What does your network think about trans people?

[deeter]

Immediate family think it's all a bit silly, trans people should be treated well but you cannot change sex. Women's spaces should be protected etc.

But interestingly all of my university friends think trans women are women (did go to a London uni with well to do sorts).

I'm 31 btw.

A few interesting papers that lead to other interesting papers. This post will contain links but I hope to add more later.

The Dutch Model is falling apart

By Stella O'Malley / 2 January 2023

First, Stella O’Malley writes about an article in Nederlands that is throwing a great deal of light on the Dutch Protocol. It also seems that there will be a review of the patients that the Dutch team had not previously included in their papers.

This article in the Nederlands points out the dangers on only using a nation’s own sources with no international input or even wide review.

genspect.org/the-dutch-model-is-falling-apart/

Then SEGM has published on Colin Wright’s substack a version of their previously published article.

5 False Assumptions Behind Youth Gender Transitions

2nd Jan 2023

www.realityslaststand.com/p/5-false-assumptions-behind-youth

Here is the original

segm.org/false-assumptions-gender-affirmation-minors

( segm.org )

[This reviewed Stephen M. Rosenthal‘s paper in Nature, 10 August 2021:

“Challenges in the care of transgender and gender-diverse youth: an endocrinologist’s view”

www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00535-9 ]

The five unproven assumptions are:

Unproven Assumption 1: Gender identity, which underlies gender dysphoria, is a fundamental personal characteristic that is biologically “ingrained.”

Unproven Assumption 2: The sharp rise in the number of youth presenting with gender dysphoria does not signal a true increase in cases—it’s merely better detection.

False Assumption 3: Medical interventions in gender-dysphoric minors have clear eligibility criteria.

False Assumption 4: Medical interventions for gender dysphoric minors have been demonstrated to be safe and effective.

Unproven Assumption 5: Detransition does not represent medical harm and is rare.

This has then had quite a few interesting links.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2160396?src=

Some Limitations of “Challenges in the Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: An Endocrinologist’s View”

from J. Cohn, Published online: 24 Dec 2022

Abstract:

There is significant disagreement about how to support trans-identified or gender-dysphoric young people. Different experts and expert bodies make strikingly different recommendations based upon the same (limited) evidence. The US-originating “gender-affirmative” model emphasizes social transition and medical intervention, while some other countries, in response to evidence reviews of medical intervention outcomes, have adopted psychological interventions as the first line of treatment. A proposed model of gender-affirming care, comprising only medical intervention for “eligible” youth, is described in Rosenthal (2021). Determining eligibility for these medical interventions is challenging and engenders considerable disagreement among experts, neither of which is mentioned. The review also claims without support that medical interventions have been shown to clearly benefit mental health, and leaves out significant risks and less invasive alternatives. The unreliability of outcome studies and the corresponding uncertainties as to how gender dysphoria develops and responds to treatment are also unreported.

This has many other links to follow.

Then there was this review of US Military health insurance records for transition persistence. 30% discontinued to take hormones. That is a significant chunk. But you seem to be overly confident that it is an overwhelming majority of trans people who transition are happy with their decision and are able to live more fulfilling lives as a result.

I think the numbers are not stacking up to 'overwhelming' at all... I think you have little depth of understanding of the real and significant issues yet you feel you can make statements that are actually harmful because it is misinformation.

academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/107/9/e3937/6572526?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

”Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults”

Christina M Roberts,
David A Klein, Terry A Adirim,
Natasha A Schvey, Elizabeth Hisle-Gorman

22 April 2022

Results
The study sample included 627 transmasculine and 325 transfeminine individuals with an average age of 19.2 ± 5.3 years. The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-76.5). Transfeminine individuals had a higher continuation rate than transmasculine individuals 81.0% (72.0%-90.0%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). People who started hormones as minors had higher continuation rate than people who started as adults 74.4% (66.0%-82.8%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). Continuation was not associated with household income or family member type. In Cox regression, both transmasculine gender identity (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.86) and starting hormones as an adult (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.52) were independently associated with increased discontinuation rates.
Here is another study:

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

E. Abbruzzese, Stephen B. Levine, Julia W. Mason

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

Our analysis of the Dutch protocol has been written with three goals in mind. First, we wanted to definitively refute the claims that the foundational Dutch research represents “solid prospective research” that provides reliable evidence of net benefits of youth gender transition. In fact, it is much better described as case series—one of the lowest levels of evidence available (Dekkers et al., Citation2012, Mathes & Pieper, Citation2017). Second, we aimed to demonstrate that the type of non-comparative, short-term research that the gender medicine establishment continues to pursue is incapable of generating reliable information. And third and most importantly, we wanted to remind the medical community that medicine is a double-edged sword capable of both much good and much harm. The burden of proof—demonstrating that a treatment does more good than harm—is on those promoting the intervention, not on those concerned about the harms. Until gender medicine commits to conducting high quality research capable of reliably demonstrating the preponderance of benefits over harms of these invasive interventions, we must be skeptical of the enthusiasm generated by headlines claiming that yet another “gender study” proved benefits of transitioning youth. This time-honored concern about risk/benefit ratio is a sobering reminder that the history of medicine is replete with examples of “cures” which turned out to far more harmful than the “disease.”

