To only now realise that Pride is very anti-women - not just anti-lesbian - but misogynistic and male-orientated

[loveyouradvice]

I had no idea....

prideinlondon.org

Of the TWELVE photos that welcome you to their website ONLY ONE is of women .... and to compound the irony that one is of Stewards, i.e. women helping Pride happen, rather than celebrating and enjoying Pride as an active participant

I am really shocked that in this day and age ANY organisation that claims to represent WOMEN AND MEN can be so foolish as to show that they don't think women are important on the first page of their website.....

Well, quite, LastTrain. The side effects of puberty blockers are one of several reasons why the medical transition of children is utterly unconscionable.

I thought most people hadn't even heard of the consultation on the gender recognition act that might lead towards an easier path to getting a GRC? Assuming that's what you mean by self ID?

Not sure where the figure 82% of British people comes from. Seems like a reach given that the average joe wouldn't have a clue what you're on about, let alone have a considered and settled opinion on.

Well, you'd be wrong. Sorry, were you not aware of the recent YouGov poll? The <a class="break-all" href="https://www-pinknews-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/07/03/exclusive-just-13-of-tory-voters-agree-with-governments-proposed-transgender-policy/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=www.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinknews.co.uk%2F2018%2F07%2F03%2Fexclusive-just-13-of-tory-voters-agree-with-governments-proposed-transgender-policy%2F" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">82% figure comes from a YouGov poll carried out last month. Only 13% of Tory voters agreed with Self-ID which, as we've got a Tory government, suggests Self-ID is not going to be a priority for them. So that's good.

Yes you said you don’t believe humans can change sex. So I’m wondering why transwomen then need to be under the woman umbrella?

Don't know why someone would need to invent worse effects than sterilisation, brain damage, joint damage and cancer and I'm doubtful that anyone did.

Well exactly. I’m intrigued to know what this list was. Because unless it was 360 degree head rotations and demonic possession I suspect it was probably derived from the package insert.

These drugs cause horrific side effects. Even adults taking them for serious conditions like prostate cancer sometimes can’t tolerate the side effects. We have a poster on here who was prescribed them herself in a short term manner for endometriosis who has suffered terribly ever since.

Anyone who has ever watched anyone go through such a gruelling treatment regimen will understand what such effects can be.

But all the side effects are listed on the package insert /prescribing info, by law amd that information is publically available.

They’re given as depot injections by the way, so if you do react particularly badly to them, that’s just how it is for a few months. There’s also a ‘flare’ effect where the production of gonadotropins is initially increased, leading to an exacerbation of the symptoms you’re trying to control.

"It was awful. But unfortunately I don't have an eidetic memory. I think they were going for "literally the worst possible side effects one can think of." It would be laughable if it wasn't terrifying, what they were willing to do"
Even without an eidetic memory surely you can remember a couple?

Even without an eidetic memory surely you can remember a couple?

There were some ones meant to gross you out - genital growths, infected rashes (combined with a horrible picture of bleeding pus etc.) Organ failure was a whole subheading. I think for some reason bronchitis? There were of vomiting blood and dying of dehydration through diarrhoea ... rickets was also on the list, which certainly raised some questions.

It was a tremendously long list. Not sorted into particular types of medication or with sources cited either. I daresay just through the sheer number they might have hit on some genuine side effects, but the vast majority of it was just clearly made up. So made up its laughable.

So I’m wondering why transwomen then need to be under the woman umbrella?

So you can understand why I'd address a trans woman with a woman's name, use 'she' and 'her' ... but not why I'd put her under the woman umbrella?

... but not why I'd put her under the woman umbrella?

A woman is an adult human female. Humans cannot change sex.

Just checking through the list of recorded side effects from the Lupron package insert/prescribing info:

Convulsions, pain; acne; injection site reactions, including pain, swelling, and abscess; rash, including a painful rash with fever, blisters/sores, and facial swelling; vaginitis/vaginal bleeding/vaginal discharge; increased weight; and altered mood.

So yes bleeding rashes don't sound at all out of the scope of effects.

Anaphylactic reactions
Psychiatric events
...body as a Whole – aggravation of preexisting tumor and decreased vision, allergic reaction, body odor, fever, flu syndrome, hypertrophy, infection; Cardiovascular System – bradycardia, hypertension, peripheral vascular disorder, syncope; Digestive System – constipation, dyspepsia, dysphagia, gingivitis, increased appetite, nausea/vomiting; Endocrine System – accelerated sexual maturity, feminization, goiter; Hemic and Lymphatic System – purpura; Metabolic and Nutritional Disorders – growth retarded, peripheral edema, weight gain; Musculoskeletal System – arthralgia, joint disorder, myalgia, myopathy; Nervous System – hyperkinesia, somnolence; Psychiatric System – depression, nervousness; Respiratory System – asthma, epistaxis, pharyngitis, rhinitis, sinusitis; Integumentary System (Skin and Appendages) – alopecia, hair disorder, hirsutism, leukoderma, nail disorder, skin hypertrophy; Urogenital System – cervix disorder/neoplasm, dysmenorrhea, gynecomastia/breast disorders, menstrual disorder, urinary incontinence.

