Trans rights are a part of women's rights

[ASugar]

Trans people don't negatively affect women's rights. They are a part of the women's rights. Both trans men and trans women experience oppression based on being female/a woman.

The choices are:
Offer surgery, hormones and other treatments, which overall gives a good outcome for people with GD.
Don't offer those treatments

Or offer counselling and emotional support. It would seem a more gentle and appropriate response, rather than diving straight to medical transitioning.

The choices are:
Offer surgery, hormones and other treatments, which overall gives a good outcome for people with GD.
Don't offer those treatments.

Or offer tailored treatments that are specific to the needs of the individual's situation?? Is that not included in your treatment offer?

Again, I keep getting stuck on what seems to be an argument for 'all or nothing'.

And please stop posting an article that only refers to data from 1991 and June 2017 from the USA. Since June 2017, a great deal has changed as to exactly WHO is being referred for treatment here in the UK.

And NO ONE has any statistics on detransitioning rates. BUT we can see empirically over the past year just how many have started to discuss their detransition and why. I have no wish to politicise their situation, but to continue stating that it may be '.3. to 3.8 percent' seems to be a minimisation of the numbers.

Just as I mentioned, the paper that a PP posted of a small data set indicated 8.3 -8.8%.

So, at what point will it be recognised that the current 'all or nothing' approach has great capacity to harm children and teenagers? will it be n+1 or will a balanced approach be advocated for that allows for the significant differences between the sex of the child or teenaged patient . And consider the impact bias of negative medical effects on the female transitioner.

I will point out again the dramatic increase in early dementia risk of early female transitioners that cannot be countered with testorone or other drugs. The earlier a female loses their working ovaries, the greater the chance of them getting dementia before they are even 40. This has been studied with women having to have had hysterectomies at very young ages and is only now being discussed. However, it does not matter whether this is because a person has chosen to take testosterone which results in that hysterectomy or whether it is a life saving operation due to significant issues with the ovaries.

This is but one of the potential life shortening effects of medicalised treatment paths for females. I am concerned that these are glossed over in the push for this all or nothing approach.

Think of the hundreds of people referred to GIDS in the UK in the last 5 years. If they were recording properly we would have had meaningful data that could be used to create verifiably beneficial treatment pathways.

Surely it is criminal or at least worthy of severe professional sanction that they didn't properly record co-morbidities and didn't bother with even short-term follow-ups for most patients. Surely long-term follow-ups for every patient and detailed analysis, is what you'd expect for a novel treatment?

I am gobsmacked that trans allies are not up in arms at the lack of basic patient care and research for people referred to a gender clinic.

Same for the allies not shouting about the bone density and dementia issues. Why aren't the allies furious at the lack of high quality research?

It is bizarre. I can't imagine, say, a colon cancer advocacy group noticing a lack of research then just shrugging and saying ah well, there was a tiny bit of research on a totally different type of patient years ago so that's it, that's enough, nobody do any new research

It can be very boring, but I always click on the links provided when people disagree with me, and provide a link to what they believe is the evidence of their position. (I do this when people agree with me too, because it’s often interesting, of course).

On this board, I have generally found some or all of the following to be the case:

• link doesn’t work (surprisingly common)
• “scientific study” = article in “Nature” Magazine
• study in link doesn’t remotely say what is purported
• methodology not robust, often so much so that a non expert like me can see it (eg sample size of 8, no control group, never replicated, self selecting group)
• doesn’t sex disaggregate the data
• data not relevant, eg papers that consider results for transsexuals used to bolster statements applicable to self IDd transgender people
• geographically irrelevant to the topic, eg stats on murder from South America, stats of healthcare difficulties from USA
• actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what has been presented.

Once you’ve waded through all of that, there will be the odd handful that are genuinely relevant and interesting.

But definitely always follow the links and get a look for yourself.

But definitely always follow the links and get a look for yourself.

I agree... I do like to see if there is any interesting data or nuanced interrogation of the data that is thought provoking. And I know that you and I are not alone in this habit.

Too much brainwashing via social media is from people not following the links, instead just believing an anime avatar who says JKR spews hate, scientists say sex isn't real and there is an epidemic of suicide and murder in the trans community.

It is bizarre. I can't imagine, say, a colon cancer advocacy group noticing a lack of research then just shrugging and saying ah well, there was a tiny bit of research on a totally different type of patient years ago so that's it, that's enough, nobody do any new research

I agree. Where were the trans rights advocates after the Keira Bell case? Why weren't they saying "why the hell are medical treatments with unknown future consequences being given to young trans people?" It seems that women really do have to look after everyone!

