teenage girls and middle-aged men

[onlytherain]

I have read a few times here and elsewhere that the two groups with the highest rates of being trans or highest increase in transitioning are teenage girls and middle-aged men. I can only find data for teenage girls. Could someone please point me to data supporting the claim that middle-aged men are a group with high transitioning rates?

Oh dear, look who doesn't back up their claims?

"The Cass report explained that relatively little was known about the causes of gender dysphoria in girls, or the outcomes for those who received treatment.
“At present, we have the least information for the largest group of patients – birth-registered females first presenting in early teen years,” it said.
“Since the rapid increase in this group began around 2015, they will not reach late 20s for another five-plus years, which would be the best time to assess longer-term wellbeing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAt%20present%2C%20we%20have%20the,Illustration:%20Guardian%20Design

😂

Sigh

You providing supporting evidence which proved @Helleofabore and @BundleBoogie point and think its a "win".

Sigh, you don't understand that 2015 comes before 2017…😂

Have you checked the back of the sofa yet?

What is it that you think this quote contradicts in my post? It confirms my point. Or didn't you understand my point?

This was the point :

'Then that data is really not a relevant depiction of the current situation at all.'

The link I referred to has not captured anything but the start of the rapid increase of female teenagers. The bulk of the increase has happened since. Do you understand my point?

Why don't you go through your link (I have posted it below so there is no doubt which one I am referring to) and point out to me just how this increase in female teenagers was picked up in it and which of the references also picked up the rapid increase in female teenagers. I mean, I have now checked the two possible references and they didn't comment on it. In fact, there was a supposed review of the fucking numbers of the Tavistock and not one comment that I could find on the linked summary of the review mentioned the change.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7430478/#CIT0039

Here you are for the stats for a number of countries if you scroll down the home page.

segm.org/

The dates of 2015-2017 is consistent across those countries and others.

So, by all means, want to tell me how the pre 2017 data you linked up (and I specified the link directly under the post) was relevant to the rapid increase of female teenagers?

You posted mocking effectively a 2 year discrepancy in my recollection, yet didn't deal with the substance of my criticism. You then posted a link that confirmed my point. And you have also then confirmed that again, you have not even read the fucking data behind the links you post.

But, thanks for confirming my post. I don't even think you understand what you did. Shall I post emojis?

You think that my misquote of 2 years is significant in disproving my point?

Again, did you actually read the paper I referred to? Did that misquote of 2 years do anything to change the point I was making?

Would you like to go through that link and point out where the increase was commented on and what were the statements made about the rapid increase of girls referring to the clinics?

This is quite something to see. This poster just continues to prove that they don't read what they post or understand what they post.

The fact that they think they have made a significant point is remarkable.

'Oh dear, look who doesn't back up their claims?'

That would be just more projection. I think the answer has clearly been you Howse. But yes, you are a 'winner'! An absolute 'winner'!

With some prolific posters I wonder if they're an AI, but I've been asking Grok some questions and it's capable of learning when I point out where it's mixed up two unrelated things.

Howie is like an AI programmed on a ZX81.

Please, you're embarrassing yourself now with this latest attempt at distraction. That the figures aren't the latest doesn't invalidate the initial point that older males identified at birth catch up later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redherring

Mmmmm. ... one playing tic tac toe and loosing.🤷‍♀️

And you have not given any indication as to why there is a lack of adult female people in the older age group transitioning.

In fact, it is almost like there is two very distinct motivations behind these transitions.

And gosh... what could that be?

Plus your link didn't even acknowledge the change in demographics... as per the discussion of the thread.

It's quite the spectacle watching a desperate poster throwing around fake facts, dodgy data and displaying a profound ignorance of safeguarding and women's rights. I keep wondering why they're so frantic to derail a thread that so starkly highlights the difference between the vulnerable young who've been gaslit about gender identity versus the powerful men running the lobby groups to further their own interests?

It's a mystery 🙄

Please point to how 'older male' people are 'catching up' to the massive current cohort of female children.

Where is your data that supports your point that is up to date and accounts for that current massive group of female children?

As we keep pointing out, there is nothing quite as misogynistic than the push for extreme transgender rights where gender is prioritised above sex.

And the political usage of female children is just another form of abhorrent negative sex discrimination. Female children are expedient to this cause.

Quite. What a very strange and illogical point by that poster. I am mystified at the thought processes that reached that point.

So what?

Behaviour doesn’t define your sex.

Yes, but sharing personality traits does not make you the opposite sex to that which you are. Obviously!

Where is your 'up to data' that it doesn't? See? It works both ways but at least I'm providing post 'explosion' trends'. You? Convenient assumptions.

More Sealioning. As already repeated, the research graphs linked show similar trends in older women to older men & you know that.

The point already made repeatedly, is that personality traits are a sex distinguishable trait. A lot like when men are more likely to be violent hence the demand for private spaces. You do this yourself…

'Sex' is defined by distinguishing characteristics so yep it can.

Nope you need to prove your theory

How can you group female and male people using personality?

Your sample size is 100 persons

50 female
50 male

What traits are you going to use to break down the 100 persons it 2 groups?

Agreed social meaning isn't a theory. Words are based on social usage. That they get into a dictionary means enough people use them in that way. And in terms of behaviour being distinguishing characteristic, that's self evident. You do this yourself in practice in your day to day social life when you assume/categorise males/females based on stereotypical/archetypal associations because like everyone else you usually don't know another persons chromosomal/reproductive characteristics for sure.

And what's more, your whole demand for 'private spaces' is based on a sex distinguishing characteristic: Male violence.

See the hypocrisy here?

Bla bla bla

prove your theory.

How can you group female and male people using personality?

Your sample size is 100 persons
50 female
50 male

What traits are you going to use to break down the 100 persons it 2 groups?

Split the group by or your social usage is a choclate teapot.