Can we have a 'back-to-basics' thread about trans issue please?

[Aspiringmatriarch]

I hope it's ok to start a thread potentially covering a lot of well-trodden ground on FWR which is probably therefore a bit tedious, but I lurk and read a huge amount on here (and more widely) and I've struggled to come to firm conclusions. My sympathies are more on the 'GC' side which seems pretty common sense to me, but then I step outside this forum and obviously there is a whole different perspective and in fact contradictory information being presented. So I'm left wondering who has what agenda, how reliable all the research and polls and statistics etc actually are, and what to make of it all really.

An example - I've seen posts on here that the widely cited statistics about suicide attempts in young people who are trans or have gender dysphoria, are basically false and scaremongering parents into a medical pathway. Could anyone point me towards information about this?

I see the word ideology bandied about a lot online - 'trans ideology' obviously but also another 'T' ideology I won't post on here (hopefully that's clear!) So essentially there are two competing claims that the other side are antiscience, dogmatic, advancing a quasi-religious belief rather than material reality. As a non-scientist I feel at a disadvantage wading through all the literature as I can't really know if what I'm reading has much good science behind it.

An example - the pink brain/blue brain stuff. I don't feel I have a 'lady brain' and would certainly reject the terminology, but I believe it's the case that there are certain structural differences between male and female brains. Has this been debunked or is it irrelevant to the trans issue? And what's the evidence for the role of hormones in utero? It sounds potentially credible to me but I know gets short shrift on here because it sounds dangerously close to saying women can't do x y z or are 'naturally better' at doing all the low status boring stuff. Which I disagree with obviously but there is some evidence for certain strengths/ areas of interest on average isn't there? Possibly I'm dragging in a whole separate issue but it comes up in the trans discussion as the argument is presumably that trans people are just gnc and have bought into the idea that they're in the wrong body somehow. So the idea of having a gender identity is just sexism. I kind of get that but I'm not sure if explains the dysphoria aspect and things like brain scans showing similar activity in mtf trans and female subjects. I know the concept of being trans has moved away from dysphoria anyway, which leaves me even more perplexed.

I actually have far too many questions for an already overly long post, and a lot more on the political side of things (GRA reform, Keira Bell case etc) but if anyone feels inclined to respond I'd really appreciate it!

Thank you very much for all the links. I'm going to read/ watch and hopefully make sense of things.

"Person who has a vagina," seems to be slipping in as the easy call for that since modern society has concluded that not everyone with a vag is a woman and not every woman has a vag.

This is breathtakingly regressive.

There is no need to pigeon hole any human being according to their identity

You cannot protect women’s rights if you ignore sex, regardless of how a woman identifies.

OP, this link should also make things a lot clearer for you. This is women talking, from the coalface.

www.transwidowsvoices.org/

@Aspiringmatriarch

I hope it's ok to start a thread potentially covering a lot of well-trodden ground on FWR which is probably therefore a bit tedious, but I lurk and read a huge amount on here (and more widely) and I've struggled to come to firm conclusions. My sympathies are more on the 'GC' side which seems pretty common sense to me, but then I step outside this forum and obviously there is a whole different perspective and in fact contradictory information being presented. So I'm left wondering who has what agenda, how reliable all the research and polls and statistics etc actually are, and what to make of it all really.

An example - I've seen posts on here that the widely cited statistics about suicide attempts in young people who are trans or have gender dysphoria, are basically false and scaremongering parents into a medical pathway. Could anyone point me towards information about this?

I see the word ideology bandied about a lot online - 'trans ideology' obviously but also another 'T' ideology I won't post on here (hopefully that's clear!) So essentially there are two competing claims that the other side are antiscience, dogmatic, advancing a quasi-religious belief rather than material reality. As a non-scientist I feel at a disadvantage wading through all the literature as I can't really know if what I'm reading has much good science behind it.