Postmarketing side effects seen - this is directly from the official prescribing info for Lupron -

6.3 Postmarketing
The following adverse events have been observed with this or other formulations of leuprolide acetate injection. As leuprolide has multiple indications, and therefore patient populations, some of these adverse events may not be applicable to every patient.
Allergic reactions (anaphylactic, rash, urticaria, and photosensitivity reactions) have also been reported.
Gastrointestinal Disorders: nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting;
General Disorders and Administration Site Conditions: chest pain, injection site reactions
including induration and abscess have been reported;
Investigations: decreased WBC, weight increased;
Metabolism and Nutrition Disorders: diabetes mellitus;
Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders: tenosynovitis-like symptoms;
Psychiatric Disorders: Emotional lability, such as crying, irritability, impatience, anger, and aggression has been observed with GnRH agonists, including LUPRON DEPOT-PED [see Warnings and Precautions (5.2)]; Depression, including rare reports of suicidal ideation and attempt, has been reported for GnRH agonists, including LUPRON DEPOT-PED, in children treated for central precocious puberty. Many, but not all, of these patients had a history of psychiatric illness or other comorbidities with an increased risk of depression.
Nervous System Disorders: neuropathy peripheral, convulsion [see Warnings and Precautions (5.3)], spinal fracture/paralysis;
Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders: hot flush, flushing, hyperhidrosis; Reproductive System and Breast Disorders: prostate pain;
Vascular Disorders: hypertension, hypotension.
Pituitary apoplexy: During post-marketing surveillance, rare cases of pituitary apoplexy (a clinical syndrome secondary to infarction of the pituitary gland) have been reported after the administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. In a majority of these cases, a pituitary adenoma was diagnosed, with a majority of pituitary apoplexy cases occurring within 2 weeks of the first dose, and some within the first hour. In these cases, pituitary apoplexy has presented as sudden headache, vomiting, visual changes, ophthalmoplegia, altered mental status, and sometimes cardiovascular collapse. Immediate medical attention has been required.

Anything worse than that on the deleted list?

And everyone is totally ok with using these drugs off label in children?

Prawn, thanks for that link. No hadn't seen that article.

Do you maybe have a link to the actual poll results though, because the article dfinitely doesn't give enough info to deduce that 82% against figure, you're using.

Th article says 18% of voters agreed with the plan. So two statistical interpretation points jump out right away.

First, Unless we are told that there were only agree and disagree options, and that all the people surveyed answered, you absolutely can't deduce 100 - 18 = 82% disagreed.

You'd need to know how what other options there were, e.g. Don't know enough to answer, don't care, agree they should consult, agree with the plans, disagree with the plans.

Second, the survey results are given as percentages of voters, which is not the same thing as " the British people ". This isn't as important as the first point, but will certainly reflect demographic issues around voter registration bias - e.g. Missing off all under 18s for starters.

The media are truly shit at reporting statistical information. It's very rare they give enough info for any interpretation to be properly informed.

YouGov is a peculiar company. I only found out recently that it's not actually a government or publicly owned entity. It just ha Sam really clever name to give it gravitas. Crafty buggers! Not saying their results aren't valid, just a little trivia to throw in there.

inter does this work for you?
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fyv38u1wln/PinkNews_Results_180621_w.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQ7vDkv5zcAhWC_aQKHfEfDuYQFjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0Mpq2C8tJnJPcJILG9xmHN" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fyv38u1wln/PinkNews_Results_180621_w.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQ7vDkv5zcAhWC_aQKHfEfDuYQFjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0Mpq2C8tJnJPcJILG9xmHN

I've provided one link, Intercontinental. I think you'll find you can do the rest of the research yourself.

Thank you Bowl. I think all those huge number of side effects are utterly horrible. I can think of no possible justification for prescribing them to gender variant children.

Though no doubt some TRA poster will pop up to say "Waffle, waffle .. suicide..yap, yap, yap." At which point I might lose my temper.

Do you maybe have a link to the actual poll results though, because the article dfinitely doesn't give enough info to deduce that 82% against figure, you're using.

