the subheading though!
Including 260 of primary school age!

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but being put on puberty blockers even for precocious puberty has lifelong consequences for the patients/victims which is why theirs a massive class action lawsuit by women who were given lupron (a brand of puberty blockers). Also women and girls who take puberty blockers for more than 6 months risk being put into permanent premature menopause and the pbs also prevents brain maturation.
Honestly pbs need to be considered an X drug (ie 1 that is never given) for children

Why are trans children such a thing now when they didn't exist in the last century?

That’s the second time you’ve responded aggressively to someone. You’ve drawn incorrect inference. I have no interest in justifying myself to you

I guess modern fundamentalist gender believers see you as too 'liberal' and your viewpoint challenges their belief system

Which is funny, because they obviously see themselves as the liberal ones, and me as the bigoted one :P

It feels like the goalposts moved very quickly with gender ideology and caught a lot of us (scientists, feminists, concerned parents) off guard. What do you think caused this shift?

I'm really no historian, so take my opinion with a truckload of salt.

I think the shift came as a result of a full-frontal collision.

The T movement has been going on for as long as the LGB one; it was just a lot less visible. But right from the 1960s, there were people campaigning for T rights, and countries passing anti-discrimination laws, and so on. Then more and more people transitioned in the public eye, and the public became accustomed to the existence of trans people, and to granting them small, gradual rights.

The problem, as I see it, is what several others have mentioned on FWR here and there: unlike LGB rights, which respect the integrity of others' rights, T rights ultimately necessarily demand the dismantling of some of the others' rights.

So while LGB activists could go on demanding full equality without encountering practical obstacles, only ideological ones, T activists eventually realised that this approach wasn't going to work for T rights. And they went on the offensive, redefining words, presenting other people's rights (and by people, I mean mostly women) as anti-trans discrimination, and embrigading the young.

Basically, I think the TRAs realised that it was a matter of "Us vs Them", unlike for LGB rights, which were a matter of "Us alongside Them". And from there, it wasn't a quest for T equality anymore, but a quest for T dominance, hence the shift.

Again, that's just what I can see from where I'm standing.

@HoppityBun I have also just seen that you "hopped" yourself onto this thread specifically and only to berate me. Interesting. I now conclude that, actually, you are the one who didn't like what I said. I wonder why?

Why speak on behalf of someone else you don't even know, rather than speak on behalf of yourself? If you have an opinion about this trial, I'm sure we'd be interested to hear it.

Thanks @Seethlaw , it's good to hear your perspective. I guess modern fundamentalist gender believers see you as too 'liberal' and your viewpoint challenges their belief system

It feels like the goalposts moved very quickly with gender ideology and caught a lot of us (scientists, feminists, concerned parents) off guard. What do you think caused this shift?

Sadly, I think Baroness Cass is a true believer, both in the idea that there is such a thing as a 'genuinely trans' child and also in the idea that medical intervention will help this (very small) group:

"There are a tiny number of people who will never be comfortable with their biological sex, with the gender associated with their biological sex. And for them, a medical pathway is the only way they're going to live their life comfortably."
(source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k1vkmxgd6o)

This is a fairly typical medic mindset - they're used to fixing things with drugs and surgery, and assume that all problems must be fixable in this way. It's one reason why medicine needs ethical oversight from non-medics.

If there’s going to be a considered and informed discussion, then squaring up with challenges that are phrased like this isn’t going to help. It’s not necessary or productive.

If you want to say that “in my view this would mean that adults were experimenting on children and I think that’s damaging, unethical and immoral” then do that. You just closed down @KkkIt who put forward a pov that will occur to many. Of course @KkkIt isn’t saying she’s happy with what you said.

Then there was a gradual shift towards extending the 'trans umbrella' to cover various other groups who had no intention of undergoing medical modifications, some of whom didn't even want to be the opposite sex. And the concurrent blurring of sex and gender. Eventually, gender identity superseded sex for determining whether people are men or women .

The trans umbrella has been around for a long time. This piece has an early version of the trans umbrella from 1994 (which includes people like transvestic fetishists and drag queens as 'trans').

The Trans Umbrella Is Older Than You Think – Women Speak Scotland

And people like Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle from Press for Change wanted to blur the lines between transvestites and transsexuals when they were campaigning for the GRA 25 years ago.

It certainly started out more reasonable. The original demands were for us to use preferred names and pronouns for people with gender dysphoria who had had medical modifications, whilst acknowledging that that people couldn't actually change sex. It was a polite fiction. Many of us were prepared to go along with that.

