terrifying, dangerous, abusive "advice" on r/transgenderuk

There is NOTHING that these people will condemn apparently.

I’m yet to see any condemnation of those people who advised the father to skip the PBs and go straight to cross sex hormones. Any comment along the lines of “I understand why parents might do this but sourcing this type of drug without any medical supervision is extremely dangerous”. Just evangelical cries of nothing much more than “Give the boy the titty biscuits”.

What a terrible analogy. But if you think it's an appropriate one, do you think any parent who allows their 15 year old a glass of wine with dinner is abusive?

Since anti-trans folks are such fans of court judgments, then the judgments in both Gillick and Bell put to bed the idea that those under 16 are inherently incapable of consenting to treatment even where it has significant consequences.

Again though, the result of years of campaigning is that instead of a child being assessed properly for Gillick competency by a UK-regulated medical professional, they are instead pushed into a black market for treatment.

Feminine boys don't need to be "cured" with illegal medication.

You think children should be given castration drugs to stop a boy's voice breaking?

This really is the 'saying the quiet part out loud' thread.

I presume the “this is what happens when you ban something” posters spend their evenings outside the offy offering to buy alcohol for 15 year olds.

TBH I wouldn’t be that surprised.

Oh marvellous. A thread in which people who have spent years campaigning to prevent the sensible, regulated and judicious prescription of medicine now suddenly realise that in the absence of such people will resort to sourcing it separately.

The father in question seems quite responsible in still seeking treatment by a medical professional in France, rather than DIY.

But a couple of total red herrings already in this thread:

1. No indication whatsoever that this guys daughter has no say in this. The obvious starting point is that he has a trans daughter - not that he has a son that he (the father) is insisting must be trans.
2. It seems clear that his daughter already identifies and expresses herself as a girl. The father's question is not about how he can 'trans' his 'gay son', but rather how he can best help his trans daughter avoid the long term difficulties in transitioning and passing that will arise if she goes fully through male puberty.

The notion that there are legions of fathers out there that are virulently homophobic, to the point of pushing their children towards a life that is much more challenging because of societal attitudes, but not even slightly transphobic, is utter, utter nonsense.

Spoiler alert - virtually every homophobe that exists in the UK is also massively transphobic. Virtually no parent who has a problem with a gay son would prefer to have a trans daughter.

And that not regulating the treatment and drugs would result in safer and better outcomes for all?

If I had to make a stab in the dark...

Well, what is your argument?

That attempts to increase the certainty of safety, efficacy and good outcomes of a course of treatment, and to reduce instances if avoidable harm from a treatment being wrongly given are absolutely bad? And that regulating, gatekeeping and governing a risky, unproven and life altering set of drugs should be stopped?

And that not regulating the treatment and drugs would result in safer and better outcomes for all?

Because you would have to go a long way to find parallel arguments in other spheres.

Happened to me twice yesterday...

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the TRAs on this thread really were somewhat non-plussed at the women being concerned about children. It's a recurring theme.

The head scratching and bewilderment, could, of course, be a really crap attempt to shut women down. Or it could be a genuine cluelessness about how normal adults view safeguarding.

Because, they also seem shocked that any of the women here even know any people who are trans, much less have children or extended family who identify as such. Their own echo chamber leaves them ignorant of other people.

Or, they're just trying to shut women down, because safeguarding is anathema to them.

Bizarre, really, because trying to shut down safeguarding is a red flag aspect OF safeguarding.

You can spot it from space.

Wow. This is just awful. Increasingly, I feel that I don’t understand the world in which we live.

Edited - posted wrong thread. Page reloaded and went to a different thread ... this keeps happening...?!

There's a strong rearguard DARVO going on at the moment, isn't there?

The UK Supreme Court saying that taking the word 'woman' to mean anything other than 'biological female' would make a nonsense of equality legislation; the IOC and other sporting bodies agreeing that categories of sports/within sports should be maintained; public opinion polls showing increased support for sex-based rights for women and men - all these show a shift towards a re-assertion of fact-based laws, regulations and public attitudes.

