"Trans people have always been here!"

[GoldenBracelet]

God I'm tired of reading "Trans people have always been here!", like it's some kind of unarguable gotcha 🙄

Yes, there have always been men who think they are women.
No, they have never been women.

See also women who think they're men.

I suspect it is AI generated. It is the regurgitated points that we have seen before and I believe relies heavily on the biased and heavily invested commentary.

Meanwhile we have national level reviews from Sweden, Denmark, France, Canada and UK. I believe a German team also reviewed the current studies and found the same over all outcome. Too low quality evidence. The USA just released a similar finding.

How many national level reviews independently producing the same overall finding - low quality evidence - will it take for the finding to be accepted?

If the evidence quality has been found to be so low, why is this misinformation about how it improves the lives of children allowed to continue to be spread? Especially now we have more and more detransitioners speaking out.

There are some good links on your thread @Helleofaborehttps://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445882-medical-treatment-for-gender-identity-evidence-archive-thread?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

“In any case, trans women being accepted in female prison estates has long been done so for their safety not their 'feelings'. Anyone who would imagine trans women aren't at an increased risk of sexual assault in prisons particularly if they have physically transitioned is deluding themselves.”

You mention how male prisoners with gender identities are attacked in male prisons. Please produce the evidence that they are attacked more than any other sub group of male prisoners? And the evidence that they will be attacked in a section set up for vulnerable male prisoners.

It is also well documented that male prisoners with gender identities in female prisons attack and abuse female prisoners. In fact, there are many instances that simply having a male prisoner in that female prison is distressing for those female prisoners who are survivors of violence and abuse by male people. Which is most of them, if not nearly all of them.

If a sub group of male prisoners need additional protection, they should campaign for this, not demand to be placed in the opposite sex prison estate.

Besides which, Downton built a special wing just to accommodate those male prisoners and they refused to move to it. The lobby groups actively protested having that wing.

So, ‘safety’ was not the issue they demanded to be move for because that would have been to a safer male section. They might experience safety issues, like other sub groups of male prisoners so. However, it was ‘identity’ that these demands to be moved to a female prison was based on.

Not just children, not just trans people - it's a statement that applies to everyone. Black women in particular have poor outcomes for birth - it's outrageous.

If this is something you are passionate about there are threads... i can help you dig them up if I have time later.

But inconsistency of healthcare is absolutely an issue - for everyone.

'Trans people' have always been here because human beings have always been here, because what a 'trans person' is- is someone who, for whatever reason, feels uncomfortable with their sex and what is socially and personally expected because of it.

'Trans' is but one type attempt to -re-frame one's own existence in a manner which, for whatever reason, feels more conducive to one's inner self.

is someone who, for whatever reason, feels uncomfortable with their sex and what is socially and personally expected because of it.

You don't need discomfort with your sex to be trans. You can be perfectly happy to be e.g. a female man, male woman or person with no gender identity. That is one of the positions put forward in recent years - what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. The removal of "dysphoria" as a requirement was explicit in some of the stuff I was reading around 2015.

Experts tend to be able to produce verifiable data over extended periods.

I suspect what you are referring to as 'experts' is in fact WPATH and its associates?

There is certainly no consensus - because if there was there would be no need for a trial of puberty blockers such as is currently being launched in the UK. And in fact any consensus there has been has started to provide evidence that puberty blockers should not be given to youth with 'gender distress'. This is why countries are slowly starting to ban their use ( New Zealand being the most recent example)

But 'Gender' is a conceptual thing. It doesn't exist outside of the social realm. Nobody is other than the sex they are. Distress or not.

There is no such thing as a female man or a male woman. The terms you are searching for, I suspect are 'masculine' and' feminine'. These are cultural associations, concepts and assignations.

Gender, yes. But gender identity is a nebulous feeling of "feeling like a man/woman/both/neither/other". Not that anyone can ever explain what "feeling like a woman" means, yet it's paramount and should totally overrule sex.

Its a global consensus amongst expert medical practitioners/organisations in the field.

The problem is the 'field' is made up entirely of 'trans' IDing people, who have created the 'field' in order to push their own point of view and political agenda, the reports they produce are not credible in any medical or scientific way.

I would say gender is the set of expectations and assumptions placed on you due to your (perceived) sex.

The definition of trans refers to gender identity, which is indefinable really (or relies on some meaning of other wirds such as man/woman, which are never set out). I don't know how to tell whether I have one or what it might be.

But that is what being trans requires, apparently.

There is no such thing as a female man or a male woman. The terms you are searching for, I suspect are 'masculine' and' feminine'.

I've asked some trans people whether this is what they mean. They've either ignored the question or said "no it's more complicated than that".

seeth is one of the few people who has tried to actually communicate their feelings and interpretation of their gender identity!

The objections to the Cass Review are all seemingly based on the view that being trans is innate, therefore only research that supports this is valid and all other research must be flawed.

The Cass Review addressed quite a different question which was whether there was good evidence that the standard medical interventions improved wellbeing among gender questioning patients and concluded that there wasn't.

What's more important? Ideology or happiness? That's why the 'experts' (who now appear to have been doing their thing with a distinct lack of trousers) hate the Cass Review.

I also don't believe it is true.

There is no evidence for gender identity, the foundational tenet of the ideology. Without this, there is no such thing as someone whose gender identity and sex misalign.

