Does the Transgender community have a problem with well evidenced science? Does the community only ever accept favourable reports, AKA confirmation bias, or is it something deeper?

[HydraDominatus]

Every piece of science or news thats not entirely supportive is buried under accusations of transphobia or bias

Why is this a political debate rather than a mental and physical health issue?

Cancer care isn't bias and politicised, trans health care shouldn't be either. Surely it's all about properly designed and researched programmes, with the outcome not predetermined, that we should be entirely standing behind?

Would the community ever stand behind rigorous, transparent, and ethically conducted research into transgender health care that did not align with its previous, deeply held views? If not, isn't that a problem?

tl;dr Is the Transgender community bias to it's own detriment?

(inspired by recent UK changes which do seem to be well researched, evidenced and guided by true support for people with genuine issues, it just does not line up with existing trans community narrative)

Being able to use a changing room or public toilets or single-sex facilities on the same terms as everybody else with the same type of body, and in the way they were intended to be used is not making an unreasonable demand. Stopping gay men or lesbians from using these facilities would be creating an artificial barrier based on an unfounded fear of assault or perceived danger to children.
The danger to women and children from men is well founded. Men also have different bodies to women. Lesbians are physically indistinguishable from other women and pose no threat, either.
TRAs want everybody else, women in particular, to do things differently. They want language to change to the point where some words lose all meaning, especially words to do with women. They want to create a nonsensical category of most women plus some men which has no purpose except to enable some men to be amongst women at all times. They want us to pretend that reality doesn't exist and truth is anything they say it is.
Gays and lesbians just want to get on with their lives.

gah!
@suggestionsplease1 that ⬆ was a reply to you.

Do tell me when this was actually happening?

But ...

There's a very simple difference between sexuality and trans. As follows.

If a man sincerely says, "I feel I am attracted to men," it must be true that he is attracted to men. Why? Because to feel attracted is to be attracted.

However,

If a man, sincerely or not, says, "I feel I am a woman", it must be false that he is a woman. Why? Because he's a man.

In short, a sincere claim to be gay must be true; a sincere claim to have changed sex must be false.

This difference suggests 'T' doesn't really belong with 'LGB'.

[ For interest: some feels self-validate like 'attraction': If I feel I'm in pain, I am in pain; to feel happy is to be happy. Others don't: If I feel I am the coolest person at the party, I probably am not cool at all; to feel overweight (tragically in some cases) is not necessarily to be overweight. It does look as though 'trans'-type feels fall in the second category: trans people, at least some of them, feel themselves to be something they are not.

This may need looking at scientifically/medically. But first it may be necessary to get the semantics right. We need to get clear what we are talking about - what we mean by what we say. Hmm?]

based on an unfounded fear of assault or perceived danger to children.

You maybe weren't alive at the time, I don't know, but the 'case' against gay men and lesbians was about as strong as the case against transwomen now.

Of course there was anecdotal information about assaults that was overinflated and misrepresented to try to convey an idea that gay people, as a demographic, were a threat. The individual stories lodged in people's minds; they become salient and memorable in the vast sea of data that shows risk from heterosexual men and women.

This is a very natural (and problematic) cognitive bias / heuristic that people attend to which confirms their existing prejudice.

At that time why would people on this board not make exactly the same case they are making now? They would read about an assault by a gay man or lesbian (and not hear about because they weren't reported/ or media were not fixated on, all the assaults by heterosexual men and women) and perceive a greater risk and start a political campaign to protect their children from gay men and women.

This is what happened.

They were filled with the same fears and sense of righteous cause.

Sexual orientation is observable. Not so easily measurable.

I don't know what your sister was playing at telling people she was a lesbian while dating boys, and anyway I don't think you should tell me any more about her. I just hope she's grown up and figured herself out. The urge for young people to label themselves before they have developed enough of a self to label is part of the problem.

@suggestionsplease1 - I am 74 so I was certainly around during the time you describe, and my experience and reading then was quite different from what you describe. And regardless of that, there wasn't any attempt by gay men to foist themselves into women-only spaces or positions so the situation was very different from now. Now there seems to be a move to trans away the gay in children.

