Baroness Nicholson on Regent Street flags

[ChristinaXYZ]

Her letter here:

twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1542733465157877760/photo/1

Or the recent serial killer of gay men - it took the police a while to join the dots that there were actual murders after going ‘oh well, young gay men out in the early hours… gotta be suicide or misadventure innit?’

The same police who are so into LGB rights? It’s almost like they haven’t got the faintest clue about the LGB community, but I bet they can name all 170 genders and their respective pronouns

Can assure you I am in favour of the both the wonderful Pride flag flying and the majestic Union Jack flying. 🇬🇧 🏳️‍🌈

Would you be happy with the labrys flag flying? I would. Wonder why that one is never flown anymore?

You're right that most LGB people support trans people. This is also because we are more likely to know them and thus are actually far more educated on the issues than most straight/cisgender people.

I always find posts such as this very enlightening. It really goes to show how little some posters actually understand ‘trans’ people today.

To suggest this is ludicrous. Considering the huge increase in one particular demographic of trans people, that of children and young people. Particularly that of young females. ie. Our children.

Yet, here we have a poster who is very keen on trying to deny that and the fact that many posters on this board have loved ones they have daily contact with who are trans.

because it doesn’t fit their wish to make such broad negative generalisations about others who disagree with them.

@Helleofabore
because it doesn’t fit their wish to make such broad negative generalisations about others who disagree with them

the words ‘pot’, ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ spring to mind

this is an interesting point, I often think about the precise nature of the similarities and differences between societal objections to LGB people in the past and to trans people today.

There is obviously the very significant difference, in relation to children and young people particularly, that accepting or declaring one’s same sex attraction, or acting on it, does not involve drugs or surgery. However, there is a degree of parallel with the way it was suggested in the past that a young person who ‘chose to pursue a gay lifestyle’ (possibly as a result of untoward, predatory influences) would catch AIDS or other diseases, or would be doomed to a life of loneliness, childlessness, and exclusion from normal society.

There is also no obvious similarity on same sex spaces, although I think it’s worth bearing in mind the way that gay people in the past were viewed as a potential threat in places like changing rooms where their (our) unnatural desires might pose a threat, or our presence might make others feel uncomfortable.

But you said this in an earlier post:
*Pride is an event for LGBT people and if you don't support the rights of one of the letters the yep, you're not welcome.

No homophobia, biphobia or transphobia should be tolerated.*

So if there were gender critical people in the LGB they are hardly going to declare themselves.

Again with the forced teaming and the false equivalence. Trans rights have nothing to do with trans rights. It just proves the point that without the LGB the T is nothing. Gay people did not demand another group give up their rights, change language, force their way into spaces and groups that were not for them, issue rape, death and bomb threats to people who did not agree with them, and they definitely did not encourage children to make lifelong, irrevocable changes to their bodies.

Quite.

The alignment with LGB was a deliberate tactic. See the Denton report. Stealth and misrepresentation was acknowledged as completely necessary in order to gain public acceptance.

Homosexuality is real, verifiable, identifiable, etc. Transgenderism relies on the opposite, completely denying reality, and enforcing public compliance in that denial.

Force teaming with LGB was the goal. Anyone who observes the howls of outrage over non compliance like Get the L Out, sees that immediately.

"Considering the huge increase in one particular demographic of trans people, that of children and young people. Particularly that of young females. ie. Our children."

This is obviously the difference between you and me. I think it's a positive thing that more people feel safe to come out, you clearly think it a problem.

There are very few and as Kathleen Stock has remarked most don't like Pride much anyway:

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1531952997852487681

Nice bit of goalpost moving there.

That was in response to you fondly imagining that no one knows any trans people. When almost every here parent will.

'Coming out' is another appropriation of the LGB. Please don't do it.

Children are diagnosed. It's not a sexual orientation.

"Gay people did not demand another group give up their rights, change language, force their way into spaces and groups that were not for them."

This just shows that how little you know about LGBT history.

Gay, lesbians and bisexual people were accused of "redefining marriage" when we pushed for gay marriage. People said that two women or two men could simply not be married because the tradition was "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". "It's biology, not bigotry" is another one I hear yelled at trans people that is very familiar to me.

We also did force our way into institutions where we were told we had no right to belong - the Armed Forces being just one. We were told we would be a threat to unit cohesion and risk upsetting military morale. We persisted and the ban was removed in Britain in 2000 and in the US in 2011.

Trans people have been "coming out" as trans as long as I've been aware of them - and no doubt centuries before that.

Indeed, coming out is one of the many things that all LGBT people have in common.

This is obviously the difference between you and me. I think it's a positive thing that more people feel safe to come out, you clearly think it a problem

There seem to be many differences between you and me Earache, but that you see the many issues that are facing our daughters as a ‘positive’ thing is one of the most telling.

And it also shows just how lacking in information and real life experience you are.

Should I post the links I posted on one of the other threads about the issues with the treatment paths for young people at the moment. I guess you did not bother to read any of them. Even though they were original source studies and reports from current clinicians, I still doubt you would have read them. Far better to simply post that superiority you seem to like to claim, but never actually produce evidence to support.

