To think that this book should not be sold to young girls?

[WandaWomblesaurus]

twitter.com/Waterstones/status/1623584986740953091?s=20&t=WU0D0fzc6ClGJC5R-gJnuw

Waterstones tweeted celebrating a book that is about transing girls. Here is one of the illustrations from the book.

AIBU to think that this is directly promoting self harm to young vulnerable girls?

Lockheart · Today 19:08
You called other posters useful idiots. If that's not name calling I'm not sure what is.

Gaslighting at it's finest though, well done.

A “useful idiot” is a political term.

^Useful idiot
Description
In political jargon, a useful idiot is a term currently used to reference a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause—particularly a bad cause originating from a devious, ruthless source—without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically being used by the cause's leaders.^
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Useful idiot - Wikipedia
Web results

^dictionary.cambridge.org
dictionary.cambridge.org › u...
USEFUL IDIOT | English meaning
a person who is easy to persuade to do, say, or believe things that help a particular group or another person politically: If they let their faith be used as a^ ...

^Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com › ...
Useful idiot Definition & Meaning
The meaning of USEFUL IDIOT is a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda^

He's always identified with feminine clothes, toys etc. He recently went in dressed a a woman to a party ?( only girls there)
He dresses in pastel nike , head to toe and is growing his hair. He grows and paints his nails, very pale shades. He loves sheer colour chapsticks and female body sprays.

How this plays out as he is heading to be 6' + is anyone's guess!

I can see it's unsettling to question the motivations of those who steer discussions away from safeguarding children onto adult issues. I accept that some will find that rude and warrant a deletion, while others will feel it's important to call out those adults who they see as using children as human shields to promote an adult ideology.

That's the problem with online - it's difficult to be certain of people's motivations. I understand that some adults feel that trans rights are so important that they outweigh safeguarding children. Many others believe that the safety of children must always be paramount. That distinction matters - especially on a board where a majority are parents.

The 80% quoted is presumably a reference to earlier evidence that with watchful waiting, a high percentage of children suffering from gender identity disorder recovered during puberty.

Unlike the Dutch Study, the results of which have never been reproduced in later studies, it was relatively reliably established that the majority of children recovered as they went through puberty.

I understand that some adults feel that trans rights are so important that they outweigh safeguarding children
Nobody on this thread has said anything of the sort though

That is an absolute joke of a study.

@TeaKlaxon did you read it yourself before you posted it? Did you hope that no one would actually find it? How embarrassing.

I suspect TeaKlaxon didn’t have the in depth knowledge of the actual paper, just spouted the ideological line from Stonewall.

What is hugely concerning is how such a pathetic paper with such poor methodology that hasn’t even been published anywhere has gained so much traction in the detransition data debate.

That’s trans ideology in medicine in a nutshell: terrible data that’s trumpeted and carried with weight around the world before anyone sensible has the chance to point out how much nonsense it is. See also Turban’s nonsense making mainstream press before being utterly dismantled as joke research.

NotBadConsidering · Today 15:05
Right, so I’ve found the incredibly strong evidence that TeaKlaxon quoted for low rates of detransition. 🙄……

and all the rest you posted.

Thank you for your work in rooting that out, and debunking it. 👏👏👏

And yet it’s “studies” that this that are supposed to support destroying the sexual and reproductive systems of healthy children.

The 80% quoted is presumably a reference to earlier evidence that with watchful waiting, a high percentage of children suffering from gender identity disorder recovered during puberty.

Unlike the Dutch Study, the results of which have never been reproduced in later studies, it was relatively reliably established that the majority of children recovered as they went through puberty.

Exactly. I also note that Teaklaxon has accused me of lying about the lack of evidence base. I note that Teaklaxon has been unable to provide any strong evidence to refute my claim about lack of evidence base (anything by Jack Turban or more fiction from trans activists doesn’t count).

There’s no evidence of 80% children with diagnosed gender dysphoria changing their minds.

