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.....

" I got the impression you were pretty clued up on trans stuff from your othe rpost Bertrand, but maybe that's not so. "
I am. Which is why I ask the question.

@rosesandflowers1, you said:

1) They added a load of made up side effects to medication prescribed for trans people. They eventually deleted the list of "side effects" but still push the agenda that it has loads of secret harmful dangers, though are being a lot more vague about it.

The side effects of the drugs, some being used off licence without research having been done, that trans people are being given can be extremely serious, even deadly.

Here's a long scientific article about Lupron, a supposedly harmless puberty blocker. Here's an easier to read article about Lupron's use in children with precocious puberty, who would obviously be taking the drug for a shorter period than a child being medically transitioned.

The cocktail of drugs given to transmen is so cytotoxic that they're advised to have hysterectomies after a few years. The effects are permanent after a couple of years, so if a woman detransitions she'll still have male pattern baldness, male body hair and a deep voice. Considering how young these detransioners typically are, this is tragic.

This a post made by @BowlofBabelfish on another thread:

My area of expertise is human developmental genetics (and allied fields.)

Humans cannot change sex. To tell a child they can change sex is incorrect. To give a healthy child drugs that are off label, unmonitored and actively contraindicated in anyone with mental health issues is irresponsible, unethical and abhorrent. Parents and patients are not being given impartial full information on these drugs. Children are being sterilised and undergoing risky and painful surgery.

I’m employed in a field that has a LOT to do with medical ethics, drug development, directly working with patients, patient facing materials, clinical trial design, paediatric trial populations etc.

Affirmative treatment, blockers and surgery are GROSSLY unethical.

If I exposed patients and their families to the kind of biased information and clinical risk that dosing with blockers does, never mind sterilising children, not only would I be fired, I’d be facing criminal charges with serious time attached.

I cannot believe this is happening. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. This is going to be a huge scandal.

Oh, and you said that we agree transwomen are women - as it's in the name.

No. Nope.

Because if transwomen are women
Transplants are plants
Seahorses are horses...

You get the idea?

Well Owen Jones for one has been quite clear about how he feels about it!

Isn't Owen Jones very vocal about trans issues/rights?

A link or two?

1. Forum on the Student Room, the question is 'gay men, would you date a trans man?'

www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3862951

There's a mix of answers, but I think only one poster objected to the notion that someone willing to date trans men would be gay, and others on the forum openly disagree with him. Men really are making less noise about it - they say they would, they say they wouldn't, they go. Hardly any are trying to gatekeep the definition of it; they seem ultimately unconcerned. I think this is perhaps why there's less resources on it, but I managed to scrounge some.

2. I think it's originally a YouTube video, but the link is to the Reddit page; Jackson Bird interviews Cody Melcher on the exact subject:

www.reddit.com/r/QueerTransmen/comments/8wpidh/a_video_i_found_where_a_trans_guy_jackson_bird/

Jackson is trans, Cody is cis gender, I believe. I haven't watched the full video (in a public place and don't have my headphones) so you'll have to tell me what you think of it.

3. Jay Maddock writes 'reasons to date a trans man ... and reasons you shouldn't.'

medium.com/@justmaddock/reasons-to-date-a-transgender-man-6c652bcea37

He objects specifically to the idea that a lesbian would date a trans man, saying 'I am not a faux man ... if you are attracted to me that has more to do with you than it well ever have to do with me.'

It's clear here that he refuses to apply the definitions based solely on biology, referring to it as an 'oversimplification of your complicated sexuality.' He's discussing lesbians who date trans men here, not gay men, as this is in the context of his ex girlfriend, but the concept is clear; if you are interested in trans men you are interested in men, he is saying. Essentially his point is sexuality has to accommodate gender, not just sex. Whether or not you agree with Jay, he clearly is of the belief that the definition has changed.

4. Cosmopolitan sums it up pretty simply:

Dating us [being trans men] doesn't make you gay. Unless you're a guy, of course!

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/amp40338/dating-transgender-guy-information/

If you want more Google 'cis guy dating trans guy' or 'cis guy dating ftm'. There's everything from sex tips to debates to personal anecdotes.

@Prawnofthepatriarchy

I'm aware that there are problems - to say the least - with current medication, but surely they could have said real issues with them? Why did they make a list of side effects up? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

And an amusing jibe about sea horses But the fact that you have accepted the term trans woman definitely does say something more than horses. Trans women coming under the umbrella of 'women' implies that we have come to associate the term 'women' with gender identity, more than sex.