An example - the pink brain/blue brain stuff. I don't feel I have a 'lady brain' and would certainly reject the terminology, but I believe it's the case that there are certain structural differences between male and female brains. Has this been debunked or is it irrelevant to the trans issue? And what's the evidence for the role of hormones in utero? It sounds potentially credible to me but I know gets short shrift on here because it sounds dangerously close to saying women can't do x y z or are 'naturally better' at doing all the low status boring stuff. Which I disagree with obviously but there is some evidence for certain strengths/ areas of interest on average isn't there? Possibly I'm dragging in a whole separate issue but it comes up in the trans discussion as the argument is presumably that trans people are just gnc and have bought into the idea that they're in the wrong body somehow. So the idea of having a gender identity is just sexism. I kind of get that but I'm not sure if explains the dysphoria aspect and things like brain scans showing similar activity in mtf trans and female subjects. I know the concept of being trans has moved away from dysphoria anyway, which leaves me even more perplexed.

I actually have far too many questions for an already overly long post, and a lot more on the political side of things (GRA reform, Keira Bell case etc) but if anyone feels inclined to respond I'd really appreciate it!

The first thing to say is that you've come to the wrong place. Asking about trans issues here is like going to the Catholic church to ask about homosexuality, but I'll answer some of your questions for you:

"I've seen posts on here that the widely cited statistics about suicide attempts in young people who are trans or have gender dysphoria, are basically false and scaremongering parents into a medical pathway. Could anyone point me towards information about this?"

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory doesn't it? That's because it is.

"I see the word ideology bandied about a lot online - 'trans ideology' obviously but also another 'T' ideology I won't post on here (hopefully that's clear!) So essentially there are two competing claims that the other side are antiscience, dogmatic, advancing a quasi-religious belief rather than material reality."

Ask yourself which group is more likely to be involved in an ideology:

1. A group of people with a recognised medical condition with a range of biological markers, being helped by doctors and scientists all over the world who study their condition, it's causes, effects and treatments, and publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

1. A group of people who don't have that medical condition, who are not involved in research, treatment or studies of that condition, but who belong to a political group who have some ideas that are brought into question by the existence of the people with the medical condition.

"the pink brain/blue brain stuff."

We know that there are some male/female brain differences, but we also know that there is a huge overlap so almost everybody has a mixture of characteristics that are typical of their sex and less typical of their sex. We also know that trans brains are different to cis brains, and we also have to ask what are the things we don't know how to look for yet? For example, sexual attraction happens in your brain and is a big part of many people's lives, but most women are attracted to men, and most men are attracted to women so there is a clear brain sex difference. Where is that in the brain? To what extent can we see it in scans etc? Can a neurologist scan your brain and tell you with 100% certainty what you sexuality is? Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

The first thing to say is that you've come to the wrong place. Asking about trans issues here is like going to the Catholic church to ask about homosexuality, but I'll answer some of your questions for you:

No. It’s just a website that largely deals with the unavoidable consequences of sex. Its striking that people don’t recognise the reasons why they might get push back on this issue on this particular site, but I suppose that’s sexism.

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory doesn't it? That's because it is.

What statistics? There is little research in this area.

Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to the reasons why women need sex based rights.

More misinformation from Shizuku.

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway.

On this page GIDS say that suicide is extremely rare amongst the children who are referred to them as long as they are supported by their families and receiving psychological support.

gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base

Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

So it follows from this that it would be absurd to allow males into female only spaces on the grounds that they have a ladybrain.

I've always found it odd that they argue for access on the basis of a self declared brain condition anyway, since the segregation of male and female spaces is due to body differences, not brain differences.

Good to see that you agree with keeping males out of female only spaces, Shizuku.

[quote OldCrone]More misinformation from Shizuku.

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway.

On this page GIDS say that suicide is extremely rare amongst the children who are referred to them as long as they are supported by their families and receiving psychological support.

gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base[/quote]
They are referencing this paper:

www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(15)00159-7/fulltext

"For several informants, a reason to use puberty suppression was the fear of increased suicidality in untreated adolescents with GD. Research shows that transgender youth are at higher risk of suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts [3, 36]. Nevertheless, caution is needed when interpreting these data because they do not show causality or directionality."