That figure when it’s trotted out tends to refer to studies that show that high numbers of children who express any gender issues or gender non-conformity desist. But that’s really not the same thing, since we’re specifically talking about children who are receiving medical treatment - which is a small minority of those referred to GIDS who in turn are a small minority of those who have expressed gender issues or non-conformity.

Of course I read it.

The study is considerably more robust than others that have been presented here - including one that a poster claims shows a 30% detransition rate because 30% of participants in a military medical programme stopped getting their hormones through that programme.

Only problem was the median age of participants was right on the cusp of the age at which participants would be no longer eligible to benefit from the programme!

By contrast, using medical records to identify those who have actually expressed regret or an intention to detransition is pretty sound methodology.

Of course it’s not without its limitations - which is why I don’t rely on one study - there are at least five that I’ve presented that show detransition rates of below 5% (some considerably below).

Another incorrect statement - I’ve posted five studies that prove low detransition rates.

Meanwhile the 80% figure that you’ve trotted out is irrelevant because it is not 80% desistance among children with established gender dysphoria.

No. Because children’s sexual and reproductive systems aren’t being destroyed.

medical records would be useful if recorded in a neutral setting by a neutral recorder but not at all in a gender clinic.

It’s a terrible study - in order for regret to be recorded a participant needs to:
a) go back to the setting where the harm occurred
b) express their regret the key words that would be recognised by a search and
c) have their expressed regret actually recorded using those terms.

It’s pointless.

It has been posited that puberty is also when the brain goes through huge developmental changes and puberty blockers may inhibit this, to keep the brain from fully developing. Just wondering which groups of people wound have a vested interest in producing legal adults with the bodies and brains of children and who are incapable of complete sexual functions. Any ideas @TeaKlaxon ?

You can deny it all you want. It’s true. Even WPATH’s own President, Marci Bowers says of the males presenting for surgery who were blocked at Tanner Stage 2 are anorgasmic.

Everyone should read this:

The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed

It explains properly where the 80% figure comes from. Not TeaKlaxon’s science denial.

I was just going to say that as well.

Who benefits from feminine presenting boys with the genitals of a 9-10 year old as adults. Who will they have relationships with? Who would want to have sex with an adult male who has no desire and the genitals of a young boy?

How is the “life saving” treatment? It’s macabre and there’s a dark undertone to it all

Meanwhile the 80% figure that you’ve trotted out is irrelevant because it is not 80% desistance among children with established gender dysphoria.

The point about children is that their brains and bodies take time to develop so no feelings or ideas about themselves can be said to be established until they are established as adults.

What a false measurement to take the 20 % who persist in their dysphoria into adulthood (out of 100 who expressed it while younger) and say these therefore represent 100% of the ones with established dysphoria and prove what a low desistance rate there is among them.

Also, what are the other variables in persistent established dysphoria such as the homophobic or transhausen parents who worked on the children since they were 2 and then had them affirmed, heavy affirming on the internet or school, lack of support to over come traumas, or those autistic children with black and white thinking?

Apart from anything else once you’ve dragged your body through hormonal changes and surgeries, and possibly spent a fortune, and told your friends and family, what can you do except go on? We don’t know what people are feeling even if they don’t de-transition.

How is the “life saving” treatment? It’s macabre and there’s a dark undertone to it all

Especially when you consider WPATH’s latest so-called “Standards of Care” contain a chapter on Eunuchs as a gender identity that was written in collaboration with someone who hosts a private website containing child sex abuse fantasy stories about children who have been castrated.

https://reduxx.info/top-trans-medical-association-collaborated-with-castration-child-abuse-fetishists/

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH),
the international association which sets guidelines for the medical ‘transitioning’ of children, has been collaborating with participants of a fetish forum that hosts and produces fictional child pornography and extreme sadomasochistic content.

But children aren’t routinely given cross-sex hormones in the UK.

NHS medical records aren’t restricted to one setting. So this study would capture any expression of regret to any NHS health provider.

Second, of course they searched for specific terms. But those terms were obviously the correct ones to search.

So (a) isn’t true. (b) also isn’t true - the patient themselves wouldn’t have to use specific terms. Only (c) is true - but it’s not a great criticism since there aren’t many variations on the terms searched.