The reality is there is a weighty history of trans lives spanning centuries and in multiple cultures.

And these are the ones we have written records of, not including all the cultures that don't have a good documented history.

If you look up the history of the hijra for example, you will see trans is not merely a Western fad.

There will be different terminology used at times to best reflect understandings.

And although I could agree that sexuality and gender identity are conceptually distinct terms in our present parlance, the lived lives of people, and the description of these throughout history and cultures, has painted a more complex, interwoven picture.

Were any of these men actually considered women? No. They were a third group, with their own separate culture, homosexual men. Stop appropriating and distorting other people's history and experiences for your ideology.

What a short memory you have. In the 1980s having a gay sexuality absolutely was a real threat their lives. Have you not heard of AIDS?

Well that would depend on who you ask.

Certainly some would identify as women, some would identify as a third sex.

There are many who would want to identify as women and be identified as such by others, but acknowledge the limitations of the society they live in that can not accommodate this, and compels them to live in groups on the fringes of society in impoverished conditions.

The fear of attack by homosexual men on other men or by homosexual women on other women is largely unfounded. This was an irrational fear.
90% of violent crime is committed by men. 96-99% of sexually violent crime is committed by men and 89-90% of the victims are women. That is MoJ data. So the fear of attack by men on women is entirely rational and not based on anecdotal data. Do you not notice all the reports of convictions of men for attacks on women and girls? The case against men who claim to be women is as strong as the case against other men. "Trans" is merely the ticket which gets those men into women-only spaces.

It was exactly the same 'we must protect the children' argument then that is made now.

That old chestnut? Yes, I was there and no, it wasn't at all the same argument. I don't know whether you genuinely believe that it is, or whether that's how you justify ignoring actual harm and real risk.

I don't feel the need to protect my offspring against the urge to identify as gay or to be same-sex attracted. I still do have the need to protect my offspring against feeling uncomfortable in their own bodies, and against deciding that the only solution to their discomfort is to take steroids or cut bits of themselves off.

That's one of the big differences - between unfounded fears and fears based on facts.

We already do know that men are a threat to women and to other men, far more than women are. We also know that includes men who decide they are women, it doesn't decrease their threat level to women or each other at all.

So men do need to be excluded from places where women are vulnerable. It's that simple and it includes transwomen because the fact is that they present (at least) the same risks as all men do.

And you can kick and scream and claim it's all anecdote and that there are hidden cases but that doesn't make it true. It isn't just anecdote it's countable, and proportionally speaking there aren't more unreported attacks on trans people by other people. For every unreported assault by a woman on a man, or by anyone on a transwomen, there are far more unreported assaults by men on women.

Your position is wishful thinking.

Well that would depend on who you ask.

Certainly some would identify as women, some would identify as a third sex.

So you're just assuming. Any examples?

While you're looking, here is a 2019 quote from the Prime Minister of Samoa, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, about the male weightlifter Laurel Hubbard.
"This fa'afafine or man should have never been allowed by the Pacific Games Council president to lift with the women. I was shocked when I first heard about it," he told the Samoa Observer.
"No matter how we look at it, he's a man (sic) and it's shocking this was allowed in the first place."
Full article here:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/114420264/samoan-pm-tuilaepa-sailele-malielegaoi-hits-out-at-laurel-hubbard

The whole concept of "identifying as" anything is very modern and Western. I remember when it came into use, and how ridiculous many people thought it.

Can I ask you what you think about the huge over representation of lesbians and bisexuals in US jails:

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/lbq_women_prisons_jails.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/overwhelming-number-lesbians-bisexual-women-incarcerated-n728666

Perhaps you have some ideas on how straight women can be protected?

You maybe weren't alive at the time, I don't know, but the 'case' against gay men and lesbians was about as strong as the case against transwomen now.

I remember the 70s and 80s and I don't recognise what you're saying at all.
What was this 'case' against gay men and lesbians? They weren't pretending to be something they were not.

It's nothing like our objection to men who identify as transwomen. The objection to these males who identify as trans is that they are male, not that they are trans. They don't belong in women's spaces because they are men.

There is a greater risk from males who identify as transwomen than there is from women. Not because they are trans, but because they are male.