I think that's something many of the current younger TRAs don't realise: that it was all a polite fiction. I think a lot of them genuinely believe that transwomen once had an actual right to enter female single-sex spaces, and that this right is now being taken away. They don't understand that transwomen never had that right to begin with, that some of them were merely tolerated into some female single-sex spaces, under conditions of proper behavior.

It's had terrible repurcussions for various groups of people. Ironically, it's also made it harder for the very same group of people it was originally meant to help - people with genuine gender dysphoria who have undergone medical modifications but who don't necessarily see themselves as having actually changed sex. I think is part of this group (apologies if this isn't the case and I've misinterpreted your position)

I used to be... very confused, because the only orthodox position was that "I was a man", and there could be no discussion about what it actually meant on a practical level. Apparently, I was supposed to think of my reproductive organs as male ones? Except a male uterus or male ovarii make zero sense to me, so I was in some kind of mental no man's (heh) land. Finally realising that a transman is simply a specific type of woman was a liberation! Things are logical again.

But as you say: this understanding makes it a whole lot harder for me to interact with the trans community. I'm literally a good old transsexual as they used to be called, but I'm not welcome in the trans community. Makes no sense.

@KkkIt
So I can see a value in the original idea of just creating a delay till the mind catches up with the body.

So, you're happy with adults experimenting on children to see what happens, are you? Because that's what this trial will do.

Why has the nutty fundamentalist strain of this belief got so embedded

Because trans ideology has become a cult and is executing a purity spiral

It certainly started out more reasonable. The original demands were for us to use preferred names and pronouns for people with gender dysphoria who had had medical modifications, whilst acknowledging that that people couldn't actually change sex. It was a polite fiction. Many of us were prepared to go along with that.

Then there was a gradual shift towards extending the 'trans umbrella' to cover various other groups who had no intention of undergoing medical modifications, some of whom didn't even want to be the opposite sex. And the concurrent blurring of sex and gender. Eventually, gender identity superseded sex for determining whether people are men or women .

Once gender identity supersedes sex, you have an irrational ideology. And it ends up executing a purity spiral as its believers try to outdo each other in zealotry.

It's had terrible repurcussions for various groups of people. Ironically, it's also made it harder for the very same group of people it was originally meant to help - people with genuine gender dysphoria who have undergone medical modifications but who don't necessarily see themselves as having actually changed sex. I think @Seethlaw is part of this group (apologies if this isn't the case and I've misinterpreted your position)

Under 16s to be banned from social media but 11 year olds can consent to future sterilisation, harm to their mental and physical development and a limited adult sex life.

Make it make sense.

Why has the nutty fundamentalist strain of this belief got so embedded

Because trans ideology has become a cult and is executing a purity spiral

It certainly started out more reasonable. The original demands were for us to use preferred names and pronouns for people with gender dysphoria who had had medical modifications, whilst acknowledging that that people couldn't actually change sex. It was a polite fiction. Many of us were prepared to go along with that.

Then there was a gradual shift towards extending the 'trans umbrella' to cover various other groups who had no intention of undergoing medical modifications, some of whom didn't even want to be the opposite sex. And the concurrent blurring of sex and gender. Eventually, gender identity superseded sex for determining whether people are men or women .

Once gender identity supersedes sex, you have an irrational ideology. And it ends up executing a purity spiral as its believers try to outdo each other in zealotry.

It's had terrible repurcussions for various groups of people. Ironically, it's also made it harder for the very same group of people it was originally meant to help - people with genuine gender dysphoria who have undergone medical modifications but who don't necessarily see themselves as having actually changed sex. I think @Seethlaw is part of this group (apologies if this isn't the case and I've misinterpreted your position)

As much as tras say trans people have always been here the trans child is brand spanking new. I think the only evidence, prior to about 10-15 years ago, is the largely unfalsifiable assertions of older, adult (usually) men. Often approaching retirement or older. Claiming that they felt they were the wrong sex since...insert age when a sexual fetish would be unlikely to manifest. Thus sanitising the whole thing.

I wonder if Cass has swallowed it because she cannot believe that medics, like herself, would be so gullible, would do what they've done to children for no reason that stands up to scrutiny. It would discredit a huge chunk of her profession. I don't think she could take that step. Muddying the waters are the infinitesimal number of children who are now genuinely dysphoric. I suspect in many of them the problems they're suffering wouldn't have manifested as dysphoria if they'd never heard the word.