Netherlands Puberty Blocker Review Comes to Opposite Conclusion, Dismisses Cass Review

The disagreement isn’t over the physical facts; it’s over how "sex" should be defined, recognised and applied in different social, legal and scientific contexts.

Interesting.

So, taking it from your perspective, they are aware of their bodies and have discomfort/distress about it. In the vast majority of cases their body is healthy and features are within the normal ranges, but they think the words are wrong.

How does that form a reasonable basis for redefining words such as 'sex'?

Why would a child's perspective on this be taken as a reason to change the word meaning altogether?

If redefining the meaning of sex to accommodate them is important, how does it then naturally follow that their body must be altered?

Bringing us back to the question of how does this justify giving puberty blockers to children for transition?

Alongside that, I think we may ultimately need new terminology altogether.

I would agree. And for more than just 'gender'.

Although, as you have pointed out, a large part of this is about redefining words. Gender, sex, man, woman, he, she, male, female.

You appear to be trying to find a measurable biological reason for transgenderism that can form the basis of redefining the meanings of these words. This idea is rejected by a lot of trans people and allies, including clinicians.

I think it's an area worthy of study, before a puberty blocker trial is considered. So far investigations have found nothing conclusive.

I didn't say I have a full-blown delusion, precisely because I know I don't. "Phantom limb" is indeed a lot closer to what I feel, except in phantom limb cases, the brain remembers a limb that used to exist and be attached to the body, which makes sense, while in my case, my brain wholesale made up a limb that never existed, and refuses to acknowledge the existence or position of bits that do exist, which is... a lot weirder.

I would argue it's difficult to imagine how such a fundamental neuro cognitive experience could have been caused by socialisation

Maternal socialisation, to be precise. Possibilities:

• She was convinced I was a boy while she was pregnant (she had Reasons for very, very much wanting this to be true), and that influenced my development in utero.
• She had a marked negative reaction when I was born to my being a girl, and I picked up on that.

Or maybe it's just all a big coincidence, and the faulty bit in my brain is purely neurological and not psychological at all. That's definitely another possibility.

This is a claim that’s widely repeated online, but I personally can't find any evidence that she actually made that statement?

If there’s an original interview, video, or post, I'd be interested to review it to better understand what she said and the context in which she said it. But until then, I don’t think it’s sensible to base an argument on an unattributed claim by one individual
that’s circulated on social media. :)

Furthermore, even if one individual did make an inaccurate statement about their anatomy, that wouldn’t establish that gender dysphoria isn’t a real condition or that people with gender dysphoria are generally deluded or lying. Those are general claims that require explanation and evidence about the condition itself from the body of literature, not anecdotes about one person

It's the concept that one can internalise and "be" a particular gender. To non-believers like me, it's impossible to be a gender.

Exactly.

In this context, "being" a gender is a performed activity and declaring it as an identity is meaningless.

Yup. I'm not a man. I don't even "feel like a man". I don't have some mysterious and nebulous "male gender identity". I only present as a man by performing stereotypical masculinity.

I don't have a problem with the word "performance," personally. I feel it depicts exactly what I do.

I would push back on the idea that using the word gender depends on accepting a particular belief system. I’d suggest that "gender identity" is simply the label that has come to be used to identify a real neurocognitive experience, in much the same way that "phantom limb" is the label for a particular neurological phenomenon. The label itself isn’t the important part.

Perhaps “gender identity” isn’t even the best term. If we were naming the phenomenon from scratch, we might choose something like “phantom sex” or another term that more directly reflects the underlying experience—(although the worry would be that wording might be co-opted by those who want to dismiss gender incongruence as merely “imaginary.")

Whatever we choose to call it, what matters is that we understand three things:

1. What the phenomenon actually is.
2. That it is real—not as a separate physical entity, but as a genuine neurocognitive experience.
3. That it is conceptually independent of a person’s ideological or philosophical beliefs about gender stereotypes, or understanding of the biological facts of sex development.

I increasingly think that, if we want to make progress scientifically and reduce many of the social and political disputes surrounding this topic, we need to shift the focus away from philosophical / conceptual debates about "sex" and "gender" and their social consequences . Those debates are important in some contexts, but they don’t tell us much about the underlying phenomenon itself.

Instead, we should be asking how the brain represents aspects of the sexed body at a neurocognitive level, and whether variation in those processes can help explain gender incongruence. Which brain regions and neural networks are involved? How does the brain construct and maintain an internal representation of the sexed body? Are there variations in these processes that help explain why some people develop gender dysphoria?

Alongside that, I think we may ultimately need new terminology altogether. The word gender has accumulated so many cultural, conceptual, and political meanings that it often obscures the phenomenon more than it clarifies it.