It feels constant, almost sleight of hand, this minimisation of the long terms effects of transition on females. And the fact that it is a recent phenomenon that there is so many females seeking to transition is ignored.

Just the ignoring of the effect of drugs such as Lupron, as evidenced by the coming class action, when it is used for one of the purposes it is designed for, precocious puberty, is very concerning to me. The debilitating side effects are right there to be seen of women in the 20s and 30s who took that same drug as under 10s.

Please tell me why these known health risks are minimised by those pushing a harmful agenda of one size fits all? These health risks are known because they have are experienced outside the transitioning female group. However, I have also heard female detransitioners discuss some of the same health issues, such as losing teeth and joint issues. These health risks apply directly to the transitioning female group because of their biology. These health risks seem NOT to be able to countered in any other way.

So, why are these risks downplayed so much they are ignored to progress an agenda that may only benefit one sex over the other.

They are life shortening and they effect females!!! Males don't have the same risks.

Yes Sophocles I can relate.

To add to your list SophoclestheFox

• paper makes the statements claimed by referencing other peer-reviewed articles or papers in evidence. On following the reference, you find one or more of your other points apply.

I was recently digging into an issue where I found every single paper I found that was published on the issue over the course of about 20 years or so was referencing the same source to support their points. But that source did not even speak to that point, let alone provide the evidence to support it. It seemed like everyone was working from the same primer - fact x, as shown in paper a, insert in own work here.

I hadn't set out to read all these papers. It just so happened that the point they all referenced was what I was interested in digging into.

This shoddy referencing work seems to be a common occurrence, and I do wonder if this is simple laziness rather than a deliberate tactic for the most part. But it does mean much of the research is far less robust than we expect it to be. And that going by how often a paper has been cited by others is not a measure of quality even when the writer making the citation has no quarrel with the paper cited.

With regard to record keeping by GIDS, in one of the recent interviews (sorry can't recall which) it was said that a large number of those referred are only seen once. I think it would be helpful to know why.

Did they desist? Are they taking a different route to hormones? Were they diagnosed as not being gender dysphoric? Are GPs referring too quickly, maybe due to pressure or inexperience in the field? Are they living as socially transitioned and not wanting medical interventions? Did they find a better way of coping with their distress? Did they grow out of it between referral and first appointment?

Some knowledge about why youngsters drop out of GIDS care could be enormously helpful to young people, their families and GPs.

@unwashedanddazed

With regard to record keeping by GIDS, in one of the recent interviews (sorry can't recall which) it was said that a large number of those referred are only seen once. I think it would be helpful to know why.

Did they desist? Are they taking a different route to hormones? Were they diagnosed as not being gender dysphoric? Are GPs referring too quickly, maybe due to pressure or inexperience in the field? Are they living as socially transitioned and not wanting medical interventions? Did they find a better way of coping with their distress? Did they grow out of it between referral and first appointment?

Some knowledge about why youngsters drop out of GIDS care could be enormously helpful to young people, their families and GPs.

I agree that this information would be interesting and very useful.

I think it would also be interesting to see how the figures (of those referred only being seen once) compare, to eg those referred to CAMHS and only seen once?

A non-scientist from a right-wing religious insitute which opposes same sex marriage, nondiscrimination and abortion and funded an entirely biased anti-LGBT tract posing as research. This is the same kind of shade that so-called climate change skeptics have thrown at climate change scientists.

Of the author:

"None of these Christian critics of transgender people have any alternatives and they are not qualified to offer alternatives. A handful of physicians who are noisy Defenders of the Faith promote a type of conversion therapy without the research to demonstrate that it is at all effective or even safe. Unmitigated gender dysphoria puts people in severe distress that can lead to self-harm.

What also outrages me is the use of things like Blake's “sympathetic observers.” Only one thing matters for an adult, a child or a parent: The best guidance available from a clinical specialist who has actually evaluated the individual. Everything else is toxic noise from people who disapprove of trans people for religious reasons. "

These are your allies now, the only source of support.

The fact you disagree with them on same sex marriage, race, homophobia, reproductive rights but not on transgender issues you at least make you think.

All the evidence we have points to gender affirmation being the best treatment for GD, and destransitioning is rare. Of course we need better evidence, but that's an argument for collecting better evidence.

All the evidence we have points to gender affirmation being the best treatment for GD, and destransitioning is rare.

No, that is incorrect. The gender identity specialists confirmed the opposite during the Keira Bell case. The evidence points at best to no improvement. The original Dutch researchers have said their research is not relevant today.

