Stonewall's response to Transgender Trend

[Eachpeachporch]

I wonder if anyone has had the experience of sharing the Transgender Trend schools resource pack and getting Stonewall's response to it as a reply? Does anyone have any thoughts on what Stonewall says here? Any help much appreciated! www.stonewall.org.uk/node/62946

I think we're getting into the realm of conspiracy theories if people want to ignore this sort of work.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Did you even read what this 'blog' post said?

Do you unequivocally believe what this 'blog' post said? Not the studies. The overall review? Have you then also looked at the studies? What have those 51 studies got to do with the majority of teenaged female transitioners at this time? The cohort that I, and other posters, are extremely concerned about. Because this impacts our children.

And FFS. You think your analogy is great.

I think your analogy is flawed.

@Helleofabore

That doesn't answer my question.

What are the numerous studies you are posting meant to be showing us?

It's right there in black and white - I don't know how to make it any clearer for you, would bolding help?

"....
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
."

You are so patient with the fuckwittery aimed at you Helleofabore. I have no doubt that it is a deliberate attempt to derail the thread and drain you of energy. Hats off to you for keeping going though. You'll never change suggestions mind of course, they have a completely different agenda that doesn't align with women and children's safety. But it certainly does serve to demonstrate to the lurkers the dark side of trans ideology, and the methods it's followers employ to try and hide that.

Absolute bullshit.

Do you actually think that pumping a body with hormones that are not designed for that body, and possibly cutting off body parts or reforming them, leading to a life of poor health including:

Possible infertility
Possible loss of sexual function
Increased chance of cancers
Lifelong dependance on drugs
Decreased life span
Decreased mental development
Decreased bone density
Countless other unlnonm effects
( This is experimental medical intervention)

If you think THAT increases a better quality of life you are utterly deluded.

A study that suggests that is the case is probably funded by an interested party. There seems to be a lot of money flying around pushing the transgender agenda. Guess what? Us genuinely concerned mums get paid fuck all!

I imagine that if you truly believe this, you are either: young and naive with little life experience, live in a city/town not very connected to nature, have never been physically unwell yourself to have felt the anxiety that goes alongside chronic illness or have vested interests in pushing this agenda. Maybe all of the above.

Anyone that is connected to nature and understand the importance of healthy, organic holistic living would realise the serious impact you have on quality of life by meddling so deeply with nature.

Shame on you for pushing such a dangerous agenda, and normalising children butchering themselves. Shame on you.

Get a better understanding before you spout any more of this dangerous shit.

Gender dysphoric children need good quality counselling that looks at their whole person, hopefully they can exit therapy being healthy, robust adults with a healthy mind-body connection. Think how much money Mermaids could donate towards therapy for children!

You can repeat your analogy as much as you want Suggestions, but as far as I see you are unable to engage with the substance of what people are saying, just plop the same old links with no discussion. This is a debate tactic I've experienced most often on other platforms, such as Twitter. And it generally indicates a lack of understanding of what the links are showing, and the limitations and context of the findings.

This from my source bears repeating, if we're going to copy and paste:

Instead of overwhelming quantitative evidence that transition is the best treatment for gender dysphoria, many of the studies provide a qualitative sample of trans-identified persons who report that transition was beneficial for them. This is important information, but it is not definitive. In general, the studies themselves faithfully reported their methodology and were often frank about their weaknesses. Rather, it was those at the What We Know Project who chose to present these studies as dispositive proof and to ignore or downplay their faults and limitations. This was activism, not scholarship.

Ps. The guy who invented the lobotomy won a nobel prize at the time!!!

How many parents instinctively didn't want to see parts of their kids brains cut out?

How many scientists said that it was a great idea?

I'd say that mother's instincts need to be a societal guide.

@OldCrone

That person hits a whole new level of stupid.

It looked like fear to me. Too scared to read what TT had to say in case they decided it was something they should have read 10 years ago, before all the testosterone treatment.

Oh my days, so true. I didn't watch all but they had no rebuttals beyond 'TERF... disgusting...'

