Heartbreaking column in today's Scotsman

[howonearthdidwegethere]

Columnist Susan Dalgety reflecting on the words of the Cabinet Minister Shona Robison in the Scottish Parliament last week.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/abusive-men-will-exploit-proposed-new-gender-recognition-law-susan-dalgety-3596504

Shame on Robison and Sturgeon. Traitors to their sex. How do they sleep at night?

^^ this.

Diseases don't care how you identify, they affect your sexed body.

Normal ranges of observations eg heart rate are different for males and females. Drug doses can be different. It's phenomenally self important to expect your overworked, underpaid health care workers to somehow figure out your actual sex when your notes contain a legal fiction. Which they are not allowed to ask you about for fear of disciplinary action.

Sadly, I sometimes have to read post mortem medical reports for work. The first piece of information they contain is the sex of the corpse. Oddly enough, the coroner is not interested in gender as it has no relevance in determining cause of death (can a dead person even have a gender as they would have no consciousness to feel a certain way)?

Oddly enough, reading this survey for IWD and the # of men who think 'feminism does more harm than good' and its results made me think of this thread.

Thirty-seven per cent of men in Saudi Arabia… 30% of men in Australia, 22% of men in the US, 19% of men in Great Britain and 7% of men in Japan.“

www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/international-womens-day-2022-us-release

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/05/week-in-patriarchy-feminism-arwa-mahdawi?

Diseases don't care how you identify, they affect your sexed body.

I read an item recently that wasn't nearly as good an explanation of this research study as this summary.

Transgender women may be at higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared to cisgender women, but not to cisgender men, according to new research published in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2021/transgender-women-may-be-more-likely-to-have-type-2-diabetes-than-cisgender-women

It is odd, however, that some commenters on the study didn't grasp why the results of this were a strong hint towards the appropriate comparator for some populations and research questions.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Diseases don't care how you identify, they affect your sexed body.

I read an item recently that wasn't nearly as good an explanation of this research study as this summary.

Transgender women may be at higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared to cisgender women, but not to cisgender men, according to new research published in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2021/transgender-women-may-be-more-likely-to-have-type-2-diabetes-than-cisgender-women

It is odd, however, that some commenters on the study didn't grasp why the results of this were a strong hint towards the appropriate comparator for some populations and research questions.

It is more than odd that they apparently didn't notice, it is outrageous!

This is why muddling language, especially in legal and health contexts, helps no one.

Robin was harping on earlier about the EA and GRA reform (self ID ) being different things and self ID having nothing to do with single sex spaces as it's the EA that provides for single sex spaces.

It may have escaped Robin's notice that without being able to correctly identify sex legally, there can be no workable basis for single sex spaces in law, whatever the EA says. Self ID undermines it utterly. I have never seen a coherent logical explanation as to how we can have both self ID AND proper single sex (not gender, natal sex) spaces. I await one with bated breath...

It is odd, however, that some commenters on the study didn't grasp why the results of this were a strong hint towards the appropriate comparator for some populations and research questions

A fine example of "Barracker's Law", @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus:

"If you can describe it, but can't or mustn't name it, it is vulnerable.
If you can name it, but can't or mustn't describe it, it is powerful.

Data rights; the right to marry as one's affirmed sex; how one is regarded when reporting a death, tax and social security records and so on - there re a number of other examples. There is quite a long list where the GRA is still of considerable relevance.

Can you state what some of these items are on this 'long list'?

Data rights - I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

the right to marry as one's affirmed sex - what does this mean? It doesn't state sex on a marriage certificate (in England and Wales), and if a man wanted to wear a dress to his wedding there's nothing to stop him from doing so.

how one is regarded when reporting a death - shouldn't the sex of the person who has died be recorded accurately rather than a fiction about their 'gender identity'? As a PP has pointed out, this gender identity no longer even exists after death.

Tax and social security records - shouldn't these be an accurate record rather than a fiction? How does changing a sex marker on these affect that person's life?

So I can't see anything which indicates that a GRC is of any use whatsoever.

I've often wondered who benefits from all this?
Not women and girls certainly- from lack of protection and loss of single sex services to losing against men in women's sport, it's all downhill.

