Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

[Shizuku]

Trigger Warning - this post discusses suicidal feelings.

As the banning of conversion therapy is currently being debated, it might be useful for members of this group to see a survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth which found that 57% of transgender and non-binary youth who have undergone conversion therapy report a suicide attempt in the last year:

www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2019/?section=Conversion-Therapy-Change-Attempts

If anyone reading this is experiencing suicidal thoughts, please know that suicide is preventable, and that support is available. Here is a link to the Samaritans:

www.samaritans.org/

The link has links to peer-reviewed science to back up the claims in the statement. Think of it as a portal to the science.

This link?
www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

That's been posted on here many times as 'evidence' of the existence of 'gender identity'. First in 2018, and again last year when it was revised with more references - the earlier version only contained 5 distinct references from journals (3 of them were cited 3 times each to bulk out the reference list). I posted this on one of the earlier threads:

The first reference is a very short literature review, Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.

This paper concludes: "Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

Despite this, the Endocrine Society use it to claim that "the data are strong for a biological underpinning to gender identity".

My comments on the other paper which is cited by the Endocrine Society to support the statement that gender identity is real and biological are here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228447-Transing-children?msgid=77306113

Original version of the position statement from 2017:
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200312050136/www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200312050136/www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

Link to (long) thread where this was discussed last year:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4104554-Can-someone-please-explain-trans

Very interesting point . I think to ban conversion therapy whilst at the same time allowing people to transfer to another sex is inconsistent. Either both or nothing. I have grave concerns over the damage we are doing to our children and young people, the current situation sees them confused. Once they are adults I understand it is their choice, although I still do think the nhs should be paying for this

@Ereshkigalangcleg

No, the law does not. Self ID is not the law. You have to get a certificate to achieve the legal fiction of changing your "legal sex". You cannot actually change sex, it's encoded in every cell.

Most of your cells are red blood cells and they contain no DNA.

Some people's gender identity falls somewhere between male and female.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a spoke in your "gender identity is just innate knowledge of your sex" wheel. You can't claim that and simultaneously claim it's more complex than that for some people. "Non binary" gender identity is just personality expressed through an ideology which is obsessed with sex role stereotypes. What else exactly do you think it is?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Some people's gender identity falls somewhere between male and female.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a spoke in your "gender identity is just innate knowledge of your sex" wheel. You can't claim that and simultaneously claim it's more complex than that for some people. "Non binary" gender identity is just personality expressed through an ideology which is obsessed with sex role stereotypes. What else exactly do you think it is?

No, it's really quite simple.

Think of another biological sex characteristic - gonads. Most people have either testicular tissue or ovarian tissue, but a small number have ovotestis where they have a mixture of testicular and ovarian tissue.

So are their gonads as male or female? Some say "kind of both" and others say "neither".

As I said, the world doesn't always resolve into simple binaries. It would be easier if it did, but it doesn't.

You might find this paper interesting, Shizuku. Biological sex is important.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3919971/

In this review, we provide a setting for the basis of differences between male and female cells and highlight why these differences will likely provide novel insights into the roles of the X and Y chromosomes. Throughout this review, we have avoided the use of the word “gender,” specifically referring to the “sex” of cells. According to Institute of Medicine, “sex” is a biological construct dictated by the presence of sex chromosomes and in animals and humans the presence of functional reproductive organs. On the other hand, “gender” is a cultural concept referring to behaviors that might be directed by specific stimuli (visual, olfactory) or by psychosocial expectations that result from assigned or perceived sex and therefore can influence biological outcomes.

Turning into a well worn record

How many legs do humans have ?

Can humans see?

Are both those answers true in every case?

No

But if they are not true we know something is wrong. Just likeDSD . And not like transgender

So are their gonads as male or female? Some say "kind of both" and others say "neither".

Do you think people with congenital disorders of sex development are a third sex, or that they don't have a sex? Human sexual reproduction is dimorphic. There are two gametes. Two sexes.