Regardless, evidence suggests that "encouraging the fantasy" - so, allowing them to live life as the gender they understand they are - does improve life for them.

Evidence actually suggests very high rates of suicide, shortened lifespans, osteoporosis, sterilization obviously and a number of other things.

Trans people pay a very high price for the way people have decided to help them. I think it is worth remembering this when we talk about the issue: depending on what the future science establishes we may be talking, 10 years from now, about one of the greatest medical abuses in history.

For someone who has been irreversibly changed, there is no alternative but to be fiercely invested in their status as a woman, it's not like they can truly go back on it. So I think we make some allowances for them being perhaps understandably OTT about it, and try to treat them with dignity and respect as much as possible.

I believe we can be assertive and not allow women's rights and boundaries to be encroached on at the same time as doing this, it mostly requires that people not get angry about it, and not give ground where ground should not be given - see for instance recent discussion of the "moral basis" for women's consent. We can say "actually no, that is an absolute boundary, no way" but not get into the realm of fury.

Rosesandflowers, way to spectacularly miss the point, and make false claims into the bargain.

I do not use "trans" as an adjective denoting a type of woman, e.g. tall or old. I use transwoMAN as a noun on its own. A noun that has the word "MAN" in it. A transwoman is, by definition, a man.

Snapdragons aren't dragons...

As for the side effects issue? You're flailing about, trying to minimize. Trying to backpedal. Too late for that. We see you.

Oh ok Bertrand. I was confused because it seemed like a bit of an ingenue question to ask, and really easily answered by a quick google.

Anyway, answer is yes, trans guys can be gay or straight, and there are plenty of trans guys on the gay side of things, as recognised by Grindr and other gay hookup apps.

Again, there is a paucity of language which can make for some interesting thought experiments about the meanings of words. Interesting from a linguistics point of view.

The lived experience is real and happening, whether any of us as individuals can wrap our heads around it or not.

We see you
Come again? What does that bit mean prawn - is it like the poker thing for betting?

The nouns contains other nouns is all a bit of a red herring isn't it. Woman contains man, peanut contains nut etc etc. English is notoriously non rigorous in formation and grammar and spellings and, well, everything really, so that's a blind alley to go chasing around in.

If you don't like transwoman because it contains woman then by extension you'd have to rule out woman because it contains man. Daft, or at least questionable in terms of logic or reasoning.

As for the side effects issue? You're flailing about, trying to minimize. Trying to backpedal. Too late for that. We see you.

Was I not clear?

There are side effects to certain medications - some of which I believe are too great for the medication to be prescribed. There are also some medications that haven't been researched very thoroughly and I think some might have not been researched at all.

That's an issue on its own. To make up ludicrous side effects for other medications which are safer to use is a shameless fear tactic, trying to discourage people from taking medication at all.

I think what you might be 'seeing' is me not blindly supporting everything to do with trans, despite my views. People like you tend to see this as 'flailing' because you support everything that correlates somehow with your ideology, no matter the morals or sense in it.

I do not use "trans" as an adjective denoting a type of woman, e.g. tall or old. I use transwoMAN as a noun on its own. A noun that has the word "MAN" in it. A transwoman is, by definition, a man.

I think you'll find that's not really the definition at all, nor has it ever been.

I often find when discussing with the gender critical that they'll make a point based on their own perceptions of definitions/words; they've cancelled out a particular definition based on their ideology, rewrote it, and expect their point to remain valid and understood.

If you want to use 'transwoman' as a noun entirely on its own, then really that's up to you. But as a general rule, 'trans' is being used as a premodifier for 'woman', much as 'cis' is. So yes, that's a sign that as a whole, the definition of woman is changing. Your decision to make it one word, presumably to sit more comfortably with you, does not cancel that out.

But the fact that you have accepted the term trans woman definitely does say something more than horses.

Not really. All the other terms have been banned under pain of deletion and suspension over in feminism chat. We are not allowed to use any term which references the actual sex of the person at birth. So transwoman/women it is. We can’t say anything else.

So transwoman/women it is. We can’t say anything else.

Oh, really? I understood some terms were banned but I didn't realise it was that extensive.

Is that why some people have decided to use it all as one word?

made up side effects

Ye gods. No sorry I have to step in here. Is that actually being touted as something people have done? Made up side effects? And people are told this? Where?

Who is telling them? If it’s anyone connected with the medical profession that’s a strikeable off offence.

The side effects are NOT made up. They’re listed as per legal requirement on the package insert.

