HW live on LBC at 4pm 11 Dec

[Greyskybluesky]

Apparently she can't wait to hear from us!

Sorry @Igmum, I tried to do a link but it won't let me!

This isn’t a popularity contest. We don’t have to vote for him.

He is asking important questions and genuinely seems to get it. I haven’t listened to his opinions on anything as I’m not really interested - he is a journalist - he reports on things. Why does it matter to you what his personal politics are if he is exposing monsters like HW for what they are?

Why are you so keen to discredit and dismiss him? Which of his views do you disagree with?

I kept hearing her mention gender diversity in a positive way, isn’t that the opposite of transitioning?

I might take slight issue with your last sentence.

If your view on "gender affirming medicine" is that it should be given on demand because all human beings (including young kids) know who they truly are, and if you are so ill-informed that you think that there is a massive risk of suicide if you don't do what they want mean that the huge harms and risks of gender affirming medicine can be completely ignored, then no. If you believe all that nonsense she is competent, caring and providing a service for a reasonable fee.

Ultimately it is all about the gendered soul and faith in it.

If the gendered soul exists then of course an 8 year old can know their wrong sex gender. If you have faith that souls trump bodies, so the body has to match the soul, then whatever you do is good so long as the male body becomes somewhat less male (whilst ignoring that male female is a binary and male bodies are always 100% male).

If the gendered soul exists then of course an 8 year old can know their wrong sex gender. If you have faith that souls trump bodies, so the body has to match the soul, then whatever you do is good so long as the male body becomes somewhat less male

I disagree. If making that body less male leads to catastrophic side-effects on the health of the child, then no, it's not good to do it. What's good is to weigh the pros and cons, and come down on the safest side for the child's current and future health.

So basically, the only way transitioning a specific child could be good, would be if the doctors knew for sure that:

1. that child is going to commit suicide before they turn 18, specifically because of their gender distress,
2. that gender distress cannot be alleviated through any other means but physical transition.

Doctors at this point do not know for sure either of these things, for any child. In particular, no proper research into psychological alleviation of gender distress has been made. That should be the priority of anyone who wants to do good by those children, IMO.

She was suspended, then reinstated, then refused to do what she needed to do to get revalidated, so is no longer registered.

Her husband was struck off.

Surprisingly Trans Reddit seem to think that HWs appearance on LBC was a win whilst I thought that was probably her worst yet with her coming across as a petulant child and certainly not as an expert anyone would take seriously

I wish someone would challenge her on this. She says she wants to celebrate gender diversity, but she thinks the best way to do this is by medically treating the body to 'match' the gender identity. That's the opposite of celebrating gender diversity, because it says that there's something wrong with having a gender which doesn't 'match' someone's sex.

She also says that people who identify as transgender are not mentally ill. They're not physically ill either, so why do they need medical treatment at all?

None of it makes sense.

I agree with your point of view entirely. Though I might go further. I think I take the view that transition is so bad for society that I would rather leave people at elevated risk of suicide or with untreated sex specific body dysmorphia.

But of course we know medical transition is massively harmful and does not really work in terms of reducing suicide or increasing happiness, so my previous comment does not need to apply.

My point is that if your starting point is insane ("8 year old kids know themselves, we all know who we really are even though the evidence of detransitioners proves we don't" and "trans are at massive risk of suicide if not affirmed") then we can ignore all other evidence and have GAC / GAM for kids.

"Whatever your views on gender affirming medicine - she is incompetent, callous and is financially exploiting trans people and their families" is simply not true. If your view is that it prevents suicide amongst people who know who they really are then HW is right to dispense GAC willy-nilly, no matter the side effects.

"Whatever your views on gender affirming medicine - she is incompetent, callous and is financially exploiting trans people and their families" only applies if you like facts and reason.

@Justwrong68 I see that a lot from TRAs and it doesn’t make any sense at all. They say that trans people are gender non-conforming. The opposite is true.

I think I take the view that transition is so bad for society that I would rather leave people at elevated risk of suicide or with untreated sex specific body dysmorphia.