Well put, midge. Yes, it is tiresome dealing with all the sophistry about intersex conditions.

The link has links to peer-reviewed science to back up the claims in the statement. Think of it as a portal to the science.

Have you read the papers linked?

There are a total of four references concerned with proving a biological basis for gender identity.

1. Most papers do not in fact provide evidence of a biological basis for a gender identity universal to all humans, but examine possible biological causes of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, so it seems logical to assume that there might be a biological cause for developing it - in those few individuals who are diagnosed with it. (FWIW, I believe that we will eventually find that the multifactorial causes of gender dysphoria do include a biological basis of some sort.) That is not evidence for the existence of gender identity.

1. The first reference is a literature review of research mostly concerned with people born with a difference in sex development. The authors conclude that the available data suggests a biological basis of some sort, but they don't know what or have any evidence. The papers they state do have evidence of a biological basis of some sort are not concerned with gender identity but with gender dysphoria (see above).

1. The second reference is another literature review coming up with the same arguments and again, looking not at the etiology of gender identity but gender dysphoria. Notable in both literature reviews is the emphasis on papers making claims about people having male and female brains even if they are not that sex. Such papers have been analysed extensively on FWR, the result of which is that we know they do not provide any evidence for the existence of male and female brains and are therefore unhelpful when trying to prove the existence of gender identity.

1. The next reference is a literature review of twin studies. The conclusion: These findings suggest a role for genetic factors in the development of GID.

That there may be a biological factor involved in developing gender identity disorder (as it was then called) is an accepted hypothesis. The paper does not however make any claims about providing evidence for the existence of a universal gender identity in humans (because it can't).

1. The fourth reference is to another literature review, this time limited to studies of people with a particular DSD. Again, this is looking into the biological basis of gender dysphoria, not gender identity.

Do you have any papers purporting to provide evidence for a biological basis of a universal gender identity in humans? Or, to say it in your words, any evidence for an innate sense of oneself as being male or female?

No, it's really quite simple.

Yes, I agree it's simple. It's individual personality expressed through an ideological framework which is entirely based on sex stereotypes. No more complicated or meaningful than that.

We are all "non binary" in terms of our individual personalities.

As I said, the world doesn't always resolve into simple binaries. It would be easier if it did, but it doesn't.

Actually, around sex classification it does. And for many reasons it is really important that people do not spread misinformation. I am sure that you have heard of some rather serious life threatening medical situations caused by people not acknowledging their sex which has led to at least one death, and several publicised other near death misses.

I am sure you are aware that even though the majority of the cells in your body are red blood cells, the other cells that control other functions of your body will still have the original codes for your body to function as the sex it was from a foetus. It is rather disingenuous to suggest otherwise really.

It is therefore vital for a person to be honest about their sex and the changes they have done so they get the best care. So, again. Stately that transwomen are female is misinformation and it is factually false.

And people with differences in sex development, those you point out that might have differences in their reproductive systems, are still male or female. That group have asked continually to not have their medical conditions politicised as explanatory conditions for trans people. With modern medical technologies and looking at a range of different organs, and body processes etc, they are categorised as either having bodies that are male and female.

As I said, the world doesn't always resolve into simple binaries.

No, but when it does 99.9% of the time it's far more accurate to describe it as a binary than to say "well it's all a wibbly-wobbly spectrum". The saying is "the exception that proves the rule", not "disproves".

The chances of a human not being unambiguously male or female are similar to the chances of a coin landing on its edge. It's most useful to model a coin toss as 50/50 for almost all purposes, and a coin toss is a perfectly effective way of deciding who kicks off a match.

Sure, if you want to play philosophy football you can spend all 90 minutes explaining that you didn't lose the toss because "how can you be sure it actually came up heads" but normal people would like to just get on and play the match.

And this is why you're losing all the court cases, by the way. You might be able to get away with this in private circles, but when it reaches the courts, the referees - I mean judges - get to red card you for being a tosser. This sort of 4th-form level bullshit just annoys judges.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

So are their gonads as male or female? Some say "kind of both" and others say "neither".

