Is it time to stop the pretence that people can transition?

[happydappy2]

I really feel gender ideology is a cult, that has totally warped some peoples minds. It brings so many problems to society I’m not sure it’s sustainable. It damages the health of young people, shortens their lives and often rips families apart. At what point do we say no, this is not healthy, it’s incredibly antisocial to expect everyone else to pretend you are the opposite sex when they can see you aren’t….for the good of society let’s stop this madness. Gender dysphoria exists yes but I don’t think we’re treating it in the best way. We don’t affirm that an anorexic patient is indeed too fat so why do we affirm people who think they are the opposite sex?

Yeah those studies have been picked apart to no end. Google it.

OR labelling an entire group as perverted fetishists could be bigoted?

They are by the AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION! The same one you said rejected it! I am embarrassed for you!

It isn't ridiculous and is evidence-based. Considering you give females not an ounce of respect, anything you say is ridiculous.

I’m not them so I can’t tell you what it feels like to be trans

In that case, from what position are you arguing?
My position is, I've lived several decades. In that time I've worked with hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Up until 2020 I met exactly one transwoman and zero transmen. Then suddenly around six girls I have known since pre-school, and over a dozen other girls I know, changed their names and asked to be called they/them. Since then I've met another twenty or thirty. Some did desist. Some progressed to he/him. Some bind their chests flat. Two had double mastectomies. Some seem to be on testosterone.
(I don't personally know any boys/men who have transed, I only meet them in passing as I mainly work with girls.)
From that position, I've listened to and read many trans voices. Sadly many of the stories they tell are of being ridiculed due to not conforming to stereotypes. Others have suffered neglect or physical violence from their parents and just wanted to choose a new name for themselves. Some are playing a part to keep a friend company (or simply to keep a friend). Many are autistic and they don't seem to understand that girls and boys are not arbitrary categories.
It is about language - we need to know what sex every person is, so we agree specific words to use, and other signals such as clothes, hairstyles to avoid confusion.
Autistic people don't always acknowledge that boys and girls talk to each other differently, sit, stand, touch or avoid touching, enter or leave rooms, based on the sex of the other persons.
I do get that among young people "trans" is a nebulous concept that verges on meaning "cool in a geek way", but also chestbinding, crosssex hormones, major surgery version of "trans", not to speak of the crude, hypersexualised drag acts being pushed into children's libraries and public spaces.
I don't understand why you're defending the idea.

We also know that adolescents, young people between approximately 16-24, can be extremely poorer at risk-assessment. This is the period when young people with diabetes, for example, are more likely to have poor control. Not because they are transitioning from parent-led care to doing it for themselves, but because - despite knowing exactly what they need to do - they risk-assess their situation incorrectly and therefore make unhelpful choices.

^^ Vicki Lee, a psychologist who works alongside paediatricians and dietitians in the Bradford Children's Diabetes Service.
"The brain is very much still under construction until 25 and the last bit to develop is being able to think about long-term consequences, and so that's why with adolescents we often see behaviour that's more about the kind of short-term gain and what's important for me right now.^^

23.10.19 BBC News article re juvenile T2 Diabetes

I've just read the paper @CosyTaupeShark cited (Guillamon, Journal of Psychiatric Research (2016); it's actually a review rather than original research but hey that's valid too. It mostly established that homosexuals and heterosexuals of the same sex have minor brain differences...which has been known for many years.

direct quote:
"Conclusions
Overall, in vivo MRI studies indicate that the main morphological parameters of the brain (ICV, GM, WM, and CSF) are congruent with their natal sex in untreated homosexual MtFs. However, some cortical regions show feminine volume and thickness and it should be underscored that CTh presents an F > M morphological pattern. Nevertheless, with respect to CTh, this feminine cortical pattern is not the same as the one shown by control females (compare Fig. 2a and b). On the other hand, the main white matter fascicles in MtFs are demasculinized, while others are still masculine (Fig. 3a).
(My bold obvs)

Another quote
"It was concluded that their data did not support the notion that the nonhomosexual MtF brain was feminized...."

