transgender medicine

[superbstarling]

I'm new here, you all peaked me. I across this which I think some of you will find interesting!

It's good to hear all sides. Opposing viewpoints and some more info about this doctor and the organisations he belongs to are here:

www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/07/anti-lgbt-hate-group-releases-anti-trans-position-statement

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/201705/the-american-college-pediatricians-is-anti-lgbt-group

www.snopes.com/fact-check/americas-pediatricians-gender-kids/

If you're not just attempting to reinforce your own prejudice, those links may also be worth a look.

And for further reading, The Endocrine Society's position.

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/transgender-health

Happy Reading. :)

Should they have been ignored due to some of their other questionable views?

Yes given that one of these views is that it's possible to pray the gay away.

I haven't read and watched all the links yet, but I am interested in how to deal with sharing a POV with someone I rarely agree with. I think it's a useful reminder to check your own bias when you agree with something said by, for example, Britain First.

I would think we are all wrong about some things, no matter how right we are about others.

It is so hard to discuss trans issues these days, that only more bolshy groups are prepared to do it. By definition then, a lot of the interesting stuff will come from dubious sources. Doesn't mean it is wrong.

If you're not just attempting to reinforce your own prejudice,

And there it is again. The narrow genderology doctrine is the only permitted one, anything else is prejudice.

People that address me in this way are imposing their prejudice on me.

I am watching the ‘Reparative therapy’ video. It’s enlightening. Apparently there is no gay (or trans!) gene and it’s all caused by bad male role models in childhood or by sexual abuse or bullying. It can be repaired though- salvation is possible!

Also, you become gay because your own body does not produce sufficient maleness/femaleness, so you look for it in another person. Good stuff.

Yes it is good to read from a wide variety of sources, isn't it? I found understanding the Endocrine Society's role in transgender health has added to my understanding. It's looked at from a critical viewpoint in some detail in the video.

Apropos of nothing but reading through that statement from the Endocrine people it struck me that the biological essentialists in the science world, the people who are convinced that there are innate biological based differences in the behaviour/personality of men and women must be absolutely cackling over this. This is promoting neurosexism via the backdoor. If gender is innate in trans people, it's innate in all of us.

I looked in to the review cited which concludes that gender identity is bioloigcal and found that the papers reviewed involved very small numbers of participants. Well you know that's quite funny, small scale studies comparing men and women found significant differences, ergo gender differences are biological. The proof is incontrovertible. In large scale studies those 'differences' largely disappeared. Well who'da thunk it.

A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that...
I don't think that debate should be shut down unless it incites violence. I like to see people condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

YY, I have exactly the same position as you with regard to freedom of speech.

MsMcWoodle I think the point is rather that if you are a vegetarian and want to persuade others to your viewpoint, you don’t give them information sheets/videos written by Hitler...

Except there are other people you can go than Hitler to get your information about vegetarianism. And you might not want to ask The Carnivore Society or Aberdeen Steakhouse, either.

Except there are other people you can go than Hitler to get your information about vegetarianism.

Surely there are other people you can go to for gender-critical views though? It doesn't have to be religious extremists who believe that being gay is sinful.

These groups believe that the sexes have innate and pre-ordained roles- it's the very opposite of the feminist belief that gender ideology is damaging for women. So if you gladly share videos from said group, saying they are excellent and informative, aren't you by implication suggesting that the reason why you oppose self-ID isn't that important (whereas I think it's very important)?

There are some groups that are just a no-go, no matter what they say. Jayda Fransen and Britain First could do a detailed and informative video about the potential harms to women of self-ID. I would never support it or share it because BF are a bunch of hate-mongers that I would never in my life associate myself with, no matter what they say. Call me narrow-minded if you want, but that's my take on it.

Predictably, this thread is now on Twitter.... They clearly have a lot of moles. I saw the thread linking the Magdalen Berns video has been zapped too.

If you're not just attempting to reinforce your own prejudice

Actually I think we all have our own biases or pre-judgements (sometimes a better word to use than prejudice as it makes the point in a slightly better way).

If you only read things that reinforce your bias it doesn't help you to understand where the other party comes from.

The subject here isn't about ideology as such. This is about evidence based medicine. If you believe in evidence based medicine, you SHOULD read stuff that is both for and against.

Reading it does not commit you to agreeing with it. It gives you a chance to examine the strength of evidence and whether arguments for / against have methodology flaws. You should look for ideological bias in the data. As in with all medical issue. Challenging your preconceptions in medicine is an essential part of the process of expanding our understanding of issues and determining when and where studies are utter bollocks and are not worth the paper they are written on. This is how we should judge medical issues primarily rather than because we like what the subject is about.

It helps you to better argue your position ultimately.

Where you go from there, is another issue: implementation of the science requires it to be feasible and work as intended in practice, the understanding that not all people are the same and they might have other considerations that need to be taken into account and all of this has to comply with ethical practices to ensure trust and power between HCP and patients (and possibly their guardians) is always maintained.

I would not treat arguing about medicine in the same way as I would treat arguing about politics. Its a different kettle of fish.