Who does benefit from weakening safeguarding? All but the most moronic know that some people are dangerous and should be kept away from the more vulnerable. Even the most cursory glance at statistics shows that it is men who are overwhelmingly responsible for violence and sexual offences.

So why the push to make safeguarding weaker? Why the denial that abusers take advantage of any weakness to abuse, that they will lie and cheat and use any loopholes to get access?

My abuser hid in plain sight- what a helpful man, how kind to the children, how good with difficult teens! Yes, he was, and years later his actions still affect me, and doubtless others.

The only people this is benefits are abusers- giving easier access to their victims, making us all play along with their sick games.

And no, monitors, I know it's "not all men" and "not all trans people " just as it's not all priests, scouters, football coaches, doctors.....

Yes, @notreadytobeouted, I think you're right.

Plus, there is a great deal of money being made by some people.

There are people who genuinely have dysphoria who genuinely struggle and need support. And there are those who would exploit that situation to gain access to vulnerable people. And a global industry supporting both of those.

It's nasty. The people who need the help, those with actual dysphoria - no one talk about them. Especially if they are female.

It's all about "I want..." from white, educated, comfortable, articulate, capable, well connected and determined people. Who keep telling me that they are vulnerable.

Maybe "vulnerable" has a new meaning now too.

So why the push to make safeguarding weaker?

And to convince females that the law doesn't protect them.

And that they have no right to single sex spaces.

And that their privacy and dignity is an arguable thing, along with their right not to be utilised as a resource by the opposite sex without their consent.

And to devalue and slur females who argue against this. And to frame the desire for privacy, dignity, equality of consideration or not have one's physical form utilised to serve someone of the opposite sex's need as prudery, old fashioned silliness, bigotry, 'hate', definitely not something nice or cool girls do.

And as we see here: to repeatedly try to convince females that their voices are irrelevant, their 'lived experience' is worthless, their autonomy and feelings and choices mean nothing.

Yes, who does benefit from this?

It absolutely for certain is no one female.

Although it does strike me that when the drive is so very strong to repeatedly tell females over and over again, you're powerless, this is over, it's happened, there is nothing you can do .....

If that was really the case, why would anyone bother trying so hard to convince them?

It kind of suggests that consent does matter and that this is not settled. And frankly it won't be. The issues for females are not going to go away, they are just going to go right on getting bigger and bigger.

“How one is regarded when reporting a death”

On a feminist board, on a thread about the horrors of sexual abuse that predominantly affects females and is universally recognised as difficult to prosecute...

McVitties don’t make enough biscuits for that.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]@RobinMoiraWhite what about the HARM that having a legal fiction on paperwork does to trans people?

What is the benefit of e.g. having "female" on medical records so that when a person with a big belly and a beard and abdominal pain presents in A+E says "I'm a trans man" the nurse doesn't pick up on the implications of that because the medical records said "M"? By the time anyone realised that the patient was actually female, or that the pain was from labour from a cryptic pregnancy - the infant had died.

If the medical records were correct the first thing a triage nurse would have excluded would have been pregnancy.

Facts are facts, sex is sex, and muddling up paperwork has serious consequences.

That baby died, and it should not have died. There are multiple examples of harm being done because of the wrong sex marker on medical records. I'm sure you're aware of them.

Who benefits from getting delayed or inadequate medical care?[/quote]
I see that you quote a theoretical case, not an actual one.

I know from personal and professional experience that medical staff are alive to the possibility of trans patients and deal with them with courtesy and efficiency.

Please don’t project your view that trans people should not be accommodated with dignity into suggesting that trans women need to attend hospital with a big red flashing ‘male’ sign attached to them somewhere.

I see that you quote a theoretical case, not an actual one.

It's an actual case, which was discussed on here when it was first reported.

metro.co.uk/2019/05/20/pregnant-transgender-mans-baby-died-because-nurse-didnt-realize-he-was-in-labor-9613972/

Don’t you ever get tired of so thoroughly misrepresenting what women here actually say, Robin?

I mean, we’ve all got eyes, we can all read what vivarium wrote, and that your response is a complete non sequitur to what she said. You’re an intelligent person, so I really don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to engage on a serious level with the women here who are your intellectual and experiential equals.