Only men can rape with a penis.

You don't get the right to decide if men should be in girl's and women's changing rooms and safe spaces. If any girls or women say no, why would we not respect that and instead override them for biological males who feel they are women. What gives you the right to override them.

Yes, men murder. At a much higher rate than women. Men are also responsible for what, more than 95% of violent sexual offences.

So, in 'welcoming' transwomen (men) into your spaces, that's what you're exposing other women to. Because all a man has to do is say he is trans. Thats enough to be granted access. There is no test for 'tru trans'. No test for 'nice men only'.

Barbie Khardashian, Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski - I notice you couldn't bring yourself to reference their names - have access to women's spaces because of attitudes like yours.

You say you don't want to share spaces with them, but what about incarcerated women who can't escape?

Exactly. These handmaidens would throw other women to one side to make way fir biological men who may or may not be safe.

And by the way stolencookie maybe you were unaware that even the WHO and other health agencies around the world disagree with your statement.

The NICE finding

arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment

The summary of the conclusion is

Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.

AND

This is a report on The Swedish changes - based on lack of evidence.

genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/

AND

Australia and NZ College of Psychiatrists publish a warning there is not enough evidence.

//www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/gender-dysphoria

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have now updated their guidance.

They are now warning that there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to recommend affirming only treatments or indeed any particular treatment plan. They now say that underlying health issues should be treated at the same time. And warn that medicalisation of children and teens be very careful and thoroughly explored considering the ‘paucity’ of evidence at this time.

AND

The Cass Review Interim Report - stating there is not enough evidence!

cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Bookmarked.pdf

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor

From Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Finnish Psychiatrist who developed the treatment plans for Finnish Gender Clinics.

And

Here is Dr Az Hazeem saying he had about 26% of his patients regretted transitioning.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12623643/Being-trans-non-binary-new-sub-culture-risk-raising-nation-chemically-castrated-children-Doctor-spent-12-years-working-vulnerable-teens-Tavistock-warns-gender-ideology.html

He said 26 per cent of his patients at the Tavistock and Portman regretted transitioning.

AND

In January 2024, the WHO has become the latest to declare that there is a significant lack of evidence that the current treatment for children and adolescents around gender.

"the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents"

tgdfaq16012024.pdf (who.int)

This update came less than a month after the WHO released what was supposedly their guidelines that were supposedly, at the time, very well evidenced and supposedly balanced.

Please don't make such unsubstantiated claims. It really is very harmful for others who might believe you know anything about what you are talking about.

I am very happy to keep posting links about Detransition and the health complications that people have from these treatments.

I have quite a few.

Strangely enough @StolenCookie I keep an eye on the current research as an when it comes in. It is quite obvious that YOU don't though. And I don't think you even put any thought into this at all.

Just for those who have continued to not read the thread but who think that it is ok that women should share spaces that are expected to be single sex with a sub-set of male people, could you please answer these four questions relating to safeguarding ?

What is the evidence that the RISK of male people with a trans identity (at any point in that transition) committing a sex offence is lower than the rest of the male UK population for safeguarding.

What is the process exactly that lowers this risk, or if your answer is that they are some how no longer male, what is this process exactly also?

If there is no process that lowers this risk, why should this sub-group of male people be treated any differently to ALL other UK male people?

Do you think that female people should have any designated single sex spaces under the EA2010?

In other words, why do you personally think other women should accept any male over the age of about 8 years old into female single sex spaces just because they told you that they were now 'women' which is only their belief and never material reality?

Oh look, the old 'women do it too' argument, so who cares if we let men in.

Men commit 98% of all sex offences.
Men rape.

Women and girls make up the majority of victims of these crimes.

Men also commit the vast majority of murders.

We can't tell which men will be a danger so how are you proposing to keep out such individuals when 'trans' is whatever someone says without question?

A man claiming to be a woman poses the same risk as a man that doesn't, because that risk is based on their sex class as a whole, not individual feelings.

The most basic safeguarding to help protect women and girls in spaces where they are more vulnerable or in a state of undress is for said spaces to be single sex.

You either let ALL men in or you keep ALL men out.
There is no compromise.