The man knows the history from the inside. That's an interesting perspective. Yes the source organisation is concerning. I'm suggesting it is promoted as the face of gender critical thought.

Britain First were not involved at the beginning of the transgender movement so that's a silly comparison.

@PoulaFisch look at the references on this article you've linked to, how many are duplicate references?
Who peer reviewed it?

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/transgender-health

Duplicate/triplicate referencing of one text and non peer reviewed papers is concerning, should we ignore this fact just because a far right Christian group has also noted this fact?

If you're happy to read this article and take it as fact, then great, but that doesn't make those who question bigots.

Duplicate/triplicate referencing of one text and non peer reviewed papers is concerning, should we ignore this fact just because a far right Christian group has also noted this fact?

This.

Yes the source organisation is concerning. I'm suggesting it is promoted as the face of gender critical thought

You mean not suggesting, right?

I am not telling anyone how to think- this is just my viewpoint. However, this is the 4th time in a couple of days that I have seen posters proudly link to well-known or obvious right wing sources saying 'great, they support our message' without looking at how incredibly harmful towards women these organisations really are. They might broadly support the same goal, but for such different reasons.

Would you in all honesty be happy to share that on facebook or twitter? I think I would be unfriended by most if I did tbh.

BF was just an example. They could come out with an anti-trans video and I bet someone on here would link to it and people would say it's good that the issue is getting a wider audience.

FWIW I agree with Susan for the most part.

In parallel with other groups who might be toxic to your own agenda rather than in partnership.

You can achieve more that way: other groups reach people you might not otherwise and your own cause isn't undermined / doesn't loose credibly.

Appearance is important. Especially when you are in essence fighting a propaganda battle over much of the wider subject.

How you stress and make a point, is as important as the point itself.

You mean not suggesting, right?

Yes, it's a typo. Quite obviously.

I just wanted to clarify. I did think it was a typo.

BF was just an example. They could come out with an anti-trans video and I bet someone on here would link to it and people would say it's good that the issue is getting a wider audience.

You completely ignored the point I made. This guy directly has a perspective informed by experience that is relevant to his work. That doesn't apply to Britain First which is why its not a good comparison in response to my original point. That is why I watched it and would recommend it to other gender critical people who liked to read as widely as possible and knew to look past the source. No I wouldn't share it on FB.

Yes, I do get your point on this particular video. I am sure he has a lot of medical expertise.

But on another current thread, people are defending the GC contingent teaming up with a Canadian religious hardliner called Kari Simpson, who also think being gay is a huge sin.

On another, people are saying that Ben Shapiro is in fact a great guy (ignoring his anti-women and anti-poor stance) for complaining about the Boston Marathon rules allowing trans people to run as women.

On another, people are defending the publication spiked online, saying it is a brave publication supporting free speech (when it often writes damaging misogynistic stuff)

On one a few days ago, someone linked a 'great' video to someone called 'Activist Mom' who seemed to be a hardline LGBT hater and Trump supporter.

This is just in the past few days, most of it today. You might not think it's a big problem. I guess it's not if your only goal is to scrap self-ID. But what if that comes at a greater price?

This is just in the past few days, most of it today. You might not think it's a big problem. I guess it's not if your only goal is to scrap self-ID. But what if that comes at a greater price?

And what would that be? I think there probably will be a right wing backlash to identity politics in general. It won't be caused by gender critical feminists. Feminists will be blamed, and women will not benefit. We won't stop it just by not talking about it. But your position seems to be that we shouldn't debate the validity of transgender beliefs or the science because we can just campaign for specific protections for women. Which as I said on the other thread is naive at best.

I am sure he has a lot of medical expertise.

It's not about his general medical expertise. It's his specific experience of the transgender movement.

And what would that be? I think there probably will be a right wing backlash to identity politics in general.

I think the potential harm would be getting on board with and potentially voting for right-wing parties in order to ensure that self-ID does not go ahead. Except once it ceases to be a problem, all the other problems that affect women such as poverty, austerity, benefits cuts, misogynistic legal systems, access to abortion etc, will suddenly become visible once again and the right-wingers who ended the self-ID debate won't be so up for helping out with those.

I think if the aim is to get the majority of the population on-side regarding thinking trans is a ridiculous concept and should not be recognised at all, then yes, you need to get on board with right-wingers and ensure the rise of the right wing. That is what they are saying too. But what I think is even more naive than my stance is not fully thinking through the consequences of that. Would you e.g. be prepared to sacrifice rights to abortion if it meant that all plans for self-ID were scrapped? Just hypothetically speaking.

SusanBunch Wed 25-Apr-18 18:32:15
I am watching the ‘Reparative therapy’ video. It’s enlightening. Apparently there is no gay (or trans!) gene*

Are you saying there is a gene that makes people gay, or trans? do you have any evidence for that claim?

There has been a search for the 'gay gene', it made many of us nervous that it would lead to a gene test and from there to, for example, selective abortion.

I think you're extremely naive Susan so no I don't think I'm being more so than you. So let's leave it there.