Are you suggesting that lesbians and bisexual women carry out sexual assaults at similar rates to males? Could you provide your evidence for that?

Protected from what?

I think that compared to men in prisons, lesbians and bisexual women aren't a threat to other women. Women are more likely than men to be imprisoned for crimes that are not violent and not sexual, regardless of what their sexuality is.

So I don't see what they have to do with it or why you imagine women need to be protected from lesbians or bisexual women. Unless the numbers have gone up because in US prisons many of these "lesbians" are really men being mis-recorded? Women do need to be protected from them, and the UK at least has taken steps to separate women from men again, no matter how they identify.

I'm suggesting that there are stats that will show many demographics are an elevated risk of various things...that doesn't mean you take a blanket approach against the entire demographic, (People would use such an approach to target lesbians and ethnic minorities).

But yeah, of course you can see plenty of studies painting to eg. domestic abuse in lesbian relationships at equal to or higher rates than heterosexual relationships. It's very disappointing (I'm a gay woman)

It means you acknowledge the broader background picture that is at work behind the scenes leading to figures (and prejudice, discrimination and social isolation is part of this). Aside from this and for eg. in prison scenarios you develop a good safe-guarding protocol that looks at the risk a person poses.

Males are kept out of some spaces to mitigate the risk they pose to females. A blanket approach is taken because we don’t know which men are a risk, but we have enough data to demonstrate that the risk exists. The risk from males to females can be demonstrated via multiple sets of stats. Across time. Across cultures. Adjusted for many variables. There’s no such data in relation to lesbians and bisexual women.

I mean, you do start to wonder how often ‘transwomen aren’t excluded from female-only spaces because they are trans, but because they are male’ has to be repeated before it sinks in.

.that doesn't mean you take a blanket approach against the entire demographic,

Yes it does exactly mean that, when it is justified. It wouldn't be justified for lesbians or bisexual women among other women in prison, because they don;'t present a massively elevated risk. It is justified for separating men, including transwomen, from women in prison.

There is such a thing as trying so hard not to be prejudiced that you ignore the real dangers to vulnerable people.

Aside from this and for eg. in prison scenarios you develop a good safe-guarding protocol that looks at the risk a person poses.

Risk assessments on prisoners are by demographics, not dainty individualised psychological assessments. The risk assessments are different for men and for women and it is dangerous to other prisoners if the women's risk assessment is applied to a man.

n+1. And it's past my bedtime now.

Dear God.

Do we really need to go through the false equivalence with Gay AGAIN today? I thought we'd done that on other threads.

Let me explain the concept of data here and how there was no issue with lesbians attacking other women in changing rooms. Then lets look at the data on gay/straight men being attacked. Who do we think are most likely to be attacked on that one? Hmmm. Yet gay men are fine staying in the mens changing rooms....

Then we have the transwomen. The data is rather different. They retain patterns of males offending. And theres the added issue that letting in some males, means letting in all males because women can't tell the difference and can't challenge for both their safety and the wailing of transphobia. When offered a third space for their safety, this is rejected and it become apparent they don't want safety they want to use the women for validation.

There's a problem with allowing that. They still remain male. Most retain their penis. Flashing is a criminal offense. So how are you going to uphold that, without rendering it obsolute when you've got a bunch of penis holders running around changing rooms?

And all of this neglects the point that women still want their safety and they want their privacy and dignity... Which they are entitled to under the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act.

So yes, TOTTTTTTALLLLY the same and TOOOOOOTTTTTALLLY not a massive attempt to remove the rights and dignities and protections that exist in law - for good reason.

I have already gone through a bunch of other reasons today about why gay false equivalence is such utter bullshit and is just a ploy to emotionally blackmail and coerce.

If you wish you read them, they are on the last few pages of this thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5027914-to-disagree-with-gender-ideologypronouns?page=1

Seriously, all these people swearing blind its GC women who have issues with understanding studies and data seem to also have a tenious grasp of the details of law too.

Who'd thunk.

Its almost like being constantly fucking mansplained to.

No its not 'just like being gay'. That claim gets ever more fucking offensive and is nothing more than a trojan horse.