This is happening because it is increasingly obvious that there is a big non-factual void at the centre of the transgender movement: human beings cannot change sex. And if a male remains a male from the day he is born to the day he dies, if a female remains a female from the day she is born to the day she dies, a movement organised around the slogans TWAW/TWAM are doomed to failure.

For a while , the disproportionate demands of a tiny % of the population, who already have the same human rights as everyone else, were taken so seriously that they have impacted on education, medicine, the media, the law, even language itself.

Future sociologists will puzzle over how on earth such a small number of people with such flimsy arguments managed to have so much power over some societies - what was it about the zeitgeist in those societies that made them accept such irrational demands?

But all irrational movements have their day, not all of the people were taken in by 'TWAW/TMAM' all of the time, and eventually even the most elaborate houses built on sand collapse.

The rearguard action is bound to be loud and frenetic and DARVOish, as we can see from recent posts here and on other threads - the current DARVO vehicle is 'cult'.

[DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender - a well-known tactic in manipulative personal relationships, but obviously can also be used on an wider level when scrutiny of a social movement reaches a level which questions the validity of its basic tenets..]

It strikes me that if a parent posted on MN in this way about doing something “for their child” the largest number of replies they would receive would be along the lines of “what does your child want?” That no one there, or their cheerleaders here, has even raised that is telling. And chilling.

If the anti- women posters weren't so angry, emotional and nasty I might take their postings a little more seriously. TPA particularly, can be quite offensive. Doesn't feel like debate, more like an attempt to shout FWR posters down or throw insults and constantly shout ' bigot'.
That's not debate.
I think FWR are very clued up on safeguarding actually and don't have a 'narrow, blinkered viewpoint' quite the opposite.

Perhaps all those people chanting TWAW and spouting "trans kids" cannot admit what they are doing may have very serious consequences later. Just look at the venom spouted at de-transitioners!
And the 'anti-trans' bit! Many posters do have trans people in our lives.

I have tried reading 'Erin's posts but find them quite rambling so it puts me off.

I suspect "reddit dad" may not be real, which in itself is concerning. But to read the replies he gets along the lines of " yaaaaay you great dad you" (I'm not quoting directly here, of course) are perhaps seriously gratifying??
Seems quite bizarre. And what of the child's mother?

What kind of a parent? I think we all know.

Take a look in the mirror before accusing others of attacking anyone and everything that doesn't align with your narrow, blinkered viewpoint.

We don't have an 'inner self' that trumps our physical reality. We all have to live in our physical reality, whether that is ageing, disability, strength, or being male in the case of the teenager who is being pushed to try to alter his physical reality.

He can alter it to some extent, cosmetically, but that comes with very significant risks. I disagree with the OP to this extent, though: he is not a 'little lad', he is on the verge of adulthood, and needs to be treated as the age he is, with serious discussion of what is true and factual, what is possible and what is impossible, and what the consequences are of whatever path he takes. At 15, he either needs urgent investigation of why puberty hasn't started, or much more likely he is a fair way through puberty. Pausing or stopping puberty will have very significant consequences, both in terms of mental maturation and physical processes. Those who take the simplistic view that this is just fine, just 'time to think', need to understand that little is known about the long term impacts. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and human understanding of endocrinology and psychology is not all that advanced.

Yes, you’ve come over from Reddit to post nonsense in defence of hormonally altering kids as a brand new poster. It’s not hard to understand.

I’m not outraged, they say as they stamp their feet and spit froth at the laptop..

there’s nothing remotely rational about human beings believing they’ve changed sex or believing that gender trumps sex. Female is not a feeling in a man’s head. Woman is not a costume a man can wear. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria = child abuse.

Wearily resigned so much you started posted on MN for the very first time. That’s weird.