Anyone who genuinely cares about trans people should be livid at the misinformation being spread about treatments.

A non-scientist from a right-wing religious insitute which opposes same sex marriage, nondiscrimination and abortion and funded an entirely biased anti-LGBT tract posing as research.

Who are you talking about?

@Helleofabore

A non-scientist from a right-wing religious insitute which opposes same sex marriage, nondiscrimination and abortion and funded an entirely biased anti-LGBT tract posing as research.

Who are you talking about?

I was talking about @Ereshkigalangcleg attempt to dismiss the metaanalysis by pointing at a pseudoscientific hit piece by a bigot on a religious right website.

The study I am talking about it here:
www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds

“scientific study” = article in “Nature” Magazine

Nature is a damn good scientific journal currently handicapped by an enforced wokey cokey attitude to sex and gender imposed from its overall publisher, whether the authors of its articles agree or not.

These are your allies now, the only source of support.

The fact you disagree with them on same sex marriage, race, homophobia, reproductive rights but not on transgender issues you at least make you think.

I think it is really important that people reading this thread understand that EVERY poster that makes this type of argument should also look to who THEY are supporting too.

I may have already mentioned it on this very thread. There are activists that have histories of calling lesbians 'hairy' and stating they have 'barren wombs', all the while dictating that lesbians cannot stand for their reproductive rights or things that relate to their sexed bodies in Pride marches.... yes is lauded as a progressive feminist, while telling women how to be better women. Or there are activists that are advocating for lowering safeguarding and boundaries around sex for children and women such as activists that campaign for the legalisation of extreme porn, lowering the age of porn actors and state that it isn't a male's fault that women die in DV situations, it is women's egg-shell skulls that are the issue, and all the while are consulting to girl guiding to set their policies! Or the activists that have written about intergenerational sex that advise schools on LGBT education and work to set policy.

And the many, many instances.

All the evidence we have points to gender affirmation being the best treatment for GD, and destransitioning is rare.

Just keeping one repeating it, does not change that the evidence is at the very least in dispute. And that the constant repetition of detransitioning is rare is to distract from the fact that there is NO data collected. And even a study posted to prove something else has shown statistics that are significantly different from the 'rare' narrative. The narrative that it is rare is based on data that can be shown to be out of date considering all that has been happening in the past 12 months.

The Tavistock defence could not present ANY evidence from the world wide consultation of studies that definitively evidences gender affirmation being the best treatment for GD. And certainly not for the current cohort of predominantly female transitioners in the UK.

Who benefits from spreading this misinformation?

Of course we need better evidence, but that's an argument for collecting better evidence.

On this, we agree.

I was talking about @Ereshkigalangcleg attempt to dismiss the metaanalysis by pointing at a pseudoscientific hit piece by a bigot on a religious right website.

So perhaps, attack the points rather than attacking the author.

I am sure that readers can see that by appealing to ad hominem attacks, you are not progressing your point at all.

And that by stating things like 'look at who you are supporting' does apply to activists who advocate strongly for affirming only treatments.

On this point, I would like some people to read this article by whistleblower Kirsty Entwhistle. Two years later, a judicial review was brought by an ex-patient against that clinic, and it went poorly in court for the clinic.

Once you have read it, look at the comments. There is a well known twitter trans rights advocate there, howling Ms Entwhistle down.

I wouldn't want to be on the side of people who shut down concerns about malpractice, myself. I want to be on the side of people who say, "this is concerning. I hope to god you're wrong but it is our responsibility to investigate this. Patients' health is paramount".

medium.com/@kirstyentwistle/an-open-letter-to-dr-polly-carmichael-from-a-former-gids-clinician-53c541276b8d

So perhaps, attack the points rather than attacking the author.

Yes. As always people like DadJoke got nothing else but vague smears. When will it sink in that left wing media is afraid to tackle this issue?

All the evidence we have points to gender affirmation being the best treatment for GD, and destransitioning is rare. Of course we need better evidence, but that's an argument for collecting better evidence.

Except that I've posted an article challenging your killer evidence, and you've done nothing to actually refute any of the points made about the flimsiness of said "evidence".

@UpDownQuark

“scientific study” = article in “Nature” Magazine

Nature is a damn good scientific journal currently handicapped by an enforced wokey cokey attitude to sex and gender imposed from its overall publisher, whether the authors of its articles agree or not.

You’re right, it was a bit of a cheap shot. Perhaps a better reference would have been to Pink News!

"Look at who wrote it" isn't an argument. Address the points, please.