Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

This is outrageous - medical paper argues that wanting healthy, undeformed babies should be "queered"

190 replies

Sidaway · 18/07/2023 08:38

So shocked I'm beyond words. I read on Twitter this morning that a paper, in a mainstream medical journal published by Elsevier, says:

"The authors argue that “gendered” pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that it might be okay for transmen to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy despite the known health risks to the fetus and effects on its normal development. The desire for “normal fetal outcomes,” according to the authors, is rooted in a problematic desire “to protect their offspring from becoming anything other than ‘normal’” and “reflect historical and ongoing social practices for creating ‘ideal’ and normative bodies."

https://twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1681087794998030337
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-house

The queer lobby must really, really hate children.

What did Elsevier think they were doing by publishing this? They should be called out for this very hard.

https://twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1681087794998030337

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Froodwithatowel · 19/07/2023 14:09

When harm to others is just shrugged away or smiled upon as 'just another identity' and it's all to enable the absolute narcissistic freedoms of a special individual?

Any ethics, morality or sense of society has left the building. It's not progressive to think like this, it is the province of the seriously ill and dysfunctional.

Helleofabore · 19/07/2023 17:02

Twitter is quoting the paper wildly out of context

Have we heard yet how this study has been misrepresented or was this just an unsubstantiated statement ?

borntobequiet · 19/07/2023 20:29

2bazookas · 18/07/2023 14:31

The point made over and over again in the paper, is the LACK of factual medical information available for trans contemplating pregnancy , about the effects on the baby of taking T, before during or after pregnancy. Read the comments of medical advisers dealing with them.

What's needed here IS proper medical research, not kneejerk reactions or anybody's propaganda.

How many times in history, has society been misled by misinformation about womens bodies; our autonomy denied and abused on moral and religious grounds.

You seem to be advocating using babies born to transmen taking testosterone as guinea pigs in a sort of natural experiment. Not very ethical really.

TheBiologyStupid · 19/07/2023 21:23

Helleofabore · 19/07/2023 17:02

Twitter is quoting the paper wildly out of context

Have we heard yet how this study has been misrepresented or was this just an unsubstantiated statement ?

I've read the pre-print - the paper was as abhorrent as described by the OP, though I have no idea what some randoms have said on Twitter.

Sidaway · 19/07/2023 22:21

TheBiologyStupid · 19/07/2023 21:23

I've read the pre-print - the paper was as abhorrent as described by the OP, though I have no idea what some randoms have said on Twitter.

Helen Joyce has this to say about it:

The original paper being commented on here is literally the worst, most disgusting, most wicked thing I've seen come out of genderism yet"

OP posts:
TheBiologyStupid · 19/07/2023 23:26

Thanks, Sidaway - as usual, Helen is spot on.

Pallisers · 19/07/2023 23:32

What's needed here IS proper medical research, not kneejerk reactions or anybody's propaganda.

You do know what proper medical research is - right? I'd love to see a study with a randomized population of pregnant women, some getting testosterone and some getting a placebo get past the ethics committee of any research institution.

Slothtoes · 20/07/2023 08:04

It does feels like a specific new low that if a political movement can’t permanently physically trans kids so easily any more by claiming it’s who the child is, that its proponents might then move on to trying to project some kind of identity validation on to parents who would deliberately expose their kids to the prospect of birth defects in utero, defects which could affect any part of the child’s brain and body.

That’s the problem with political advocates for genderism thinking about genitals as only externally relevant, as if they were interchangeable clip on Lego parts or something. It’s a false understanding of biology. In reality each human body has a whole complex and interrelated reproductive and hormonal system that is linked to their brain, and which affects the functioning of their body as a whole.

Xoxoxoxoxoxox · 20/07/2023 11:04

It's a feature of queer theory that it seems to damage what it touches and subvert the safeguards and best practice that have been learned. So far it has only made inroads into medical practice at the fringes with 'gender affirming care'.
There is a fundamental conflict as medicine is evidence based and made by dead white guys, it needs to be queered in their eyes.

NicCageisnotNickCave · 20/07/2023 11:24

Pallisers · 19/07/2023 23:32

What's needed here IS proper medical research, not kneejerk reactions or anybody's propaganda.

You do know what proper medical research is - right? I'd love to see a study with a randomized population of pregnant women, some getting testosterone and some getting a placebo get past the ethics committee of any research institution.

Quite.

and the animal studies (on rats and on sheep) are presumably why exogenous testosterone is is classified as a teratogenic?

This is a not a ‘well it might be ok’ situation the way an over the counter painkiller can be, testosterone is a controlled prescription drug.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/07/2023 11:28

I remember years ago reading of a deaf woman who chose to insemination herself with sperm from a deaf man, so her child would be born deaf. She wanted a child who would be part of deaf culture. It was a long time ago, pre-internet.