You see - they are not saying that there is no suicide risk, they are only saying that caution is needed when interpreting the results. Other papers have found clear links.

@OldCrone

Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

So it follows from this that it would be absurd to allow males into female only spaces on the grounds that they have a ladybrain.

I've always found it odd that they argue for access on the basis of a self declared brain condition anyway, since the segregation of male and female spaces is due to body differences, not brain differences.

Good to see that you agree with keeping males out of female only spaces, Shizuku.

Trans women aren't males though.

Gender: Social and cultural expectations linked to sex - e.g. that women will put up with any old nonsense.

For me, 3rd spaces makes sense as a way to ensure the safety of everyone but the problem is they won't be properly funded and provided, will they? And obviously anyone using them would run the risk of being outed as trans which has implications for their safety (and again this would include trans men). So I'm not sure it's a panacea, if indeed there is such a solution to be found. Maybe in future there will be a move towards individual, secure gender-neutral cubicle (ie with proper walls and doors) but that doesn't help with the here and now.

I think 3rd spaces are the way forward. They wouldn't have to be exclusively for trans people. They could be for anyone who is happy to use them. So using them wouldn't out you as trans. That way women can still have the single sex spaces they need. And trans women don't have to share with men.

Trans women aren't males though.

What are they, then? The definition of a transwoman is a male who 'identifies as' a woman.

Female people can't be transwomen. Or can they? Could I identity as a transwoman?

Shizuku can you really see no issue with using 'people with vaginas' when the topic relates to, well. The cunty types?

Why do you think the orgs that use the sort of language you have recommended, don't put it on the front page even when the item is about people with vaginas.

I think it's because there would be outrage from the general public. Referring to women and girls kidnapped, raped, sold, tortured, impregnated etc as 'people with vaginas'.

And what of males- people with penises I assume?

So. All too often. This group attacked the village. All people with penises over the age of 10 were killed. People with penises under 10 were kidnapped to be trained to fight. People with vaginas under the age of 25 were taken... Etc

It feels long winded
It feels dehumanising
It feels crass to refer to people by their genitals when they are people. Segregated on what used to be called sex and murdered, raped, or taken to train as soldiers.

This is what you suggested.

Can you seriously see no issues with it?

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory doesn't it? That's because it is

Shall we focus on the UK since we are a UK based forum? And here in the UK it has been also noted that the suicide rates (as per Tavistock) are no higher than other groups with similar vulnerabilities. Still high, yes. But not higher.

Shall we also look at what else is reported by Tavistock that clinicians have noticed a certain degree of coaching by groups to answers around suicide by some patients.

It should also be noted that a recent study published by the American Journal of Psychiatry stating that titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,” have retracted its primary conclusion due to it being actually not able to prove it at all.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/?fbclid=IwAR1qhY36S81bxLIL-Gm04MemcwA8R0OBpG5iCy_CrUM6tGttrO98Un-WLTE

I am posting the above as it has links.

So. As has been posted in response to your stats on other threads, no one disputes the numbers are high. What is disputed is that they are higher than other groups. And that they are often used to push for moving to an affirming only treatment plan with not alternative options that are tailored to the individual needs of patients. And that there is little acknowledgement that transitioning doesn’t necessarily help mental health the way many people like to state.

They are referencing this paper:

They are actually referencing their own experience.

gids.nhs.uk/parents-and-carers#im-worried-that-my-child-may-harm-themselves

There have been FOIs which showed that the number of children referred to GIDS who have attempted suicide is extremely small.

Male and female are being redefined.

Shizuku confirmed that if anyone needs to talk about the cunty half of the world and issues that affect them they they must be referenced by their reproductive parts.

So that's pretty clear.

The fact that even charities and news outlets that are 100% on board with this still use women and girl to mean cunty when they want donations etc. Is a cowardly cop out.

