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?

Much as some are keen to keep the conversation focussed on their genitals, could anyone confirm whether any TRAs have expressed concern about children being sterilised, yet?

No.
It's almost as if this is all one big diversionary tactic, isn't it?

That is fine. Lots of people subscribe to surprising and unusual beliefs.

The issues are that governments, the NHS, the courts, etc, need to be based on reality, evidence and law.

Well if we talk about ones penis. Or lack of. We can't talk about girls and their testosterone shrivelled insides can we?

If there were no puberty blockers and the surgery to remove testes was after oestrogen supplements taken, then actually there was male puberty and male development.

......here is one social example: I was asked to join a committee as the “token woman” by the committee chair............

But you posted this earlier in the thread.

To answer your second point: I believe that there is no possible way for me to know how you'd have been likely to answer my previous question.

There were no women on the committee until a year after I was 'asked.'

I was the second woman to join after chair #2 had been replaced

When I was chair, we recruited equal numbers of men and women were represented, not including myself as chair.

are you saying that you provided female representation on the committee then?

How many of those women were men, though?

I was identified as the first female chair, so yes.

I would guess none. But, unlike sex realists, it never occurred to me to ask that question.

but that’s not factually accurate, is it?

So diverse. Much inclusion.

The first female chair was male. And we can't ever know if all subsequent 'women' were actually just men pretending to be women.

Amazing.

I believe it was. As I've said an innumerable number of times already, I have been grouped with women for my entire adult life. At no point have I been grouped with men.

To unilaterally relabel my presence male renders my experiences contextless and inaccurate. Ultimately though, this is why I say it is your belief. Your beliefs have affect on my experiences.

So much passivity.

"Everyone thought I was a woman. So I simply went along with it"
shrugs

Ahh.

So you actually did claim a female role meant for female people.

You were not the first female anything. You were the first male who said he was female as chairperson though.

please stop claiming female acclaim for yourself as you are not female, not even for that acclaim as first ‘female’.

Wadhwa.

that should be known as the Wadhwa defence.

I did not claim anything. I was in the role and my contribution was labeled and contextualised without my input.

And you could have been upfront and truthful. But chose not to be.

Stealth

upfront and truthful about what? Experiencing puberty and spending the rest of my life as a woman? No one but sex realists give two figs.

About being male.

female people experience oppression from birth. You might not think you have experienced male privilege, but you have even if you reject being male.

It is an act of oppression to take acclaim for being the first female anything if you are male.

This is your belief. You have no idea of my experience from birth.

Woth the amount of mansplaining you are doing, I'm not surprised you were asked to be on the committee. They knew you were a man, and a convenient way of being seen to diversify the membership without actually doing so. That way they didn't have to listen to any actual women.

And you obviously gave plenty of fucking figs since you are here claiming to be the ‘first female’.