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?

Zero concern, so

Hahaha you think I’m a TRA?

The category "man" is not neat in all aspects, but whether you belong in it is testable. It doesn't matter whether your experience is typical or not. It doesn't matter whether you think your experience maps neatly onto that of a stereotypical man. Being a man is not a matter of how society sees you, it is a biological category. So if people around you see you as a woman, they are mistaken, based on what you have told us.

I do not need prostate exams.

It certainly sounds like it.

I agree that this is an apparent requirement of being defined by sex realists as female.

Men is very much a social category, based on my knowledge of men and how they socialise.

Amazingly, we do seem to have a clear and proven definition of female that we can use.

stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf

This is under the definitions section:

Sex: Either of the two categories, Male or Female, into which humans are divided according to their reproductive biology.

Biological Female (Female): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced female sex development usually based on their XX-chromosomes, ovaries, and estrogenic hormones.

Biological Male (Male): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced male sex development usually based on their XY-chromosomes, testes/testicles and androgenic hormones.

What’s your interpretation of female?

Give us a definition that can encompass all men, around the world.
I’d like details about how this “social category” could be defined.

Yes, women were recruited specifically to address gender imbalance. There was a rather expansive DEI policy and code of conduct in place by the time I departed. I can't tell you with 100% certainty whether they were all natal women, but it would be my guess. I don't know the composition now.

But you’re male. So no mate. They weren’t giving kids puberty blockers in the 80s, which is when you said you transitioned. You went through male puberty. No cell in your body is female.

So I presume your parents, after you busted out of the clinic, took you to a doctor to see why you hadn’t started your periods by about 16?

The olympics aren't society.

High performance athletes are a very narrow category of human, regardless of sex. Based on this decision by the IOC, I would expect future athletes to be sliced out of competition as additional performance-affecting genes are isolated and identified.

Ummm… are you saying Olympic athletes aren’t human? Are you on glue?

How amazing that you don’t consider the Olympics as being influential on society! Of course it is influential on society.

Have you not noticed the reaction to Hubbard? The international pushback was informative to a huge population. It certainly informed many people who had never thought about it before.

But you must be really in denial if you think that the IOC has a narrow category of human, regardless of sex that is not only accurate but now well defined.

I would expect future athletes to be sliced out of competition as additional performance-affecting genes are isolated and identified.

The only future athletes that may be excluded will be those who have XY chromosomes and any DSD that will have been proven to provide advantage. Why would you think the IOC would exclude any female person that fit their definition that has not been mentioned as being an exception to the definition?

Why don't you need prostate exams @onepostwonder?

Have you had yours removed?

I didn't actually say that men is not a social category, but you can only become a man by being born male and living long enough to be considered adult. Naturally, given that there are noticeable and significant differences between men and women, there are circumstances in which men tend to socialise with each other, and ones in which women tend to socialise together. Nearly all my socialising is mixed sex as it happens, but I have been in men's groups sometimes, or more often I'm part of a male subset of a mixed group. You don't get many female bass singers, for example.

Most of the separation between women and men in my circles is for reasons of safeguarding, propriety and so on. Occasionally I will keep out of a women's social group just because it's clear that it's not for men, and I'm not Georgie Porgie.

most transwomen need prostate exams as most transwomen still have a prostate. (because they’re male)

I will never trust men. It's not about being a stereotypical man. That's something that's not even ever close to happening either. After more than four decades of having to navigate men, I will never share a category with them.

Most trans women apparently need prostate exams because they spent various amounts of time as male adults with adult male prostates prior to their transitions. Edited to add the word 'apparently' because I don't know personally what they need. I remember reading that the likelihood of prostate issues increases with testosterone exposure over time. So it makes sense to me.

and at no point do they change sex, as you’re well aware.

If you say so.

Yes. He said he didn't need prostate exams though. I was wondering why.

They still have their prostate.

You still have yours.

How prostate cancer is diagnosed in transwomen | Prostate Cancer UK https://share.google/PksKSxbV2jc7fBbKC