Me too.

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 12:27

2bazookas · 18/07/2023 14:31

The point made over and over again in the paper, is the LACK of factual medical information available for trans contemplating pregnancy , about the effects on the baby of taking T, before during or after pregnancy. Read the comments of medical advisers dealing with them.

What's needed here IS proper medical research, not kneejerk reactions or anybody's propaganda.

How many times in history, has society been misled by misinformation about womens bodies; our autonomy denied and abused on moral and religious grounds.

Just out of interest - serious question not trying to goad you - how would you propose to do such research in humans and getting it past a research ethics committee and the regulator? Just, because they're incredibly strict now in what proposals they approve. So how would you do a human experiment on teratogenesis on infants in utero?

I mean, it's been done on animals and testosterone has been found to be a massive teratogen. So the safe assumption is that it's the same in humans. Now clearly there might be other medications that might be able to counteract the effect (can't hink of any, the only way to counteract testosterone is not to take any) but I'm just not sure how you would do the necessary research you're calling for?

ProtectAndTerf · 20/07/2023 13:09

Pallisers · 19/07/2023 23:32

What's needed here IS proper medical research, not kneejerk reactions or anybody's propaganda.

You do know what proper medical research is - right? I'd love to see a study with a randomized population of pregnant women, some getting testosterone and some getting a placebo get past the ethics committee of any research institution.

If there's already women taking testosterone before/during pregnancy, why not study them, compared to controls who are not? In other words, a quasi experimental design.

Obviously you lose the double-blind gold standard, but it's the closest we've got. (I'm not actually sure how the placebo effect interacts with a sincere belief a drug is harmless, either, so it may not be such a big problem.) You'd have to match the control group as closely as possible to the experimental group, obviously, to rule out other variables as much as possible.

Plenty of medical research is done like this, where it's unethical to randomly expose people to something likely to be harmful. They study people who are already in that situation.

Of course the problem may be that it would be unethical to study someone doing something known to be harmful... In which case, we already have sufficient evidence that it's harmful.

NicCageisnotNickCave · 20/07/2023 14:00

ProtectAndTerf · 20/07/2023 13:09

If there's already women taking testosterone before/during pregnancy, why not study them, compared to controls who are not? In other words, a quasi experimental design.

Obviously you lose the double-blind gold standard, but it's the closest we've got. (I'm not actually sure how the placebo effect interacts with a sincere belief a drug is harmless, either, so it may not be such a big problem.) You'd have to match the control group as closely as possible to the experimental group, obviously, to rule out other variables as much as possible.

Plenty of medical research is done like this, where it's unethical to randomly expose people to something likely to be harmful. They study people who are already in that situation.

Of course the problem may be that it would be unethical to study someone doing something known to be harmful... In which case, we already have sufficient evidence that it's harmful.

Because they will be taking that testosterone without medical supervision - no doctor will want to be responsible for prescribing and monitoring in these circumstances (and if animal studies indicate testosterone is dangerous to an animal foetus then no ethics committee will approve moving to human subjects - the whole point of animal studies is to check it’s safe enough to try on humans!)

A transman who refuses to stop taking testosterone in pregnancy will be akin to someone using other illicit substances in pregnancy and that means all you can ‘research’ is a self reported case study.

And those self reports are unlikely to be honest because deliberately taking a known teratogenic substance whilst pregnant (in a pregnancy that is intended to result in a live birth) is a social services referral.

Sidaway · 20/07/2023 15:48

Xoxoxoxoxoxox · 20/07/2023 11:04

It's a feature of queer theory that it seems to damage what it touches and subvert the safeguards and best practice that have been learned. So far it has only made inroads into medical practice at the fringes with 'gender affirming care'.
There is a fundamental conflict as medicine is evidence based and made by dead white guys, it needs to be queered in their eyes.

I hate this "queering" of everything. Societal norms sometimes exist for a good reason.

It's not just that the authors a cavalier about the dangers to the unborn child (though that's evil of course). It's that they don't even see it as harm - instead they see wanting a "normal" baby as "problematic". So cis-heteronormative. They want a "queer" baby! Born trans, straight out of the womb.

They are deranged.

OP posts:
Xoxoxoxoxoxox · 20/07/2023 16:32

Instead they see wanting a "normal" baby as "problematic". So cis-heteronormative. They want a "queer" baby! Born trans, straight out of the womb.

Yes, where will it go next, pregnancy screening for severe abnormalities or corrective surgery for certain birth defects being seen as reinforcing cis-heteronormativity?

Froodwithatowel · 20/07/2023 16:34

It is only being spun as a 'good thing' in order to permit an adult to do whatever they want without having to deal with their ego saying 'you being a selfish bad person' and making them uncomfortable.

That's it. That's all.

What's needed is to learn to deal with having a conscience and coping with the word 'no'.