"In summary, the cortex of nonhomosexual MtFs presents morphological peculiarities in regions in which male and female controls do not differ"
(so there's something unusual going on but it's not feminisation)

Were you just hoping noone would look up the actual paper?

Don’t be 😂that particular piece of research has been torn to shreds.

Cute that you think quoting a few lines proves anything. The paper literally says some brain regions in MtFs show feminisation, and others are distinct from both cis men and cis women. That’s not a gotcha…it’s evidence that trans people’s brains don’t neatly fit a binary, which is kind of the whole point. Science isn’t on your side here, no matter how many bold fonts you use.

It is the American Psychological Association's research, how is their own research torn to shreds you fool? 😂 You said that the American Psychological Association REJECTED the idea of Autogynephilia. THEY CLEARLY DON'T! You made a fool of yourself and were caught out lying! 😂😂

It's not even peer-reviewed. It's barely even a review! It's junk science, and science is not on YOUR side, and you know it! There are precisely zero studies that show any of the lies you say they do.

@DecayedStrumpet
Thanks for taking a look. Out of interest, would you say that the review says that the results of the studies amount to (weak) evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality?

Oops! You’re confusing hosted in a database with endorsed by the organisation. The APA didn’t publish that article, they just indexed it in their PsycNet database, which includes a wide range of viewpoints, including ones they don’t support. Being on PsycNet isn’t a stamp of approval. And yes, the theory of autogynephilia has been heavily criticised and rejected by leading medical and psychological bodies. You can shout in caps all you like…it doesn’t make pseudoscience true.

Grayson Perry and all the self-confessed autogynephiles on Reddit forums would beg to differ.

Incorrect. It was In a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Ohhhh that's your excuse now is it? 'oh, well, it's...they - they just "host" the article, they didn't write it'. Give up. You've made a fool of yourself, and we can all see it.

😂No it wasn't. Your lies are truly pitiful. I feel sorry for you.

Grayson Perry isn’t peer-reviewed, and Reddit isn’t a medical journal. You can always find people who describe their experience in different ways, but cherry-picking outliers doesn’t magically validate a discredited theory. If Reddit posts are your scientific source, it shows you’re really scraping the barrel here.

Can I just check which journal/research you’re saying isn’t peer reviewed?

Because from my side what you’re saying is so clearly wrong that I think you must have misunderstood what I’m talking about!

Erm…no I think you have. You made a basic error confusing two concepts because I actually have a level of understanding of how journals work. This is like talking to a really bigoted wall.

I’ve made my points now and I think that we’ve uncovered that even if you put solid evidence in front of you all that what you’re saying is bigoted nonsense, you will find a way to dispute it even if that means saying something which is just a flat out lie. I hope this opens your eyes to the fact that a lot of what’s shared on here is rooted in confirmation bias, motte and Bailey arguments and is not as factual as you think it is.

PLEASE open your eyes to different perspectives, and don’t only choose to believe what already suits your narrative.

Can anyone answer my question, is the current way of ‘treating’ young people with anxiety about their body actually helping them. Or harming them? Because I think the current treatment is not helping them & causing unsustainable social conflicts….isn’t it better to recognise there are only 2 sexes &you cannot change sex?

So what, those men don't exist?

The evidence that some men who adopt a female persona do so for sexual gratification is that some men admit they adopt a female persona for sexual gratification. Are they lying?

Why are you so desparate to deny that for a lot of trans identifying men - not all men, but a lot of men, this is a fetish?

(Oh, and brain plasticity, unless you believe cabbies are born not made?)

I agree with you, of course. It's an incredibly cruel thing to do, to persuade a vulerable person that their safety and sanity depends on everyone they meet coluding in a falsehood. And that without even touching on the physical damage and the social damage to women especially.