How many women and girls are you happy to be collateral damage so that a subset of men don't get hurt feelings?

Why are you happy for an entire sex class to have their rights and protections removed, solely because some men want to call themselves women?

How many women and girls are you happy to be collateral damage so that a subset of men don't get hurt feelings?

The most important question.

Let's put a number on it @StolenCookie - what's it to be?

By the way, cookies and others reading. There have already been female people raped in toilets by male people with a trans identity.

I suggest you also consider that in the UK prison population at the moment that over 50% of the male prisoners with trans Identities are sex offenders. This is very different from the rest of the UK male prisoner statistics.

So. There is no evidence these male people have any lower propensity to commit sex offenses than the rest of the male population in the UK. We don’t allow the rest of the UK male population to enter female single sex spaces.

Why does anyone on this thread think we should allow male people into our spaces?

How do we know which are the lovely male people and which are not?

(Actually, one way to tell is that those lovely male people don’t use female toilets ever, they find another solution if there is no unisex provision.)

Thanks. Yes I have retained ly been there and simply and justifiably used the disabled unit. I would not leave a baby in a public toilet area with the door half open.

You can’t reduce an entire group of people to the actions of a few. I work in the mental health profession and there are a greater number of men who sexually exploit vulnerable female patients than women who commit similar crimes. We don’t ban men entirely from the profession because of this. Will some male therapists go on to abuse their patients? Yes, 100%. Same as some male teachers will go on to rape their students. Male police officers will do the same. More men commit violent crimes than women, there’s no getting around that. Are all future female victims collateral damage? I don’t believe so, no. It’s a sad fact that these incidents will happen, but the solution is not to ban whole groups of people from certain spaces or professions.

Trans women are still all welcome in my changing rooms, and they are women to me. I honestly don’t care what anyone says, you’re not changing my mind. If my 17 month old son gets older and tells me he identifies as female, she will be my daughter, and I will fight for her rights!

And yet, disabled people ask that people stop doing this because it blocks their usage. You have just prioritised your need above a disabled person.

Males as a sex class are a greater risk to women than women are. You have stated this yourself. We cannot tell which men pose this risk so safeguarding measures are put in place such as segregation by SEX. This risk doesn't change if one male decides to identify as something else.

Of course there are bad policemen/firemen etc etc but there are things like background checks are in place to try and root out this, doesn't always work. This doesn't mean though you dismantle ALL safeguarding sex based measures to appease a few.

It's really not difficult.

Banning males from professions like teaching or medicine is an overreaction. Banning males from women's spaces is an appropriate safeguard.
(Signed a male)

Men cannot become women. Your son cannot become your daughter.

If we had separate spaces for men, women, transmen and transwomen along with equally separate sports and statistical analysis of wages, employment etc. Then the trans issue wouldn’t be an issue.

Everyone would be in their own space and compete against like for like.
This is what the trans community should be fighting for if they really care about others and want equality.

Pretty much everyone I know is aware that you can't change biological sex, you can change your gender. That trans women are women. And trans men are men. That trans rights are as important as all rights issues. That it's up to the individual how they want to identify and it's important to make an effort to use someone's chosen pronouns, even if you cock up now and then.

No one has to believe in an ideology if they don't want to.

Previously I’d have said I couldn’t really care less…

But when your ex husband decides he’s a woman and turns up to your older primary aged child’s school wearing a dress… or from a guides event in a mini skirt… or to the park in hot pants… 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

She will be, if that’s her gender identity when she’s older. For me, and all trans people, sex is distinct from gender. Nothing anyone here tells me about chromosomes or the impossibility of altering your biological sex means anything to someone who doesn’t prescribe to the view that gender and sex are inextricably linked.

So, my son will become my daughter if they tell me that’s who they are.

Nobody in my immediate circle gives a shit, I really don't think that society as a whole gives much of a shit either.

Even on social media, the only people banging the drum are not the kind of people that I want to associate with, a lot are grifters who change their beliefs and values depending on what their favourite far right groups do.

You can’t reduce an entire group of people to the actions of a few.

And yet, we do this where we can, such as single sex spaces. Under the EA2010 there is legimate provision for exempting male people in female single sex spaces.

You are now using the 'they are going to do it anyway' argument. And you are actively supporting women and girls being put into additional risk to suit the beliefs some male people who have the exact same risk level to the male people that have excluded for a purpose. There is no logic to it.

But that is ok, it seems that you are ideologically driven to defend your actions in doing this. If that sits well for you, have at it. I take it that you also support putting any male who says they are a woman into women's prison estates too by the sound of your beliefs.

And that traumatised women have no right to be in a domestic abuse shelter without any male person. And that traumatised women shouldn't be able to be in a group that is only female people.

But it is great to have these conversations.