Is there ANY concern among Trans Rights Activists for the health wellbeing of adolescents receiving gender affirming drugs that the findings of the Finnish study might be true

[mardirousse]

You would expect Trans Rights Activists to be concerned about the physical mental health of gender questioning children, yet I haven't seen a single TRA express the slightest concern that gender affirming care might be causing harm to young kids, who they see as transgender. Not here, not on r/transgenderuk, not on x.
They are attacking the credibility of the study, but given its size and the very shocking findings, why aren't at least some of them expressing a little concern that there might be something in it? I mean, these are vulnerable kids, and they're taking really powerful drugs with major long-term consequences, and now it looks like there's evidence that it may be doing the opposite of what it's supposed to...
How could you not be concerned, whatever your agenda? They're kids!
Aren't trans rights activists interested in the right of trans kids to be safe and healthy?
Am I missing something?

You know I am reminded just how many distortions are required when a male person attempts to convince others that he is in anyway female.

I, and I doubt any other female, don't have to do this at all. Everything that we say is based on material reality and it is supported by clear and accurate language with no obfuscation and no theoretical underpinnings that attempt to make a subjective reality into material reality. Just accurate and truthful facts. That is authenticity.

Wow, I had no idea that all boys are female until they lose their virginity and magically turn male.

I remember listening to women who identify as transmen and the discussion is rather different. They are usually pretty up front that they are not men. The ones who come to FWR are not seeking to shame women for rejecting their claims that they are 'men' or 'male' because they know it and if they ever believed it, they generally admit to the gradual realisation that they really never were men / male but have found their own way to live with the truth.

There are now many detransitioners, some of them very recent who had been identifying as men for years, who describe the process where they finally came to that realisation.

yep.

And all those celibate men too.

It was a cracker of a statement.

All Incels are women?!

That's a revelation.

Can it get any more absurd?

Is that a question or a challenge?

Well, hang on... Remember Willoughby is a woman 'let that penetrate!'

Oh, 100%, Helle. If I recall correctly, the same poster also said something along the lines of, well let's all compare fat distributions, waist to hip ratios and q-angles, as if that would be the thing to convince us that he's anything other than a man😅. The irony being that only an outsider to female history, would behave like that and the funny thing is, he doesn't even see it.

An actual female person has no need to do any of that, because, as you point out, everything we say is based on material, not subjective reality and scientific fact, no amount of pretzelling, double speak or obfuscation is necessary.

I've posted this excerpt from Raymond's The Transsexual Empire before, but it seems especially fitting here:

But in some very real senses, female biology shapes female history—a history that men don’t have because of their sex—including the history of menstruation, the history of pregnancy or the capacity to become pregnant, the history of childbirth and abortion, the history of certain bodily cycles and life changes, and the history of female subordination in a male-dominant society. Note that I keep saying history. To deny that female history is, in part, based on female biology is like denying that important aspects of Black history are based on skin color. As with biological skin color, female biology doesn’t confer an essential femininity; rather it confers a historical reality about what it means to be bom with XX chromosomes.

And again, even surgeons who perform such cosmetic operations on male people can't deny material reality:

Georges Burou, a Casablancan physician who has operated on over 700 American men, expressed the superficiality of sex-conversion surgery in these words: “I don’t change men into women. I transform male genitals into genitals that have a female aspect. All the rest is in the patient’s mind.”

Good quote solero

It’s the insistence that gives it away. If anyone told me I wasn’t a woman, I’d shrug my shoulders and say “whatever” because I don’t need anyone to validate me.

😄

I saw an interview with a TIM who said something along the lines of, "I know I'm a woman because my friends and colleagues tell me I am." A bit like saying to a small child, "Yes of course you're the best at dancing, Mary."

So if his friends and colleagues tell him he's a man he'll know he's a man? What if they tell him he's a sexist pig? Or even a smelly poo poo head? Is it always the case that people are whatever other people call them?

Of course not.

However, and I hope this isn't too grand a derail, I came across this article on why some people cannot engage when their sense of reality is threatened. And its not about gender but UFOs! Enjoy the parallels - and I'm not talking universes...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-forward/202512/why-is-no-one-talking-about-the-aliens

Yes. That basis of a call to authority is not uncommon.

I remember last year a male barrister in a TV interview who actually thought that admitting that he had sex by deception with a man who thought that he was having sex with a woman was a great example of how he could authoritatively say he was a woman. He actually believed that admitting to sex by deception on TV would give him public support.

No we wouldn't. Some of us accept the cards we were dealt, and neither ask for a re-deal nor practice a poker face in order to deceive.

I've lost count at the number of times I've had my words or the intent I am trying to convey twisted in this forum. If you were not framing the question in that way, I apologise.

That is your belief. My posts have been warped to fit a narrative that does not exist.

The post I was responding to used the words 'physical thing.' I was agreeing.

You are wrong. But sex realist orthodoxy constrains 'reality' in a way that disposes alternate sex development into the 'man' group.

I am glad to hear that they are considering post-menopausal HRT treatments a life-long SoC now.

This wasn't Robin Moira White, was it? Regardless, what an utterly crazy thing for a lawyer to admit to.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

It has, does, and always will.

Yes, but not in ways that are of sex realist concern.

'The fact I am not impacted by female puberty, periods, pregnancy, the risk of pregnancy, birth, motherhood, infertility, miscarriage, menopause, has no impact on my identity as a woman' is such a bloody nonsensical assertion.

Tits and lipstick do not make one a woman.

I agree 100%. Absolutely none of that causes anyone to identify me as a woman.

Yes, I agree.