Do you think people with congenital disorders of sex development are a third sex, or that they don't have a sex? Human sexual reproduction is dimorphic. There are two gametes. Two sexes.

Perhaps you should ask them:

oiieurope.org/statement-of-the-european-intersex-meeting-in-riga-2014/

"The four objectives are:"

"1. To challenge the definition of sex as consisting of only male and female and promote the knowledge that sex is a continuum, as is gender."

"No, but when it does 99.9% "

And currently we are discussing the 0.1%

@CharlieParley

The link has links to peer-reviewed science to back up the claims in the statement. Think of it as a portal to the science.

Have you read the papers linked?

There are a total of four references concerned with proving a biological basis for gender identity.

1. Most papers do not in fact provide evidence of a biological basis for a gender identity universal to all humans, but examine possible biological causes of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, so it seems logical to assume that there might be a biological cause for developing it - in those few individuals who are diagnosed with it. (FWIW, I believe that we will eventually find that the multifactorial causes of gender dysphoria do include a biological basis of some sort.) That is not evidence for the existence of gender identity.

1. The first reference is a literature review of research mostly concerned with people born with a difference in sex development. The authors conclude that the available data suggests a biological basis of some sort, but they don't know what or have any evidence. The papers they state do have evidence of a biological basis of some sort are not concerned with gender identity but with gender dysphoria (see above).

1. The second reference is another literature review coming up with the same arguments and again, looking not at the etiology of gender identity but gender dysphoria. Notable in both literature reviews is the emphasis on papers making claims about people having male and female brains even if they are not that sex. Such papers have been analysed extensively on FWR, the result of which is that we know they do not provide any evidence for the existence of male and female brains and are therefore unhelpful when trying to prove the existence of gender identity.

1. The next reference is a literature review of twin studies. The conclusion: These findings suggest a role for genetic factors in the development of GID.

That there may be a biological factor involved in developing gender identity disorder (as it was then called) is an accepted hypothesis. The paper does not however make any claims about providing evidence for the existence of a universal gender identity in humans (because it can't).

1. The fourth reference is to another literature review, this time limited to studies of people with a particular DSD. Again, this is looking into the biological basis of gender dysphoria, not gender identity.

Do you have any papers purporting to provide evidence for a biological basis of a universal gender identity in humans? Or, to say it in your words, any evidence for an innate sense of oneself as being male or female?

I mean, you're welcome to you view of course, but you'll understand if I go with the Endocrine Society - a professional, international medical organization in the field of endocrinology and metabolism, which publishes four leading journals and has more than 17,000 members from over 120 countries, rather than the opinion of an anonymous random on Mumsnet.

And currently we are discussing the 0.1%

No, we're discussing trans people, not intersex people. Trans people are, 99.9% of the time, in the 99.9%.

And regardless, if your policies are saying anyone in the 50% can claim to be a woman on demand, then you're talking about the 50%.

How small the number of actual edge cases is doesn't matter if you start disputing the non-edge cases.

Male and female are binary and there is no such thing as a sex spectrum.

Bodies are either build around the production of small or large gametes, whether they do this successful or production is inhibited for a medical reason (including contraceptive drugs). There is no third gamete. There is no third sex.

Sex is binary. The human race cannot reproduce any other way hence, it is binary.

It has NEVER been disputed that there is a large degree of body variation between individual bodies within their sex classification. But it does not mean that sex is anything other than binary.

And sex cannot be changed, ever. Modifiying the body to take on facsimiles of the opposite sex characteristics does not mean a person has changed sex.

Again, it is harmful misinformation to perpetuate the pseudo science that says that sex is a spectrum and therefore humans can change sex.

I mean, you're welcome to you view of course, but you'll understand if I go with the Endocrine Society - a professional, international medical organization in the field of endocrinology and metabolism, which publishes four leading journals and has more than 17,000 members from over 120 countries, rather than the opinion of an anonymous random on Mumsnet.