GnRH analogs (the class of drugs called puberty blockers) have horrendous side effects.

They’re not licensed to treat gender dysphoria. Their ONLY licence in children is treatment of central precocious puberty. They are actively contraindicated in anyone with any coexisting mental health issue (which is almost all people seeking help at gender clinics according to the clinics themselves.)

The side effects include but are not limited to:
severe psychiatric effects - indeed the FDA is investigating Lupron and the rest of GnRH analogs in this context.

Osteoporosis
Joint damage
Endocrine disruption (obviously)
Sterility - fertility does not always return
Metabolic disruption

These are powerful drugs. They are not a harmless pause button on puberty and the effects are NOT fully reversible.

I am genuinely shocked by the concept that people are being told the side effects are made up - please can you tell me who is making these allegations and in what capacity? This is GMC referral level stuff.

Jesus god, just when I thought I could t be more appalled...

Is that why some people have decided to use it all as one word?

I will not use two words.

Do you believe humans can change sex?

Intercontinental, the "we see you" is a shorthand reference to the Maya Angelou quote: When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. In an intimate setting it's a reminder to listen to what's really going on, rather than what someone else's telling you is going on. People counselling victims of abuse encourage this as a way to check on what's going on inside a relationship. In the far less emotional setting of a debate it's a way of saying I can see a poster's agenda is not what they say it is.

Rosesandflowers speaks as if she's arguing in good faith. But when I produce scientific evidence that she's wrong she doesn't address it, but evades the issue. That's disingenuous. It shows she isn't interested in establishing the truth.

It's not me who is objecting to the word transwoman. Rosesandflowers is saying that transwomen are women because the word 'woman" makes up part of the word transwoman. I replied pointing out that the word "man" also makes up part of that word.

Hence all the mucking about with stuff like:

Corresponds are not ponds...

I've always used it as one word. Transwoman.

I appreciate that transactivists would like everyone to use trans and cis, making both subcategories of the word "woman".

Ain't gonna happen. Because it's made up bollocks. People can't change sex. And over 80% of the great British public agree.

The prescribing data for triptorelin:

www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/020715s032,021288s028,022437s008lbl.pdf

Side effects also include diabetes (both onset worsening.) forgot that one...

These drugs were developed as powerful hormone blockers for adult cancers. The idea that they’re pushed on children and people are being told he side effects are made up - I mean I cannot tell you how shocking that is.

There are going to be some epic, epic criminal prosecutions once these children realise what has been done to them. It’s heartbreaking.

roses and flowers

Do you believe humans can change sex?

*In the far less emotional setting of a debate it's a way of saying I can see a poster's agenda is not what they say it is."

Ah, ok, so like you think the poster is trolling? Or just you sort of project what you think they are meaning to something more extreme?

I suppose with the Maya Angelou quote about someone telling you who they are you should believe them (love MA all the time in all the ways) it applies all round. So coming back to the leaflet the protesters gave out at pride, that comes over loud and clear to me as anti trans, even though the protesters claim it isn't. So you could use "I see you" in that's context too. Like I see you being transphobic even though you say you aren't.

intercontinental

Do you believe humans can change sex?

Ye gods. No sorry I have to step in here. Is that actually being touted as something people have done? Made up side effects? And people are told this? Where?

No, no, the genuine side effects aren't made up.

Get the L Out originally printed a list of side effects that were made up, back in their early days, to try and scare people into not seeking any medication. Thankfully they were essentially unknown at the time and it didn't work.

Do you believe humans can change sex?

You can have surgery to reconstruct parts of your body or change your appearance, but as of current you can't change your genetics.

Yet another disingenuous poster, Intercontinental. The lesbian protest must've been extremely successful to draw out so many unapologetic lesbophobes over the last fortnight. "Anti trans" my arse

Way to go, sisters!

Whenever I went to pride there were loads of women, and everyone seemed blend together into one big lovely group. I haven't been since 2006 tho

Just on the point of "Is that why some people have decided to use it all as one word?" - it was actually used as one word before it was decided that was othering. Something like, over time:

Transsexual vs woman, then
Transwoman vs woman, then
Trans woman vs cis woman.

It has more recently been used as
Woman and cis woman

See also "female" which used to be an accepted word referring to sex not gender, but is now used as "I am female, I was assigned male incorrectly at birth".
And on that note, see "I was born a boy and I'm now a transwoman" gradually change over time to "I have always been female".

"Get the L Out originally printed a list of side effects that were made up"
Did they? Like what?