They support this language. Fucking own it then. Put it on the front page.

Fromthe link in my previouspost.

The majority of the children and young people we see do not self harm, nor do they make attempts to end their own life. Although there is a higher rate of self-harm in the young people who are seen at GIDS compared to all teenagers, it is a similar rate to that seen in local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

Also note that trans women and girls get various words.

Woman/ girl when that suits
Trans woman /trans girl when that suits
Increasingly female and also the gender-assuming 'cis'.

Cunty people get no group words unless we're referred to by our reproductive parts.

People with vaginas is so long. Cut to the chase. Cunts will do. We've been called worse and at least the intention is clear.

Ask yourself which group is more likely to be involved in an ideology:

1. A group of people with a recognised medical condition with a range of biological markers, being helped by doctors and scientists all over the world who study their condition, it's causes, effects and treatments, and publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

2. A group of people who don't have that medical condition, who are not involved in research, treatment or studies of that condition, but who belong to a political group who have some ideas that are brought into question by the existence of the people with the medical condition.

You are again alluding to far right are you? So, members of the Green Party who have been members for decades are now suddenly far right too? When will this ridiculous agenda to paint anyone who disagrees as being ‘right wing’ or whatever stop. This is the UK.

Yes, this is political. Because women having been seeking discussion, seeking debate about the rights needed to overcome a millennia of sexist discrimination against women and girls based on our sexed bodies. Not gendered. Sexed. So, yes. It is political.

What is a group more likely to be involved in an ideology? Women who have experienced sexist discrimination and violence and know exactly what happens if their rights are diluted or eroded? Or people who are telling others they can change sex? And that a penis can be a woman’s penis? And that women no longer can use the word woman to uniquely identify themselves as a sex class?

Trans women aren't males though

This is the point where anyone reading will realise how worthless your arguments are, when they will realise that you will say anything - no matter how meaningless - to avoid truth.

I thought being transgender was not a medical condition

I'm surprised at that statement.

And you're assuming the genders of people who don't agree with you (again). That's also seen as bad form I thought.

'who belong to a political group who have some ideas that are brought into question by the existence of the people with the medical condition.'

These would be ideas like

Human beings are mammals and as a rule come in male/ female with different apparatus for reproduction

Along with that are other differences on average between the two groups

That the penis group has oppressed the vagina groups to a greater or lesser extent all over the world and as long as we remember

Those sort of beliefs?

The existence of people who have dysphoria about their sexed body/ have an internal sense that they are the opposite gender or somewhere in between challenges this how?

I don't have an internal feeling of gender but I accept that others do. Same as I have no spiritual feelings but I accept others do.

Why does this challenge my beliefs..?

Are you ok with the catchall term for the vast majority of MTF trans people and men being "people with a penis", gender fans?

The first thing to say is that you've come to the wrong place. Asking about trans issues here is like going to the Catholic church to ask about homosexuality

Or. This is also a website that has parents whose children identify as trans. This is also a website with a slew of people from different professional, cultural and other backgrounds that contribute to dissecting and discussing the impacts of trans rights on the rights set aside to protect women and girls from sexist discrimination due to their sexed bodies.

Even the sexist discrimination that seems to be very apparent in the hand waving of the higher health risks suffered by female transitioners, and the hand waving of the unique needs of the current cohort of young female transitioners (who vastly outnumber the young male transitioners). In fact, recently the doctors behind the Dutch Protocol which has been the major push for puberty blockers have released statements about how this treatment needs a lot more care and research because it was recommended for a different group.

So, maybe this is a good place to gather information.

And maybe the supposed thousands of scientists and doctors you keep referring to need to be taken with some scepticism.

You keep pushing that list of ‘thousands’ who signed a political letter and I would suggest there are a large number of scientists on that list that are in completely irrelevant fields, and that some that are relevant may have significant career investment in certain treatment paths being adopted.

Trans women aren't males though.

Ask yourself which group is more likely to be involved in an ideology