I think that gender dysphoria lacks evidence for it being a condition distinct from other body integrity disorders/ anxiety disorder, and that while the pain is real the cause is misattributed to a fictitious gender-soul and sexist stereotypes. The cause of the pain is just a hypothesis of small number of psychiatrists and "sexologists", a branch of medicine no stranger to controversy, scandal and fad ideas and which is the epicentre of the scientific "reproducibility crisis".

By looking for a cure in the supernatural they are denying their patients proper care. And they are lying to society.

It is highly relevant as there are different factors such as sex work being normalised in other countries, and the fact that we live in the UK, where there is no significant data surrounding trans people being subject to assault or rape here, especially for being Trans.

Also the link you have provided doesn't work.

I question today's "transgender" and also the old "knowledge" that says there are "transexuals" and "transvestites".
In my life experience there are only men who are sexually aroused by pretending to be a woman. Some take it further than others.

So have pigeons, I believe. And cockroaches, and bees. And grass has been around for a very long time indeed. So what?

And the important part is that it not relevant to moving those male prisoners into the female prison. If they are more likely to be vulnerable to attack, then they should be protected in a section for male vulnerable prisoners.

The poster can produce as much evidence as they like but none of it justifies moving those male people
into female prisons. If anything, it shows there is great need for better care for all vulnerable male prisoners.

I believe its highly likely there have always been people of both sexes who have hated being the sex they are and have had a very strong desire to be the opposite sex, for a variety of reasons, not all sexual, often to do with disliking the societal expectations for their sex and imagining it would be better to be the opposite sex.
I believe that for a long time, those who feel this strongly enough have considered themselves 'born in the wrong body', meaning they would have been so much happier, they believe, if born the opposite sex. Society has tolerated this for a long time to some degree or another.
What is new I think it the idea that some people actually 'are' the opposite sex, because of ...reasons. Reasons relating to a gendered soul, a developmental difference, that sex isn't the way we understand it to be etc.
So 'transgender' stops being an accommodation of people who want to live as their idea of the opposite sex, and becomes a forced recognition that sex is something entirely different from what we understand, and that only the individual concerned can tell us their sex, and when they do, that must be unconditionally accepted. Or, that sex matters less than 'gender' and people's self declared gender overrides the rights of sex. This turns what was once a tolerance that some men don't like being men so want to be treated socially as women, into something much more problematic.

Whatever the case, it is based entirely on indefinable 'essences' and feelings. Of course sometimes it is necessary to work out how one feels about something, certainly if it is a persistent feeling, but feelings are not reality as such, they are the individual's way of navigating the world of relationships and they come and go, magnify and recede.

I’m sure theyhave always been here, the major differences though are, prior to the last , what 30 years maybe, the option of having hormone treatment/ surgery to change sex didn’t exist and any man who went into a woman only space dressed as a woman and saying they identified as female,probably didn’t have a very good time.

Did you not see the two distinct groups in my post?
Transgender and Transsexual?

Yes, that's my point... someone with 'an indefinable feeling' that doesn't amount to a strong desire to be the opposite sex wouldn't necessarily have been considered as "trans" 50 years ago.

The deeply frustrating thing is that there is a grain of truth in arguments such as that made by the WI, that men who were desperate to be women (or at least to be accepted into women’s spaces) have, in tiny numbers, been allowed access for some time.

This removing them now feels unpleasant. The problem being, of course, that it’s no longer accepted that those men approach carefully and quietly ask for access, with full understanding that they might be refused. That quiet asking has been replaced (in some cases) with insistent demands.

So while some WI units might have allowed a tiny number of men in, as a favour (and presumably those men would be on their best behaviour) this has opened them up to having to allow any man in. The attendance of the modern day transvestite in his inappropriately short skirt, obviously for kicks, inevitably splits the room.

There will still be women who welcome him in as a kind of pampered pet, while others are so unsettled they will quietly leave. Those who object will be labelled as bigots by the first group of women and the equilibrium of a previously accepting space for almost all women (presumably there may be a tiny, unrecognized number who left when the first, well-behaved men were admitted) will have changed entirely.

That this is not recognized by well-meaning women is one of my major frustrations. My (female) minister, a good woman, still sees women who object as unreasonable bigots.

Until you’ve been on the receiving end of an out and out narcissist who enjoys splitting up close knit communities in that way (that’s definitely the remit of some modern transactivists) it’s probably hard to imagine, but it’s incredibly frustrating to be labelled a bigot and dismissed for seeing something others have missed. That transactivism has changed and will continue to change if left unchecked is not the fault of women.

To what extent did transgenderism drive the feminist movement ?

breathe please

as in - to what extent was it women who rejected the gender norms , who didn’t see how they were materially (mentally) different to men that drove feminism ?

because in 1900 I would say that feminism was about not conforming to your gender and that means a rejection of ( your given ) gender and that is basically the definition of transgender ?

they happily came up with a solution that didn’t involve sterilisation and surgery for none conforming girls

they could manage to not conflate sex and gender

so yes transgender always existed but it’s the transwomen movement that has turned it from a fight for gender freedom - freedom of gender expression ( those women wearing trousers) and freedom from gender restrictions ( like voting because women’s brains are too dumb ) into an assault on women’s rights

?