Probably scared of hearing something they all grew with. Why anyone would be bothered by the word detransition is interesting...

We do seem to have had a recent influx of posters with a dislike of women alongside a worrying lack of understanding of science, facts and an inability to present accurate data.
Although it's tedious - and to all those women prepared to engage with it - the one advantage is it gives lurkers an insight into the dire state of data - especially around children and keeps informative threads bumped.

Max reported that he had always known he was a boy and had preferred stereotypical masculine clothing, mannerisms, and activities for as long as he could remember.

If it's not about stereotypes and sexism, why would Max even think this is relevant?

And why is there no mention of what has caused Max's gender dysphoria?

In most of these narratives the causes of gender dysphoria are conspicuous by their total absence. There doesn't seem to be any curiosity about it, either. Just accepted that kids suddenly develop an aversion to their own bodies. Often accompanied by an internal belief that their sex is prevented from doing things that they would like to do.

It's so bloody obvious, I don't know how it can be so frequently ignored.

suggestionsplease1 what would you say are the main causes of gender dysphoria in children? And do you agree that a cure would be beneficial?

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

I believe that the focus of this thread is on teenagers and children. Or did I miss the change of topic?

I also believe that would mean we are discussing the current cohort of teenaged and children transitioners. The majority of which are female, which is different from the past.

Plonking down study after after after study that is not relevant to this cohort is not progressing any discussion. And if you cannot link studies that are focused on the needs of this cohort, it is rather futile. It does not show that you have a superior understanding on the topic at hand. It shows that you are grabbing anything to show you have 'links'.

We have recently had some clinicians (even transitioned male clinicians) who are saying there is problems with the current treatment recommendations for the current cohort.

Are you prepared to ignore them? Are you fully prepared to stand behind every single one of the studies/reviews you have posted in light of these clinicians trying to get the flag raised there is an issue?

I am not going to mention that Cornell uni 'review' that you seem to think my analysis of worthy of:' I think we're getting into the realm of conspiracy theories if people want to ignore this sort of work. '

I am not even convinced you have read those 51 studies. And considering that I believe there is enough evidence that puts the ' We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm. ' into the realm of false claim, I doubt you have read 'widely' of studies.

Again, I am going to point out that you are very keen to push your political agenda and to shame and belittle people pointing out the issues with your links.

I say very loudly for the people at the back.

There are posters on this thread that are very widely engaged with this issue, wanting to see balanced and evidenced debate between clinicians to ensure that the very best treatment is being found and recommended for this cohort of transitioners. Because this impacts OUR CHILDREN.

I feel very strongly that the two sides of this argument are talking at crossed purposes. I don't believe that stonewall or any similar organisation are some pantomime monsters that want to get their big gay claws into our innocent children. They are genuinely trying to help the many young people who have found their essential identity is denied by our society. However, I do believe that these organisations are blind to the fact that the fairly typical teen rejection of norms has joined up with the trans movement and some teens ( generally middle class, white females ) are 'identifying as ...' as a way of rejecting the poisonous, over-sexualised gender expectations for females. Each side is fearing for those it has recognised and is discussing their needs, not the needs of the children the other side are talking about. Iyswim

@SpeedRunParent I'm sorry, but that is an extremely naive viewpoint, when taking into account the influences that are now in schools from the earliest ages, the affirmation in schools, society, peer groups, social media, and the explosion of young people -particularly young adolescent girls - being presented at GIDS clinics in the western world.

@SpeedRunParent

I feel very strongly that the two sides of this argument are talking at crossed purposes. I don't believe that stonewall or any similar organisation are some pantomime monsters that want to get their big gay claws into our innocent children. They are genuinely trying to help the many young people who have found their essential identity is denied by our society. However, I do believe that these organisations are blind to the fact that the fairly typical teen rejection of norms has joined up with the trans movement and some teens ( generally middle class, white females ) are 'identifying as ...' as a way of rejecting the poisonous, over-sexualised gender expectations for females. Each side is fearing for those it has recognised and is discussing their needs, not the needs of the children the other side are talking about. Iyswim

Whilst I agree that young girls want to escape a pornified, highly sexualised world where they are constantly objectified I disagree about stonewalls motives.