It's an axiom of polling that the "don't knows", when pushed, generally jump in the same proportions as the "already decided".

Wings Over Scotland carried out similar polling a few months previously and got 25% in favour instead of 18% - you could take the 25% if you prefer but you should probably factor in that as public awareness of the implications grows, support falls in inverse proportion.

Whether you approve of self-ID or not, there is no doubt that it is a top down imposition against majority public opinion.

My god! I hadn't realised about those side effects. These are the ones they are giving to children?

Yes mrsmac.

These are from the Lupron package insert. Lupron is puberty blocker - in the UK triptorelin is more used, but they’re the same class of drugs (gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists, often called GnRH agonists) and the side effects are basically the same across the class.

Here’s the similar data sheet for triptorelin:

www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/208956s000lbl.pdf

These are approved for use in adults in things like prostate cancer and for severe endometriosis. They are approved for central precocious puberty in children (Children entering puberty years too young) and when used for that they are monitored extremely carefully and used at the lowest dose possible for the shortest time possible.

They are not approved for use in gender incongruence/gender identity disorder or any other gender questioning type disorder or behaviour.

They are contraindicated in any young person with a coexisting mental illness or psychiatric disorder of any type.

It’s my view that the pushing and prescribing of these drugs to children who are still exploring their identities is a grossly damaging and unethical practice.

Look at that list of side effects then ask yourself what the motives of you tube influencers, lobby groups etc are in pushing for children to be treated before the onset of puberty. Whilst simultaneously demanding demedicalisation for adults.

If anyone can justify that to me, crack on. Because I think it’s the scandal of our times, and that when this all blows up, it’s going to be huge.

Thanks Waddle, that's exactly what I was after. Brilliant.

So the ratio for the total responses is actually
58:18:23
yes to doctor approval needed : no to doctor approval needed : don't know

So the percentage you ought to use in place of 82% is 58% prawn.

So in terms of the ratios of yes doctor : no doctor , yours was 82 : 18 but the real figure is 58 : 18

I can totally see why you made the wrong leap with the data given in the article though - easily done. Stats go off the rails really fast when people don't use the full picture. It's frustratingly common.

Interestingly, the results for London, young people, and remain voters all come in as more like 50:25:25 for yes doctor:no doctor:don't know

18% aware of issue and think that no doctor approval needed is the key stat.

That’s the percentage who are informed of the question and think demedicalisation is a good thing.

Do you think demedicalisation is a good thing? Bearing in mind it’s a push for demedicalisation of adults with a concomitant push for medicalisation of children with drugs having the side effect / action profile as listed above?

I’d be very interested to hear a logical and medically appropriate argument for that (that doesn’t use the fudged suicide figures)

The figures for the other first question are interesting too.

I had no idea such a high proportion of voters would have chosen disapprove of same sex couples having children. Prejudice against homosexuality still going strong in some quarters then.

Much more varied across the demographic groups than the second question.

I'd like to see the correlation between responses. E.g. Does a non approval for same sex parents largely correlate to a doctor required answer on the second question. Tempting to assume that someone who doesn't think gay people should be parents would be unlikely to want to make it easier to change a gender marker, but assumption I should a bad idea in stats land.

Prejudice against homosexuality still going strong in some quarters then.

Yes the trans movement as a whole is homophobic. Especially towards lesbians. It’s not good is it?

Of course not all transpeople. By trans movement I mean the vocal, aggressive trans activist groups - the type who tell lesbians to accept ladydick.
I mean just look at the cotton ceiling for example - that’s homophobic in the extreme.
The idea that a teenager who doesn’t conform to gender stereotyping is automatically the opposite sex and must be transed rather than exploring their ge derband sexual orientation - also homophobic. In fact even Dr Carmichael at the Tavistock has expounded this view - that a lot of (especially young female) patients may in fact turn out to be lesbians. Affirmative treatment and blockers/cross sex hormones is uncomfortably close to conversion therapy for me.

with a concomitant push for medicalisation of children
As far as I know there is no such push. I haven't read the full consultation document yet though.

Since you ask, I'm in agreement with watch and wait, in line with what the NHS is doing now and as far as I know plans to continue to do.

Agree that the 18% is a key stat, but still, the inferred 82% is just plain wrong and really shouldn't be repeated when the real figure is 58%. It's terribly misleading otherwise, and no one likes fudged stats.

We've drifted rather a long way from women's visibility on the pride London website!

Well, the poll was for voters, not just extreme twitter twatters. So I meant the population in general, obviously, as it's the same group as the second question was posed to.

Probably reasonable to assume that if you surveyed a heavily biased minority with extreme views you'd get some extreem results!