BMJ: Trans health needs more and better services

[Cigarstring]

www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3371.full

Apparently it will be 1 in 50 of the population soon.

Full text here (hopefully), the article says the NHS has no plans to extend services to gender variant individuals who don't have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

sci-hub.tw/downloads/9d89/[email protected]?download=true

One key thing to complain about, in my opinion, is that the trans lobby are demanding medical services on the basis that trans people are uniquely at risk of suicide, with the implication that transition gives them a "cure".

But the suicide myth is based on dodgy stats e.g. read this about Stonewall's report.

www.transgendertrend.com/stonewall-school-report-what-does-suicide-rate-mean/

Although the BMJ doesn't literally endorse the stats - carrying a quote on trans suicide in the context of waiting for transition implies the idea that transition cures a population with a unique suicide risk has legitimacy.

Also, there is no proof that transition is actually "cure" for dysphoria. AFAIK the studies are inconclusive but at least one shows no change in suicide rate after transition. (You'd need to google this bit - or perhaps someone here knows a bit more about this?).

Melamin have a read of this Mumsnet thread (also linked above) on following the money.

Thanks very useful resources.

That sentence was badly formed! I'm going to have another go...

Although the BMJ doesn't literally endorse the stats - carrying a quote on trans suicide in the context of waiting for transition, falsely implies legitimacy for the idea that transition can cure transpeople from their unique suicide risk.

Thanks very much. Starkstaring downloaded it ok.

Womans voice
Can i include/paraphrase that sentance please?

Quickly glanced at the terminology box: I am horrified to see the bmj refer to "assigned at birth". I will study this article carefully and produce something to send.thanks for all help.

BMJ defines ‘severe misjudgment’ editorially as grounds for complaint, but the writing a letter for publication idea sounds better and a chance to set the record straight on this.
www.bmj.com/about-bmj/complaints-procedure

Cigarstring yes, please feel free to use anything I post, in general.

To be fair to the journalist, she might think that ATH are a reputable source, given that the government have invited them to give evidence to them, and they've also advised the NHS.

But - this is how hokey organisations like that build credibility. Every time an organisation or other entity with credibility publicly associates themselves with ATH, then it's another thing that'll come up in a quick google search. If a journalist - or the BMJ - can't be bothered to actually check out ATH's credentials, but instead googles them and assumes that other people have done due diligence at some point, an organisation like ATH can make itself appear credible when it's anything but.

The BMJ publishing this, also adds to this undeserved veneer of respectability.

But we expect more from the BMJ (and the government, come to think of it!)

Good points womens

But - this is how hokey organisations like that build credibility. Every time an organisation or other entity with credibility publicly associates themselves with ATH, then it's another thing that'll come up in a quick google search. If a journalist - or the BMJ - can't be bothered to actually check out ATH's credentials, but instead googles them and assumes that other people have done due diligence at some point, an organisation like ATH can make itself appear credible when it's anything but.

Excellent point.

www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/01/03/fake-medical-journals-are-spreading-and-they-are-filled-with-bad-science/
The BMJ isn't perfect. This article talks about a publication it produces which does the same "quack lending credibility to quack" thing discussed above. They will benefit from the feedback.

You can find a load more examples of shocking & violent things ATH have said about women on this article.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4914582/Radical-transgender-group-says-FINE-punch-women.html

Although I actually do agree with the notion that there should be more specialist clinics for this issue (as I believe in medical expertise as a form of gate keeping/safeguarding) I think there are many people within the medical profession that have well and truly bought into current trans ideology without thinking critically about the issues at hand. Especially if they’re taking advice from ATH....

Genuinely, I want every medic and trans activist to answer some questions:

1. “Can humans change sex, biologically?” If they answer no (as medics should, if they passed their examinations), then it’s clear that sex is an immutable characteristic.
2. “Does one’s internal identity affect reproductive organs?” Again, the answer must be no, unless the medic is dangerous and believes in some weird ability to psychicallly change biology...
3. “Does biology/biological sex matter?” The answer here must be yes, from factors such as differential diagnosis, physiology, general anatomy and reproductive role.
4. “How do you define male and female, medically?” If they do not talk about biology or reproductive systems here, then I would wonder about their medical credibility.
5. “Should the consequences of long-term cross-sex hormonal therapy, permanent surgical alteration, and potential sterility be carefully considered and potential causes of dysphoria be explored by professionals?” Again, any reasonable person should agree that medical therapy with potential permanent side effects needs to be carefully considered, and that professional help can be very important for exploring identity issues (especially in children).

Clearly, any person or organization that argues against these basic medical points should be very very very carefully questioned, because they are arguing an unproven ideology that flies in the face of the scientific method. The BMJ wouldn’t accept religious views being written as though they are fact, but that’s the status trans theory has right now (in my opinion), because it’s so far removed even from the transsexual theories of the past. The BMJ don’t even need to do thorough due diligence, just ask simple questions and think about the effects of this ideology. This is infuriating.

Surely in that case we already have 1/50 th of the population suffering from this terrible affliction

How do they plan to attend to that?

I'm very very very curious about the demographics of Edinburgh ATH because if they aren't mostly white I'll eat my hat.

AND if they are mostly white they must also be expecting black people to not shy against violence from them? Right? They should be for violence against white people as they are the "ruling class" in this and many other countries.

I bet all the Woke bros who retweet that bullshit don't think it would be OK for women to start attacking "cis" men or for black people to attack white.

Smash a "TERF". Yeah, go for it though.

This is interesting because the print version of this only came out yesterday. I was waiting for my BMJ last week with this in after reading it here last week but it never arrived. I read the rapid response on it by Margaret McCartney etc on mumsnet before I read the actual article. Really not impressed with the BMJ, especially after their recent article on legalising prostitution. I see Margeret McCartney is leaving. They're definitely going down the woke route