Transgender Documentary on BBC2 Thursday 2100 "Transgender Kids: Who Knows best?"

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Looks like an interesting watch, that does not just accept the trans children or they will kill themselves rhetoric. I just hope the BBC actually do show it and aren't bullied into not showing it.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b088kxbw

The blurb:

Around the world there has been a huge increase in the number of children being referred to gender clinics - boys saying they want to be girls and vice versa. Increasingly, parents are encouraged to adopt a 'gender affirmative' approach - fully supporting their children's change of identity. But is this approach right?

In this challenging documentary, BBC Two's award-winning This World strand travels to Canada, where one of the world's leading experts in childhood gender dysphoria (the condition where children are unhappy with their biological sex) lost his job for challenging the new orthodoxy that children know best. Speaking on TV for the first time since his clinic was closed, Dr Kenneth Zucker believes he is a victim of the politicisation of transgender issues. The film presents evidence that most children with gender dysphoria eventually overcome the feelings without transitioning and questions the science behind the idea that a boy could somehow be born with a 'female brain' or vice versa. It also features 'Lou' - who was born female and had a double mastectomy as part of transitioning to a man. She now says it is a decision that 'haunts' her and feels that her gender dysphoria should have been treated as a mental health issue.

Well I'm guessing male with CAIS.
You do know though that women with CAIS are not reproductively female though and their gonads are testes?
You do also know that a medical condition such as CAIS has nothing to do with a condition where a physically healthy and fertile person believes themselves to be the opposite sex?

"However I recommend having a look through the whole thing, particularly if you were thinking of taking Makena or some similar progestin-based treatment during your pregnancy." I have no idea what that means and if we're now moving on to hormones causing autism, not in exposed children but grandchildren, then there really is no point in trying to engage in any kind of scientific debate. Next we'll move on to how mercury in vaccines causes autism and drug companies have found a cure for all types of cancer but are keeping it hidden.

Poppy, do chemtrails make you turn into an alien? Is the earth flat? I mean, if we're running the gamut of ridiculous non science, we should cover a wider field, surely?

Right Hughdoesn'tlisten THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT INTERSEX CONDITIONS - TRANSGENDER DOES NOT = INTERSEX

illegitimateMortificadospawn a massive derail

Hugh - Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a fast learner? I'm only asking because you start one of your verbose essays with "The process of sexually dimorphic development doesn't even start until six weeks after conception " which clearly shows that you have not quite understood my earlier comment that stages of pregnancy are counted in weeks since 1st day of last period, not from conception.

P.S.: Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Sex of a baby is determined by the sperm that fertilises the egg, at the moment of conception.

P.P.S.: You might want to know that the 1st picture you posted at 15:41 says male genitalia differentiation happens at 13 weeks, which contradicts your earlier claim of 12 weeks.

Hugh this person has an intersex condition which is an abnormality. That has nothing to do with trans as many others have said. You are lacking in basic knowledge about normal human development should I don't expect any great insights from you regarding any abnormalities in development.

It is very interesting intersex is now being used to explain transgender.
Intersex conditions are due to chromosomal differences, XXY etc.
It is good these debates occur but sad that vulnerable teens are swayed.
Much of this stuff was taught during a levels and at university for me so have is someone with no interest in biology supposed to navigate all the dodgy information.

This thread seems to have been pretty thoroughly taken over.

I'll leave these links here.

disqus.com/by/Hughspeaks

m.facebook.com/synthetichormonesaredangerous

Well. That explains a bit.

Am deja vu -ing or is the same fucker who was derailing last week? Droning on about hormones not being important?

Does it really matter, either way? The impact is still the same.

Well, it seems Hugh cares a lot about prenatal exposure to synthetic hormones and looks marginally more feminine than Danielle Muscato.

King Kong looks more feminine than Danielle Muscato.

Oh lord!

The reason why there might be differences between the brains of men who perform femininity and the ones who perform masculinity is down to brain plasticity, not because babies are born with blue brains and pink brains.

There are differences in the brains of men who undertake prodigious feats of memory, such as London cabbies and men who don't, but no one ever suggests that being a black cabbie is there from birth. Unless someone is going to come along and suggest that they are exposed to large amounts of diesel and hay in utero?

@hugh

I get the impression that you're trying to bamboozle us into agreeing with you. You keep firing off biological 'facts' with lots of jargon and statistics.