So, can you explain what compelled you to start a thread in Mumsnet if the opinions expressed on here don’t matter to you?

@Helleofabore

As I said, the world doesn't always resolve into simple binaries. It would be easier if it did, but it doesn't.

Actually, around sex classification it does. And for many reasons it is really important that people do not spread misinformation. I am sure that you have heard of some rather serious life threatening medical situations caused by people not acknowledging their sex which has led to at least one death, and several publicised other near death misses.

I am sure you are aware that even though the majority of the cells in your body are red blood cells, the other cells that control other functions of your body will still have the original codes for your body to function as the sex it was from a foetus. It is rather disingenuous to suggest otherwise really.

It is therefore vital for a person to be honest about their sex and the changes they have done so they get the best care. So, again. Stately that transwomen are female is misinformation and it is factually false.

And people with differences in sex development, those you point out that might have differences in their reproductive systems, are still male or female. That group have asked continually to not have their medical conditions politicised as explanatory conditions for trans people. With modern medical technologies and looking at a range of different organs, and body processes etc, they are categorised as either having bodies that are male and female.

"And people with differences in sex development, those you point out that might have differences in their reproductive systems, are still male or female. That group have asked continually to not have their medical conditions politicised as explanatory conditions for trans people."

They've also asked people like you to stop saying that sex is a simple binary, which leaves you in something of a dilemma, doesn't it.

oiieurope.org/statement-of-the-european-intersex-meeting-in-riga-2014/

"The four objectives are:"

"1. To challenge the definition of sex as consisting of only male and female and promote the knowledge that sex is a continuum, as is gender."

@FamilyOfAliens

I mean, you're welcome to you view of course, but you'll understand if I go with the Endocrine Society - a professional, international medical organization in the field of endocrinology and metabolism, which publishes four leading journals and has more than 17,000 members from over 120 countries, rather than the opinion of an anonymous random on Mumsnet.

So, can you explain what compelled you to start a thread in Mumsnet if the opinions expressed on here don’t matter to you?

Not everyone who reads these boards agrees with you.

@Helleofabore

Male and female are binary and there is no such thing as a sex spectrum.

Bodies are either build around the production of small or large gametes, whether they do this successful or production is inhibited for a medical reason (including contraceptive drugs). There is no third gamete. There is no third sex.

Sex is binary. The human race cannot reproduce any other way hence, it is binary.

It has NEVER been disputed that there is a large degree of body variation between individual bodies within their sex classification. But it does not mean that sex is anything other than binary.

And sex cannot be changed, ever. Modifiying the body to take on facsimiles of the opposite sex characteristics does not mean a person has changed sex.

Again, it is harmful misinformation to perpetuate the pseudo science that says that sex is a spectrum and therefore humans can change sex.

"Male and female are binary and there is no such thing as a sex spectrum."

And again, intersex people have asked you to stop making that claim.

They've also asked people like you to stop saying that sex is a simple binary, which leaves you in something of a dilemma, doesn't it.

And yet, medicine and developmental and evolutionary biologists all agree that sex classification for people with differences of sex development are either male or female.

This does NOT change the facts.

The list of these differences for the majority fall into either male conditions or female conditions.

You really cannot cherry pick what facts are true and what are not.

Again, spreading of misinformation around sex is harmful. Why do you continue to do so?

And again, intersex people have asked you to stop making that claim.

And again, you cannot deny the facts around this. The facts remain unchanged.

And another group of people with differences of sex development have also asked people to stop using their conditions to explain a sex spectrum which is provably not true.

And again. Your efforts of distraction and deflection do not change the facts that sex is immutable.

Male cannot change sex to be a female. But, we are happy to keep repeating it so, please do keep on posting links. Because every time you do, and it gets refuted, more readers understand just how these assertions are not built on solid scientific foundations.

Not everyone who reads these boards agrees with you.

I haven’t expressed an opinion on this thread so that’s an odd thing to say.