If for no other reason that actually trying to understand how gender critical people think would help you conquer our actual arguments with the knowledge you have that you clearly feel is superior.

But you don’t.

There was also the actual case of a transman who presented with kidney failure and whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was determined to be with the acceptable range for males but had it been considered within the correct context of the patient being female, a transplant would have been immediately recommended and the patient wouldn't have become so gravely ill.

Please don’t project your view that trans people should not be accommodated with dignity into suggesting that trans women need to attend hospital with a big red flashing ‘male’ sign attached to them somewhere.

Your comment above is also very interesting as it's in response to a comment which talked about an actual case involving a transman, not a transwoman.

In fact, the poster you were replying to didn't mention transwomen at all anywhere in their post.

Are you not even aware of that case, Robin? I'm surprised. I'd have thought someone interested in protecting and supporting all trans people would have been cognisant of it.

Or is it just transwomen you're concerned with?

@DomesticatedZombie

Are you not even aware of that case, Robin? I'm surprised. I'd have thought someone interested in protecting and supporting all trans people would have been cognisant of it.

Or is it just transwomen you're concerned with?

And on the basis of that one case you would remove from all trans people their freedom to live as they would wish?

The case you appear to be referring to (though FYI, I've mentioned another actual case above) was mentioned as an example of 'what about the HARM that having a legal fiction on paperwork does to trans people?'

So your last post - And on the basis of that one case you would remove from all trans people their freedom to live as they would wish? seems to be ridiculous hyperbole along the lines of the deeply tiresome 'you just don't want transpeople to exist!!!!' that we see here so often.

You also don't seem to acknowledge that the cases cited above involve transmen or address any possible issues (illustrated by the cases above) regarding the possible harm to transpeople by the fictionalisation of medical records.

I've asked before Robin - aren't you a barrister? I'm always a bit surprised when I read your posts as they show such poor critical thinking skills.

And on the basis of that one case you would remove from all trans people their freedom to live as they would wish?

I don't want to remove anyone's freedom to live as they wish. I don't think anyone here has said they want to do that.

You are free to live your life as you wish, as long as by doing so you don't cause harm to others.

But that case was mentioned as an example of the harm that the insistence that TWAW and TMAM does to trans people. So you might also want to consider whether the insistence that people can change sex might also be harmful to trans people.

It is also unfortunate that the handwaving away of examples where transpeople (in both these cases, transmen) have been harmed by the fictionalisation of medical records comes across as transmen being seen as acceptable collateral damage by gender ideology.

It can be seen in other discussions too - where 'well it's only a few women who have been raped' or 'well, that's only one instance!' when talking about single sex spaces.

It's almost as though females (however they identify) aren't seen as important enough to bother about.

@OldCrone

And on the basis of that one case you would remove from all trans people their freedom to live as they would wish?

I don't want to remove anyone's freedom to live as they wish. I don't think anyone here has said they want to do that.

You are free to live your life as you wish, as long as by doing so you don't cause harm to others.

But that case was mentioned as an example of the harm that the insistence that TWAW and TMAM does to trans people. So you might also want to consider whether the insistence that people can change sex might also be harmful to trans people.

I don’t need education in biology or the complexity that my life choices have, on occasion, caused with medical treatment - all of which the medical profession have taken in their stride.

What I never see in these ‘isn’t it awful, look what might happen’ stories is any suggestion on how matters should be dealt with differently if trans people are to continue to be permitted to live with dignity.

And on the basis of that one case you would remove from all trans people their freedom to live as they would wish?

No.

'live with dignity' - funnily enough that's exactly what women are asking for. So my wish to not share a space where I am vulnerable with a male bodied person, for my privacy and dignity, is not respected. But a male's wish to use my space should be. Why is that, I wonder?

What I never see in these ‘isn’t it awful, look what might happen’ stories is any suggestion on how matters should be dealt with differently if trans people are to continue to be permitted to live with dignity.

Oh, that's very simple. The NHS has the ability to record both 'gender identity' and sex on patient records. Yet they use only the former.

It's fine to record the former, but absolutely essential that the latter is recorded if we wish to avoid potentially dangerous situations - males being given blood transfusions that could endanger their health is one instance that springs to mind. If trans people really prefer to only record their gender identity while being clear and aware of the risks, then that's their choice.