Doesn't he now also claim to be a "cis woman"

India Willoughby has stated that he has a cervix. Is he delusional, or is he just a liar?

Looks like you missed part of the question, buddy! If you don't want any honest discussion, leave. Go back to reddit.

An analogy would be a Christian who believes in god but also believes that the big bang happened.
In both cases, the believer finds their own personal balance and acceptable level of cognitive dissonance to accommodate or push back on scientific facts.

@BonfireLady Sorry, I'm going to have to push back on that analogy. You can be a Chrisitian and also accept mainstream cosmological theories.
Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why.

That "body map" in your brain and what it's telling you- that experence is real- whatever ideological beliefs you hold, that body map persists , and that it is what people refer to as "gender identity".

This is a very interesting way to put it. It's one of the best articulations I've seen of what gender identity is. However, "whatever ideological belief you hold" is a moot point because the belief is already there in the first place: the belief that everyone has a gender identity and that it's possible for this to differ from one's sex.

An analogy would be a Christian who believes in god but also believes that the big bang happened.

In both cases, the believer finds their own personal balance and acceptable level of cognitive dissonance to accommodate or push back on scientific facts.

That's simply not true. The existence of an independent "gender identity" is a fundamental tenet of gender ideology

I would disagree with you here and suggest you have mischaracterised or misunderstood the way gender is used . Most people wouldn't argue that "gender" is a physical independent entity. Gender is real in the sense that is it a real psychological-/ neuro cognitive experience . That "body map" in your brain and what it's telling you- that experence is real- whatever ideological beliefs you hold, that body map persists , and that it is what people refer to as "gender identity".

A part of my brain absolutely is. The part that is responsible for the mental map of my body is convinced I've always had a flat chest, narrow hips, a penis, and so on. The parts that get to deal with the real world can tell it all they want that no, I don't have any of that, my mental mapper just does't listen

Thats really interesting and I don't doubt that is a very real neuro cognitive experience- entirely independent of any beliefs you have about gender stereotypes, and I would argue it's difficult to imagine how such a fundamental neuro cognitive experience could have been caused by socialisation . But the aspect that I would suggest separates it from a delusion is that you are simultaneously aware that you don't actually have these body parts.

Experienxe of a phantom limb might be an analogy.

A phantom limb is a well-established neurological phenomenon. After an amputation, many people continue to experience vivid sensations—such as touch, movement, itching, warmth, or pain—in a limb that is no longer physically present. This happens because the brain’s representation (or “body map”) of the limb persists even after the limb has been removed.

the crucial distinction is between having an experience and holding a false/ delusional beleif. A person with a phantom limb may say, “It feels like my hand is still there,” while fully understanding that the hand has been amputated.
A delusion, by contrast, is a fixed false belief that is maintained despite overwhelming evidence. For example, if someone insisted their amputated hand was actually still physically still attached despite seeing otherwise, that could be considered delusional in the appropriate clinical context.

That's simply not true. The existence of an independent "gender identity" is a fundamental tenet of gender ideology.

TBF "gender" (without the word identity) isn't an independent object. It's simply a word used to describe observable patterns of stereotypical behaviours, expectations and limitations related to each of the two sexes.

But yes, "gender identity" very much is a fundamental tenet of belief. It's the concept that one can internalise and "be" a particular gender. To non-believers like me, it's impossible to be a gender. People can only be a sex and this is immutable. In this context, "being" a gender is a performed activity and declaring it as an identity is meaningless.

From my non-believer position, I have seen that some people will be honest about the way they demonstrate either their performance* of gender or their belief in gender identity as a thing you can "be", taking on board how it impacts others that don't share their belief, and some people will seek to deceive.

*I fully recognise that this word is rather blunt, considering some people genuinely need this "performance" to alleviate distress. I just can't think of a better word.

Edited for typo, clarity.. and empathy.

Young children often experience dysphoria before they have any sophisticated ideas about gender identity, gender roles, or philosophy.

That was my case.

Trans people are not under the illusion that they have different sexual anatomy.

A part of my brain absolutely is. The part that is responsible for the mental map of my body is convinced I've always had a flat chest, narrow hips, a penis, and so on. The parts that get to deal with the real world can tell it all they want that no, I don't have any of that, my mental mapper just does't listen.

More fundamentally, contending that gender isn't "real" highlights another misunderstanding. No one is suggesting that gender is an independent object in the world. Gender identity is simply the language given to describe a psychological experience.

That's simply not true. The existence of an independent "gender identity" is a fundamental tenet of gender ideology.

What remains constant, regardless of those disagreements, is the experience of dysphoria itself. That experience doesn’t depend on adopting any particular theory about sex or gender.