Bosky · 20/07/2023 17:17

Sidaway - "It's not just that the authors a cavalier about the dangers to the unborn child (though that's evil of course). It's that they don't even see it as harm - instead they see wanting a "normal" baby as "problematic". So cis-heteronormative. They want a "queer" baby! Born trans, straight out of the womb."

You are right and this is something that many people reacting to this on social media cannot grasp, precisely because it is positively deranged and evil to laud the possibility of creating new humans with complex, life-long and sometimes life-limiting or life-threatening medical conditions.

The authors, the whole Queer Project, despite their professed focus on "gender" and "gender identity" cannot see beyond their obsession with "queering" biological sex, secondary sexual characteristics, sexuality and sexual behaviour - especially involving children and now infants and foetuses.

The politicisation of DSDs as "intersex" is central, not just for supposed validation of "transness" but as the ultimate challenge to "cis-heteronormativity" - also they are racist, so bonus points if the baby is Black with a capital B.

"The study involved a cross-sectional in-depth individual and focus group interview design, specifically the collection of qualitative interviews with 70 trans people . . .

A purposive sampling technique was employed to obtain participants using social media and social network recruitment, including targeted recruitment distributed to groups comprised of trans people of color. Research informational and recruitment flyers were posted to social media accounts (e.g., private and public Facebook groups, Twitter), shared at community conferences and events, and circulated via researcher and participant networks. . . .

Trans participants in the U.S. and Canada were paid $25-$50 to participate; participants of color were compensated at a higher rate due to targeted recruitment aims for the study and to reflect structural constraints to participation (e.g., U.S. history of racist research exploitation and increased requests for participation) faced by people of color. Trans participants in the European Union and Australia were not compensated for their participation. This reflected research norms at the institutions where ethical approval was granted, given concerns about compensation for participation in social research as a form of potential coercion"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321523000811?via%3Dihub

The historical blindness of the researchers is staggering. No sooner have medical institutions apologised for the appalling, targeted exploitation of enslaved black women in past experiments in gynaecology than these researchers target recruitment of "trans people of color".

The ‘Father of Modern Gynecology’ Performed Shocking Experiments on Enslaved Women
His use of Black bodies as medical test subjects falls into a history that includes the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and Henrietta Lacks.
https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves

Barry Wall @EDIJester has done a video about the "Medical uncertainty and reproduction of the “normal”: Decision-making around testosterone therapy in transgender pregnancy" paper.

"The Unborn are Next, This is Beyond Revolting"

As usual, well worth less than 15 minutes of your time.

This comment says everything that I think a lot of us are feeling:

Eve.n.t_horizon

I say this with the utmost seriousness and gravity.

I say this as someone who lives in a former fascist nation. I say this as someone that did study properly the subject in school, as its a big part of our normal curriculum, with people still alive today that lived through it:

This is worse than nazi Germany, this is worse than nazism.

Nazism was a rational (not in the common sense of sound ratio, but it had internal reasoning) of racist people with a grievance and thirst for power, things any sane mind can have (and why they are so scary to us, they show us how WE could be).

It showed us how mentally sane people can take a road that goes to hell, and not notice how they got there. It was evil, but not mental illness, in fact it tried its best to speak to the 'rationality' in people, using their naiveté, ignorance and fear to its advantage, to a dark and abhorrent goal.

This, instead, is mental illness to a degree human consciousness has only seen a glimpse of in Lovecraft novels.

Something beyond comprehension, beyond reason, beyond sanity.

It's something words fail to grasp or describe, a horror that keeps being made anew, a complete and total destruction of reality, up and beyond its fundamental elements. Just like Lovecraft said.

This is dissolution of man, with the excuse of having something better (never specifying or showing what though, mind you).

This is the incarnation of spite, rage, fury, contempt, disgust and blind destruction.

And not even the organic destruction which would be the other side of creation.

There is no creation here, just corruption.

One step at a time. Incremental at first (oh how I miss those times), then exponential.

We will never be the same as a species, that is obvious.

Like we were never the same after the nazis, but this feels even more fundamental. This is epochal, this is existential, literally about existence, and against it:

Transpeople have a high suicidal rate, but thats not enough, everyone else has to go with them, in the ultimate act of narcissism.

The men, the women, and the children too.

Transhumanism is literally 'beyond humanity', with no future for humanity as itself.

It didn't use to be that way, it was supposed to be just about some cool augments like a robot arm for the handicapped, or a new way to see for the blind.

But like everything else touched by the ideology, it got corrupted, into its worst version, and then amplified to the world stage.

And whats scarier:

When you have an infection, a fever is how your body reacts, and sure, sometimes the fever might kill you so you have to temp it down.

But you know whats worse? An infection with no fever. A body that doesn't fight. An immune system being slip by, never enough 'triggered' to react accordingly.

