Huge meta-study finds that transition helps trans people

[WAKAME]

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/%20what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people%20/

Some excerpts:

"We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being."

"This search found a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better quality of life for those who identify as transgender."

"Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques."

"the health and well-being of transgender people can be harmed by stigmatizing and discriminatory treatment."

I'm grateful for these useful rabbit sexing tips, thanks Upstart! You learn so much on this forum.

Typical idiotic trans gotcha.

Well, if we are going to get technical about it and refer to concepts that have commonly understood definitions - which is weird for some people, I know - this you're saying an infertile woman is not a woman baloney is a propositional fallacy of the if and only if variety.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Propositional_fallacies

All transactivist arguments are fallacies of one form or another. I think we should put logic onto the National Curriculum.

(I'm currently watching a news item about the Two Ronnies four candles sketch and I can't for the life of me think what it reminds me of.)

Why is that in the news?

Excellent post @DN4GeekingDerby.

Can't help giggling at the rabbit advice. "Scientists can now reveal that humans aren't rabbits"

People sometimes think DS is a girl because his name's non-gender-specific (the version I use, anyway) but that doesn't mean he is one.

Eresh - the script sold for £28k at auction.

Sexing humans isn't a precise science and doctors get it wrong.
What the what now?

I bet the General Medical Council would have something to say about obstetricians making that kind of mistake in non-intersex babies.

Where on earth have you heard of a case where a doctor made such a mistake?

Eresh - the script sold for £28k at auction.

Thanks

It seems my society and my government already accept me as female.

I'm not sure you're right. Depending on how well you conform to gender stereotypes you might be assumed to be female by society. The government, though, doesn't - don't confuse a GRC with a belief.

A GRC creates a legal fiction that you are female.

It's a legal fiction that Tesco has legal personhood, but I would still be prosecuted for criminal damage not ABH if I broke the windows.

It used to be a legal fiction that man and wife were one person. Nobody accepted that they were literally the same body or that he had absorbed her somehow, like Lord Voldemort sticking out the back of Quirrell's head.

I know that this can be upsetting for people with dysphoria and it is generally polite to pretend fiction is reality, but it's plain wrong to say the GRA creates material reality rather than legal fiction.

It's a legal fiction that Tesco has legal personhood, but I would still be prosecuted for criminal damage not ABH if I broke the windows.

Great analogy.

I did. He is completely lacking in rigour. If someone wants to not take an ademic study at face value the counter argument needs to be presented to academic standards. He hasn't

How convenient. And predictable. We all know bad science exists, for a variety of reasons. I notice you haven't responded to Moss's post about the studies.

If you say that of someone with a GRC then I think that is a contempt of court since you are refusing to abide by a legal judgement - in law the Gender Recognition Panel is a tribunal. Free speech entitles you to say that you think the matter was wrongly decided, or that the law should be changed, but you can't just ignore a judgement because you dislike it. Henceforth if people here describe women with GRCs as men, I will be reporting them

Here's the CPS guidance on contempt of court. Knock yourself out. www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

A GRC is not a court judgment but the certificate granted as the result of an administrative proceeding. Nor is it the type of order to which civil contempt proceedings could apply - and even if it were, to describe as male someone who is female by virtue of the legal fiction created by s.9 GRA cannot fathomably be regarded as contempt. It's kind of inherent to the process.

I emphasise that I recognise some people would regard it as unkind, but seriously, contempt of court?

The GRA itself contains a specific offence at s.22 of disclosing information obtained in an official capacity, and that's perhaps where you're getting confused.

She looks a lot like Harnaam Kaur don't you think?

Presumably there's an optician in your area who you could consult about your vision problems.

Your believing a thing doesn't make it true. Stating that it does over any over again is not a convincing argument.

GibbertyFlibbert wrote - "If you buy a male rabbit you might discover several months later that she is female."

Trying to prove gender dysphoria by comparing human sexual development to that of rabbits is at least a step up from the usual comparison with fish, that supporters of transgenderism ideology regularly post on FWR. At least rabbits are mammals, but it's still an irrelevant ridiculous comparison.

GibbertyFlibbert wrote - "Sexing humans isn't a precise science and doctors get it wrong. If that didn't happen to you, rejoice, but it does happen to some people"

Doctors sometimes have difficulty when they observe the bodies of some babies because the baby's sexual organs are ambiguous. These babies are intersex. Historically, the sex of intersex people has been assigned by doctors. A handful of intersex people have stated that they are also transgender. (The situation does not apply in reverse - being transgender does not also make someone intersex.)

Transgender people who are not intersex do not have ambiguous sexual organs. Therefore, their sex is observed, not assigned.

It's a legal fiction that my (adopted) children were born to us (they have birth certificates with our names on as parents) but this does not alter the fact that we were in the UK and them not on the days they were born nor does it make my medical history genetically relevant to them.

Sexing humans isn't a precise science and doctors get it wrong.

Is it time to post this bit of TRA silliness again?

www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/26/infant_gender_assignment_unnecessary_and_potentially_harmful.html

If you buy a male rabbit you might discover several months later that she is female

And how do you think you might discover that? Is it because the rabbit, despite having a little rabbit willy, believes she is a female rabbit? Or is it much more likely to be because you discover that she has had a little rabbit womb all along in which she has been gestating little baby rabbits? Ya big reductionist TERF.

The situation does not apply in reverse - being transgender does not also make someone intersex.)

This is something that transactivists are trying to push, just like they try to push that having a psychological condition where you have dysphoria about your sexed body makes you literally the opposite sex.

Nobody with half a brain cell who has thought about it for more than 5 seconds and isn't deeply mired in the cultish belief system of pomo gender identity politics buys this.

It's a very powerful meme though. Dawkins and the other memetics devotees should study it.

PosyFossils

I once saw a TRA argue that lesbianism is an intersex condition of the brain (on LChat). Nothing would surprise me from them at this point.

@Angry - Mermaids have publicly tweeted that their definition of "cis" is "happy with their own gender and fancies the opposite sex" which is an argument that lesbians are all trans.

It's deeply homophobic: if I want someone to shout at me that I'm "not a woman" I can look to the drunks on the tube, not a charity.

Yep. It's not so much covertly homophobic as shouting one's homophobia from the rooftops and/or Twitter, whichever is most convenient at the time.

Didn't Fox Fisher refer to actual homosexuality as "deviant" in a Mermaids video?

www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/29/trans-support-charity-mermaids-attacked-by-transphobes-for-bullying/comments/

Frizzled to Hypnotrans in the comments. 2 years ago.

Frizzled posts the video (which wasn't available on the gendertrender article when I checked so may have been taken down) and says "and then we have this Mermaids apologist saying that Mermaids don't want T associated with LGB because it marks the kids as "deviant"... yes, deviant."

The person they are disagreeing with is clearly pro trans and they have clearly watched the video and they say:

"......I don't think he meant to imply that LGB people are deviant (unfortunate choice of words though.)"

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/the-anti-gay-agenda-of-mermaids-uk-transgender-children-charity-and-political-lobby/