The thing is, if transgenderism was natural, then it could be explained simply with the pink/blue brain theory.

I've watched the video and she has an intersex condition and ends the piece by saying no body is shameful, having gone through feelings of shame and breast implants because she didn't feel her body was feminine enough.

So the take away message seems is about accepting your physical body for what it is. Which is what most of us have been arguing for on this thread. That would seem to support the wait and see, cautious approach that Zucker advocates, or am I missing the point?

Why is everyone so readily dismissing the study findings that Hugh is talking about? I'm not interested in getting into any arguments with anyone, but I just ask that everyone please have an open mind. There is validity in what Hugh has been talking about...my life is a testament to that.

I myself am and my mother are victims of DES (Diethylstilbestrol). My grandmother was treated with DES in an effort to prevent a third miscarriage while she was pregnant with my mother. My Mom was safely born, but suffers from many different ailments. I was the first-born of her kids (myself and two twin sisters), and was assigned male at birth. I seemed perfectly "normal" to my parents, except I did have testicular malformation (undescended testicle and varicocele), and learned later I am infertile.

I was raised as a male in a strong Christian home, and was never treated as a girl in any way at all throughout my years growing up. Regardless, I had the unmistakable feeling of "I'm not a boy; I'm a girl." I knew I wasn't gay, because I had no desire to be a boy with other boys. I simply with all my soul felt female, yet I was terrified for anyone to know...so I hid it all my life.

As a person of strong faith in Jesus Christ, I deeply struggled with these feelings all my life. Finally, after learning that a large percentage of boys born to DES-exposed mothers identified as female, I finally understood that the chemicals my grandmother was exposed to are the primary cause of my female hard-wired sense of gender.

DES was just ONE of many of these synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are everywhere around us in this world. I'm sure everyone has heard of "BPA FREE" when looking for items for infants or drinking bottles? It's the same type of thing...there are just many more they don't even test for. These chemicals have been slowly altering our biology for decades. The entire global fertility rate is down. These things ARE changing us, and not for the better.

Please watch this documentary, and then ask yourself...is it at all far-fetched that these chemicals are the reason that we are having so many more transgender children these days?

vimeo.com/15346778

Thanks for reading, and I wish you all well. God bless each of you and your loved ones. :)

(Of COURSE there's no edit option. Sorry for the grammatical errors in my previous post)

Finally, after learning that a large percentage of boys born to DES-exposed mothers identified as female, I finally understood that the chemicals my grandmother was exposed to are the primary cause of my female hard-wired sense of gender

So the idea that boys born to DES exposed mothers lead to your conclusion that your grandmother's exposure had affected you?

When you say you felt female, how did you know that? How do you know how female feels so that you could define your feelings thus?

That all sounds very sad for you Ailyn, but our topic on this thread is NOT abnormal levels of sex hormones during fatal development causing genital defects and sterility. You have my sympathy for that.

However, you get no sympathy from me for this:

"I simply with all my soul felt female"

That means nothing to me I AM female - XX chromosomes in every cell, vagina that made babies, etc - but I have no idea what "feeling female" means. I don't feel female. I feel like a human being. I tick most boxes for typically male interests & behaviour, and some female ones.

When puberty hit and I started growing breasts and bleeding like a stuck pig, I didn't say "Oh how wonderful! This is the moment I've been waiting for, since I feel female with all my soul!" I said "WTF?!? What fresh hell is this?". But I soldiered on and made the best of it in a misogynist society. If I were born with a penis, no doubt I would make most of that, too.

So, "simply with all my soul felt female" sounds like delusion wrapped in BS.

Obviously it wasn't the vagina itself that made the babies, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

"Why is everyone so readily dismissing the study findings that Hugh is talking about"

It is not a surprise to anybody that abnormal levels of sex hormones during fetal development cause genital defects, which is what Hugh's study is about.

What we object to is Hugh's fantasy that these malformations must then extend to the brain and cause a "female brain" in a male body from birth. And now you say that your grandmother was exposed to this drug during her pregnancy which made you "feel female" Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever?

Hugh clearly has a drum to beat and so do you, coming all the way from the US to post your life story, but all that stuff about genital defects caused by prenatal drugs has NOTHING to do about the children we are talking about on this thread that have NO genital defects AND who mostly grow out of their gender dysphoria in later years.

The "assigned male at birth" was enough to make me tut, but I too would love to hear you explain what this "feeling female" means.