Honestly, I'm at the point where I would happily undo all my transition, both social and medical, if it meant no child is ever transitioned ever again and/or no man is ever able to access women's spaces anywhere. Obviously, I can't talk for other trans people, but I agree that from the evidence we have accumulated, transition as it has been done is toxic for society, and we should (have) look(ed) for other ways to deal with gender dysphoria (whatever that term means, since there's no factual description of it anywhere).

"Whatever your views on gender affirming medicine - she is incompetent, callous and is financially exploiting trans people and their families" only applies if you like facts and reason.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's a matter of perspective, and she has a very different one.

Me too! Because, well, only biological women ARE women. Regardless of why someone believes or promotes it, it is true.

She also says that people who identify as transgender are not mentally ill. They're not physically ill either, so why do they need medical treatment at all?

It's the same in my country: TRAs literally argue that being trans must absolutely not be considered an illness, but trans people should be able to access medical transition at will, and the Sécurité Sociale should pay the bills! It baffles me that the government goes along with such a self-contradictory argument.

By having a good memory and being proficient at passing exams. Simply having a degree is no guarantee of wider intelligence or the ability to think critically.

None of that matters, though, does it so long as his arguments against gender ideology and the prescription of puberty blockers are sound?

Trying to second guess how generally "sincere" or "hugely ccompassionate" someone is before you will accept their argument on anything is surely putting the cart before the horse? It's the arguments that matter, not the imagined moral virtue of the person in question.

How can anyone know how genuine and compassionate a stranger is, anyway? And how would 'genuineness' and 'compassion' be measured?

Do you think that either Farage or Trump have any ideas or proposals at all, that you might be in agreement with? And what would happen if you did?

What is the right wing agenda, and why might understanding that a woman is an adult human female ( a biological category) be part of it?

Do you 'sincerely' think that agreeing with somone on any particular issue must automatically mean that you more generally "support them as a person"?

Must we automatically hate and castigate anyone if we so much as disagree with them on certain issues?

Do we have to automatically like or support someone who agrees with us on an issue that is very important to us, to the extent that we over-look things they say or stand for that we really don't like so much?

Sorry, but it's good to think critically.......breaking ideas up into their component parts - examining and testing them.

Mike Webberley was inappropriately prescribing puberty blockers and cross sex hormones because Helen Webberley had been suspended from the medical register so was unable to prescribe herself. To keep the money rolling in she got her husband to take over prescribing.

Must we automatically hate and castigate anyone if we so much as disagree with them on certain issues?

Well, yes. Right wing politics vastly denigrate women's rights.

Anyone using women to support their sick politics should be castigated.

Trump and Vance hate trans women. British politicians like Farage are sailing close to saying so. They also want to co-opt biological women's right to their own agency.

I am never going to listen to a right winger masquerading as a champion of women. They simply want to control.

None of that justifies an overdose - Gender GP were incompetent in their care of the child in question. Regardless of whether you believe cross sex hormones should be available on demand to children, it's still incompetent to prescribe a massive & potentially fatal overdose. Any supporters of gender affirming care should steer well clear of Gender GP - they are unregulated & just in it for the money.

Personally I think the entire concept of gender affirming care is illogical and unfounded. That doesn't stop some providers being objectively worse than others though. Adult with reasonable mental health buying drugs off the internet - they're putting themselves at risk but frankly I don't really care unless they harm other people or cost the NHS money.

Selling an overdose of drugs to an underweight child with serious mental health problems- the adult selling or prescribing the drug is scum. The GP who administered the testosterone is also an idiot - they clearly made no basic check of what drug dose they were giving.

I'm using generalised examples so as to explore the ideas you are putting forward. If you keep making things personal rather than dealing with the ideas and proposals themselves then you are unable to think critically about matters, and end up following the politcs of the tribe and tribal identity.Can you not see that?

You are using lots of emotive terminology and language and seem determined to see everything as good versus bad, good versus evil, black versus white. Why?

I posed several questions to you. How about giving it a go and answering some of them?

I do too, the more I hear it the more it grates. If we were all (claiming) to be non binary then there wouldn’t be anything to transition to. NB seems to suit the younger take on this but it’s still all lumped into one subject.