My work twitter is full of charity corporate comms teams posting their photos from Pride. I know most of them personally, the vast majority are straight & see this as on the same level of going round the party conferences but with more glitter & rainbows

YY.

Force teaming with LGB was the goal. Anyone who observes the howls of outrage over non compliance like Get the L Out, sees that immediately.

Indeed. I know someone who was involved in the founding of the LGB Alliance and I warned him how nasty I felt it was going to get. He didn't quite get how much then, he understands now.

Your doubling down on ignoring the needs of this new current cohort is not doing any favours for your credibility.

No. Not sure how many more times we have to say it to you. Even the authors of the original Dutch Protocol have publicly stated that this cohort is different enough that their treatment protocol should not be used without more research. And that is what Dr Hilary Cass is doing now.

The cohorts are different. It is harmful to say they are just like the cohorts in the past.

And it is sexist discrimination as well to keep making that claim.

"In this prospective cohort of 104 TNB youths aged 13 to 20 years, receipt of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60% lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality over a 12-month follow-up."

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

Personally, I think it is positive if we can reduce the rate of depression and suicide among young transgender people.

"The study found that transgender individuals who had received a diagnosis of gender incongruence were:

six times more likely to have a mood or anxiety disorder than the general population.

three times as likely to be prescribed antidepressants and antianxiety medications.

more than six times as likely to attempt suicide resulting in hospitalization.

The study also found that transgender individuals who had undergone gender-affirming surgery were significantly less likely to seek mental health treatment for depression and anxiety disorders as a function of years since the procedure."

ysph.yale.edu/news-article/transgender-individuals-at-greater-risk-of-mental-health-problems/

Again, if you're transgender, gender affirming healthcare usually has a very positive and meaningful impact on a person's health and self of sense.

We also did force our way into institutions where we were told we had no right to belong - the Armed Forces being just one. We were told we would be a threat to unit cohesion and risk upsetting military morale. We persisted and the ban was removed in Britain in 2000 and in the US in 2011.

So the Army is now another traditionally oppressed group which has fought for millenia to be allowed to exist equally in society and has established safe spaces to allow them access to a world dominated by an oppressor group.
Now if able bodied Gay people had demanded the right to use disabled facilities ,facilities designated for particular ethnic groups of which they were not a part or the right to have jobs, scholarships etc designated for females only, then that would be a fair comparison to males who identify as women demanding access to female only spaces, jobs etc. However, guess what , that's not what they did. They, like women have had to do, had to fight to get into places of power.

And those kids being advised to say they are suicidal to get prescriptions (heard the recording of doctors and lobby groups recommending this?) how are they counted in these surveys?

for every study that says X there will be one that says Y.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

This is a study that tracks young people for a 12 month period only. There is no follow up after.

Were you able to track the number of participants who had therapy for their mental health in this study at all?

I could not see this but I am only on a small screen and it is difficult to analyse this in as much depth as I like too.

Because I did not read any adjustments made around that.

Now, I know hearache you have been told before about the specific increased health risks of puberty blockers and testosterone on the female body.
The life limiting, too often life shortening negative side effects that show up much later than 12 months down the treatment path.

Is there a reason you keep avoiding acknowledging this?
Because this will start affecting participant’s mental health in the longer term. Including the significant symptoms of menopause those females will experience.

Back to this study.

It is also concerning that 30% did not do the questionnaire and as the questionnaire was only administered voluntarily I consider the results to be discussion started only and not a robust study to use to inform guidance in any way.

If this was a study of clinician led mental health surveys with a review of notes, it may be much more useable than it is. As it is, this is just another biased piece of work that seems to ignore the personal accounts of clinicians, including the Tavistock.

By the way, remember there was also a study done by another Ivy League university that declared a similar outcome … only to have to retract its conclusions less than a year later after clinicians and other researchers pointed out the errors in it.
It showed no or too little overall improvement to warrant the conclusions drawn.

So this paragraph is also important.

it is important to note that we observed a transient and nonsignificant worsening in mental health outcomes in the first several months of care among all participants and that these outcomes subsequently returned to baseline by 12 months. This is consistent with findings from a 2020 study36 in an academic medical center in the northwestern US that observed no change in TNB adolescents’ GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores from intake to first follow-up appointment, which occurred a mean of 4.7 months apart. Given that receipt of PBs or GAHs was associated with protection against depression and suicidality in our study, it could be that delays in receipt of medications is associated with initially exacerbated mental health symptoms that subsequently improve. It is also possible that mental health improvements associated with receiving these interventions may have a delayed onset, given the delay in physical changes after starting GAHs.

And this is important too.

This was a clinical sample of TNB youths, and there was likely selection bias toward youths with supportive caregivers who had resources to access a gender-affirming care clinic. Family support and access to care are associated with protection against poor mental health outcomes, and thus actual rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality in nonclinical samples of TNB youths may differ.

I am sure others will be along to analyse the study. But it doesn’t seem to be very robust or useful to me.

Happy to see others who have gone through it show me why my concerns are not warranted though. I am only on a small screen as I said so I could be missing information.