Stonewall have abandoned their remit of advocating for gay people all together. They don't think there is any such thing. In fact they think that lesbianism is akin to racism.

For many, it was a brave and long-overdue airing of an important and distressing subject: a painstaking investigation into claims that predatory trans women have been pressuring lesbians for sex, published on the BBC News website.

But a leaked email shows that the influential trans lobby group Stonewall attempted to suppress the investigation before it had even been published – and made the extraordinary claim that debating the issues was equivalent to ‘sexual racism’.

In this scenario ^, they are supporting heterosexual men, over gay women.

They were also entirely upfront about wanting to eliminate any sex segregation at all. And lobbied to have all the exceptions contained in the GRA, put there deliberately to protect women, removed entirely.

And their training has been found to be unlawful. Or in the official words, they want the laws to be as they would like them, not as they are.

They are not ignorant of any of this, since women have been highlighting it for years.

Sorry, here is the link. www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/amp/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html

I don't believe that stonewall or any similar organisation are some pantomime monsters that want to get their big gay claws into our innocent children.

Maybe. Maybe not. Have you seen though who is on the Stonewall teams that is going out to schools? Peter Tatchell. I recommend you look Peter up and his writings on intergenerational sex. There is also Alex Drummond to discuss how he, a transitioned male, is a lesbian.

Up until recently they were also pushing the rhetoric that some people can be born in the 'wrong' bodies.

And as datun says, they have said some shameful things about lesbians and women who reject Stonewall's changes to the definition of lesbian.

Can you please point out what 'the other side' is saying that is problematic?

They are genuinely trying to help the many young people who have found their essential identity is denied by our society.

Do you understand the situation currently with the current cohort of young transitioners? That which is mostly females. Do you understand that parents are very concerned about the current treatments advocated by trans lobby groups of affirming only?

Because not enough emphasis is on the exploring of mental health and other comorbidities is being done. We are seeing this when we listen to detransitioners who have stated that this is the case. A group that seems to be ignored by the trans lobby groups and clinicians.

You have likely seen this already, however the Finnish have recognised the upsurge and cohort switch and have revised their treatment approach to be additionally cautious, and are expecting to improve learnings as they navigate the new landscape:
segm.org/sites/default/files/Finnish_Guidelines_2020_Minors_Unofficial%20Translation.pdf

Of note, in review of applicable studies:

In a larger study consisting of 201 adolescents, 101 patients with the average age of 15.5 (12-18 years) started an 18-month psychological supportive intervention, and, additionally at six months, pubertal development was suppressed by starting GnRH analogue treatment. The other cohort of 100 only received psychological supportive intervention for 18 months. In both groups, statistically significant increases in global psychosocial functioning were found at 12 and 18 months; among those having received psychological intervention alone, the improvement in global functioning was already significant at the 6-month mark. Both studies lack long-term treatment follow-up into adulthood.

I don’t have the study reference to hand as the Appendix is not available in this translated format. I could probably find it though, if any interest.

Can I also highlight the work of the Evidence Based Social Work Alliance?
Latest Webinar which could be of interest, from Jan 22:

Website:www.ebswa.org

I should explain - the Webinar has Maggie Mellon of EBSWA, who I believe has joined the Genspect group now, plus Sue Evans, previously of Tavistock GIDS, and Betty of Bayswater Support group for parents.

@Helleofabore

That doesn't answer my question.

What are the numerous studies you are posting meant to be showing us?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

"During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place, which is known online as Brandolini's law.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.["

@Helleofabore I would encourage you to listen to the webinar above - and any other parent (or those working with children)

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I did think Gish Gallop but I wanted to give suggestions time to answer. Because it did feel like Gish Gallop.

DoubleTweenQueen

Thank you. I shall watch that webinar. And read the link on the Finnish study with interest. I note as you said the lack of follow up at this time. I am sure they will follow though.