This isn't true for the fetishists. Obviously this thread is about children and the majority of the fetishists are adult men. Unfortunately though, some adolescent males are being drawn towards this lifestyle way of "being" trans.

The (initially*) difficult part is how to spot the difference between a fetishist who feigns having distressing dysphoria and someone who really does have distressing dysphoria.

An adult fetishist's experience of "dysphoria" is actually a much-enjoyed exercise in sexual gratification. Positioning it as distressing to garner sympathy is part of the gratification. Getting called out on it can also be a part of that, similar to a dominatrix/submissive fantasy.

*This gets easier the more aware one becomes of the clues that give away the fetish.

This is an interesting blog that was written by an adult male fetishist who recognises why this problem is damaging for women's rights:

https://archive.is/2pQIq

He doesn't cover the impact on children, so it's not directly relevant to this thread, but it provides some interesting insight into a world that is indirectly relevant to all the children who believe themselves to have a gender identity that differs from their sex: to borrow a quote from his blog "to my mind, it's the key, heart, core and crux of the problem with the trans movement today."

Note that he concedes it's not always easy to know whether someone's dysphoria is actually a fetish or not. In a few of his named examples of people who aren't fetishists, he is hesitant to say for certain.

Edited to remove superfluous words/repetition.

I think you’re misunderstanding what that claim is and what it’s doing.

These people generally aren’t claiming to have the opposite anatomy. They’re perfectly aware of what their bodies are. The disagreement isn’t over the physical facts; it’s over how "sex" should be defined, recognised and applied in different social, legal and scientific contexts.

Some trans people argue that birth sex shouldn’t be the sole determinant of a person’s legal or social classification. Others argue for a more nuanced account of sex scientifically, based on different biological processes. Still others—including some trans people—take a more sex-realist / gender critical position. There is no universal agreement about these conceptual , scientific and social / policy questions- including among trans people.

What remains constant, regardless of those disagreements, is the experience of dysphoria itself. That experience doesn’t depend on adopting any particular theory about sex or gender.

So I don’t think it’s accurate to characterise this as a fixed false belief. A fixed false belief would be believing something demonstrably untrue about one’s body despite evidence to the contrary. That’s not what’s happening here. The dispute is over how we should interpret biological facts, define categories such as “man” and “woman”, and determine what follows socially or legally from those facts. You may disagree with many trans people on their conclusions to such questions , but that’s a conceptual and political disagreement, not evidence that the person is deluded about their anatomy.

Clinically, a delusion is a fixed false belief.

There are some trans people who claim to be the opposite sex, exemplified by their demands to access services reserved for the opposite sex. It's very well documented, even under oath. This is a fixed false belief.

Gender dysphoria doesn't depend on holding a false belief about one's anatomy

It may not, however, there are plenty of trans people that have these fixed false beliefs. You continue to steer the conversation to a particular sub group of trans people that you carefully define. It's as if you are actively trying to ignore the many other trans voices.

Yes, this is a great article.

Someone shared it on a thread a long time ago and I bookmarked it.

The main difference with gender dysphoria and any other body dysphoria is that society is telling people that, in the case of the former, their belief that a part (or parts) of their body is wrong for them is perfectly plausible.

And of course, this example of body dysphoria:

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/surgeon-neil-hoppers-twisted-world-10476298

Presumably it will be spun as "look what people are driven to do if we don't let them change their body to fit thrir obsession".

I am reminded of the man who mistook his wife for a hat.

He undoubtably truly experienced the knowledge that his wife was a hat. The incongruence between his knowledge that his wife was a hat and knowing the reality that his wife could not be a hat was undoubtably extremely distressing for him.

Nevertheless, no one seems to have suggested the best way to deal with this was for his wife to pretend to be hat in line with his experience of her being so to relieve the gap between reality and her husband's conception of it.

Even if you can settle on an objective diagnosis, the purpose of 'puberty blockers' is still murky, given that it is impossible to go through opposite sex puberty.

The point seems to be to make boys appear more feminine by keeping them in a prepubescent state.

It's much less clear what girls gain from suppressing puberty.

Serious doctors are honest about side effects and the limits of treatment, but there seems to be a lack of serous doctors in this area of medicine.

No evidence posted for this conviction. Just opinions. A bit disappointing really

Yes. The belief that gender dysphoria is somehow a different class of dysphoria or obsession has been asserted many times on this thread but no reason to believe this to be the case has yet been given.

It appears to be a deeply held conviction rather than anything based on an actual known qualitative difference.

Yeh I don't agree with the journalists framing/ analysis, but I'd def be interested in looking into more clinical literature on the psychological condition.

Read on ...