Will we reach the fever, now? Will there be the hot flash like in ww2? Or will the illness be allowed to linger, instead? We are not suited for war anymore, that fire bred out of us, taught out of us, ashamed and bashed.

Just like we didn't know what would happen when the atom bomb was invented, and everything changed, I don't have an answer to this new change, which may be even bigger.

We are at the cusp of history, and I'm scared.

The ‘Father of Modern Gynecology’ Performed Shocking Experiments on Enslaved Women | HISTORY

J. Marion SIms' use of Black bodies as medical test subjects is part of an unethical history that includes the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and Henrietta Lacks.

https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves

Weefreetiffany · 20/07/2023 17:19

Why has gender identity become the prevailing and only important identity? Why is it important to the point of riding roughshod over others rights and needs? I’m so disgusted and angry that a person would treat their unborn child like this. Pregnant women are constantly told to mitigate risk in their diet, the medicines we shouldn’t use, the environments we are exposed to, arrested for a glass of wine, suffer through hayfever or morning sickness etc, yet it’s fine for a trans man to expose a foetus to a known tetragenic hormone, to make sure they don’t feel too female while pregnant? Because having a baby isn’t the most female sex gender thing you can do? I would love to have a glass of wine and plate of sushi, but I won’t incase there is the smallest risk to my 12 week old foetus. But let’s pump a baby full of testosterone, and retcon safe pregnancy outcomes to minimise the rights and needs of mothers and foetuses so psychopathic narcissists can carry on their main character syndrome journeys without having to think about the impact on anyone else. And act like they’re heroes for disabling children so they can pat themselves on the back for accepting their disabled children. Why don’t people see this for the cruel madness it is? It’s turned me full gender critical, that’s for sure.

Sidaway · 20/07/2023 17:33

Weefreetiffany Is this your peak moment?

OP posts:
Weefreetiffany · 20/07/2023 18:43

@Sidaway i think so yes. I was happy to use preferred pronouns and trust that trans people are trans and have the right to wear and present how they want without fear of violence. That once you’re 18 you can modify yourself under the observation of a medical team if that’s what you choose. That sex is immutable but gender is stereotypes and subjective constructs and who cares what we wear anyway. But this has gone beyond that into a dangerous place where safeguarding and best practice of protecting the vulnerable in society are erased, as is the language we are allowed to use to discuss it. As a pregnant woman I feel this keenly. How can you not want to do the best for your unborn child? I notice there was no control group of non trans women to compare with, well here I am and I’m coming in hot.

RealityFan · 20/07/2023 20:36

Sidaway · 20/07/2023 17:33

Weefreetiffany Is this your peak moment?

Peak moments are like walking amongst hills and mountains. You always think you've reached the apex. But there are always others beyond.

But this one is as ugly a blot on the landscape as you're likely to see, a real toxic slag heap.

FrancescaContini · 21/07/2023 19:43

I love your analogy @RealityFan and agree with the toxic slag heap we’ve seen here.

ConnieLinggusThe69th · 21/07/2023 23:22

Sorry if been said I haven't got to the end of reading yet but I appreciate there can be disability where it's the way the world is that makes the disability difficult to live with not the disability itself or difference, if deaf people feel there's nothing wrong with it and just a difference- fine

But you wouldn't go causing disability or deafness on purpose in a baby who doesn't have it organically. This is saying it's wrong to NOT want to CAUSE potential disability ffs 🤦‍♀️

May as well just let folk designer baby to order if we go this far - want sympathy for having a disabled child? Pick one... well, my disability causes me severe physical pain. If my mother had fucking decided to cause it in me... I'd hate her, how narcissistic can you get? Cause someone lifelong disability to affirm your specialness?! Ffs - oh wait I know this by another name- munchausens by proxy

medianewbie · 22/07/2023 11:35

Thank you @Sidaway for posting this.
Thank you, @Bosky for your post which included links to historic info I had no idea about.

ANY pregnancy should always & only have the welfare of the child at heart.
That means NO artificial drugs should be taken by the gestating mother.

Every child, regardless of disability, sex, colour etc should have the best chance healthy birth. I too remember reading about a deaf mother who had deliberately chosen sperm from a deaf father so that a resulting baby would be born deaf.
Whilst I could see the logic, (I am part of a family where I am the only person who doesn't have Autism, to their & my frustration sometimes) I also think that any decision morally 'should' only be made by the child when old enough to understand (ie therefore could never be willingly chosen in utero). In my circs, I don't think any of us should have the option to choose for the other family member to be Autistic, or NT. We are different (inc the ASD ones) & that's 'life'.

The paper above is madness. The idea of it being 'normalised' across society (even small sections of it) is utterly terrifying. The Tavistock was bad enough.

Swipe left for the next trending thread