Helen Joyce - why gender medicine isn’t science…

[Justme56]

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/why-gender-medicine-isnt-science

“Actually that’s not quite right, because there isn’t any requirement to perform your gender, just to state it. Nothing further than the statement is required of the person making it: it’s other people who have to do the work by believing that statement — that is, by “affirming” that gender. The expression “gender self-identification” is a misnomer — it’s not something you have to do, beyond proclamation, it’s a demand that other people affirm you as being the gender you state yourself to be. Opening the door marked F or M is a way of declaring your gender identity.

There’s no place for other people’s judgment, indeed no role at all for other people except as supporting actors or appreciative audience. No room for them to say they don’t fancy joining in the performance, or to be a critic and say it’s not a very good performance. They’re not allowed to say: “OK, you say you’re a woman, that you’re living as a woman or have a female gender identity, but you don’t seem very female to me.”

Snake oil

Transwomen have the same experience as other fathers - some are doubtless good and some are bad

ghey can’t be mothers because that’s biology. That’s the term to describe someone who pushed the baby out not the term for the sperm provider.

biology - science - is something that’s externally observable - there is nothing about gender identity that is externally observable. Being gay can be tracked through physical tells that are subconscious. Gender identity can only be determined by stereotypes and personal assertions. It’s not science.

So why didn't the Cass Review find all this evidence for the biological origins of gender dysphoria? Surely it would have been easy for the Tavistock to present this wealth of data, along with all their other meticulous record keeping?

If you recall correctly the Cass review continued the access of gender affirming care as did most countries who reviewed it just under more restrictive criteria.

because there isn’t any requirement to perform your gender, just to state it. Nothing further than the statement is required of the person making it: it’s other people who have to do the work by believing that statement — that is, by “affirming” that gender.

I think this is key - you could talk all day about whether particular behaviours are more common in men than in women, but gender identity is based on personal perspective, and does not need to be compared to anyone else's idea of masculinity or femininity.

The statement 'trans women are women' does not require agreement that trans women share particular characteristics with women, but that the word 'women' has no objective definition and is simply an identity that can mean anything.

I love Helen Joyce. Thanks for the link!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HMDc8OziB1A

I agree @nicepotoftea

and also with HJ here:

"all it takes to be this special sort of person is to say that you are this special sort of person"

Agreed.
Also the fact that children and young people are targeted is so often obscured by transactivists. Children who have yet to develop the critical thinking & intellectual capacity to unpick this multi faceted issue. And who are easy prey to social contagion, social and sexual grooming from dangerous adults.

It's why women raising these issues are so often accused of "seeing all trans people as predators" and being smeared as "hard of thinking". Anything goes to try to stop shining a light on the reality of what's happening to children and the young. Let alone exposing the possible financial, predatory and power trip motivations of some of the adults so relentlessly promoting sex change for children.

The "restrictive criteria" meant the banning of puberty blockers for under 18s in the UK. An "unsafe prescribing environment" and lack of clinical effectiveness was cited for the decision; this is the lack of scientific rigour (and professional interest in scientific rigour) that Joyce is highlighting.

Why has gender affirming care been exempt from the usual standards of data-based medicine and best clinical practice applied to other areas? That is the question that needs answering.

If I remember correctly, the Cass Review discovered that the Tavistock's child patients were TEN TIMES more likely to have a parent on the sexual offenders register than the general population.

And if that doesn't make you think aout gender dysphoria as a trauma response then you are willfully ignorant.

....not all members of a sex class exhibit all the same sex characteristics

Male mammals are born with testes and internal and external male reproductive tracts. Female mammals are born with ovaries and internal and external female reproductive tracts. An observation of these characteristics is 100% diagnostic of sex class. All the rest is piffle or a rare and irrelevant abnormality.

Nope. It's still available under research conditions.

"Why has gender affirming care been exempt from the usual standards of data-based medicine and best clinical practice applied to other areas? That is the question that needs answering."

Not true many treatments including ADHD & mental health care are of the same standards.

You may think you have many things in common with women, but that does not make you a woman. I don’t understand how anybody could truly believe that to be the case.
You may consider that there is an umbrella of common characteristics, but please be assured there are many more essential characteristics which exclude you.

Not true many treatments including ADHD & mental health care are of the same standards.

Do these treatments also include sterilisation of children and removal of functioning sex organs?

Can you link to this claim?

Puberty blockers don't sterilise children or "remove their organs".

You can read it for yourself here <a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

Puberty blockers absolutely DO sterilise children.

A child who never goes through puberty never reaches sexual maturity.

Are you unaware that so-called 'gender medicine' includes removal and surgical modification of sex organs?

Have you ever heard of Jackie Green or Jazz Jennings?

What absolute crap. ADHD meds are objectively some of the most effective psychiatric drugs in existence.

Other psych meds can but dream of similar efficacy. Ditto 'gender affirming care' which is why suicide stats are higher post transition, mainly because autism, trauma and internalised homophobia are often at the root. 'Gender affirming care' is like amputating a foot to treat a burst appendix. Your appendix is still festering but now you're an amputee too.

Or if your reading skills are not up to reading the Cass report, you could try Hannah Barnes book "Tavistock, Time to Think"

The bleak statistics about the children treated there – 70% of the children had more than 5 associated co-morbidities such as abuse, depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, anxiety, eating disorders, ADHD or bullying. 35% of referrals involved children with Austic Spectrum Disorders – experienced by less than 2% of children in the general population. 25% of referrals involved children who had spent time in state care – compared to 0.67% of the general population. Children referred were 10 times more likely to have a parent registered as a sex offender than the general population.

It's in this Telegraph article about Hannah Barnes's book. The figures are from an audit carried out by GIDS.

In 2000, the only clinical audit of patients ever carried out by Gids found that more than 25 per cent of referrals had spent time in care, compared with 0.67 per cent of the general population. Children referred to Gids were ten times more likely than the national average to have a registered sex offender as a parent, while 42 per cent had lost a parent through death or separation, and 70 per cent had more than five “associated features” such as anxiety, depression, abuse, self-harm, bullying, eating disorders or suicide attempts.

https://archive.ph/ODLZ4

"You may think you have many things in common with women, but that does not make you a woman. I don’t understand how anybody could truly believe that to be the case."

What people theoretically think make a woman isn't reflected in practice as we rarely distinguish men from women via gametal checks in social situations rather typical surface presentation.

Nope. They pause puberty temporarily only.