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?

So are you saying that the way babies are made has changed, or that there are no gametes now or what? You’re not making much sense.

Thank you for your service.

So you're a gay man.

Do you think the socialisation of a man has any bearing on this?

Human life has evolved beyond gametes and reproduction unlike other animals.

Can I ask what you mean by this? Yes, humans have evolved. We are always evolving. But gametes and reproduction still work the way they always did.

So in response to
So are you saying that the way babies are made has changed, or that there are no gametes now or what?

A very sensible question about how babies are made which was in response to your comment that

"Human life has evolved beyond gametes and reproduction "

You come out with 'thank you for your service'

Because you think humans are all about culture and are beyond animalistic issues such as reproduction and killing.

This is basically cos you havent got an answer and you yourself know you are talking utter bollocks.

Given that transition means sterilisation for so many transpeople, perhaps this is understandable. Reproduction effectively isn't their responsibility. It's not something that concerns them because it's not possible. And where they have children they outsource it.

It's a bit like city kids who have never seen a cow nor can name various vegetables. They are so far removed from reproduction because it's industrialised and processed that they don't have a clue. Which is fine to a point but isn't without consequences.

As we found with various crisis food security is important. We know we have a population crisis too. And whilst the number of people on the planet is currently still going up, population growth is now being fueled by migration which creates its own political instability and tension. When we look at China we know that population imbalance has led to massive issues with the trafficking of women. And what about international issues such as the huge surrogacy industry where certain countries are particularly exploited by infertile couples or couples who don't have the ability to reproduce (such as those where one party has sterilised themselves or same sex couples). This industry of exploitation is driven by those who can't reproduce themselves because there is such a huge demand for it. Or IVF clinics run on the cheap in Cyprus or dodgy men on the internet who sells their sperm and now have hundreds of children many of whom are unaware of their heritage which may have consequences if they start dating a sibling unwittingly (unfortunately surprisingly common).

These are things still driven by human reproduction. Over use of resources is driven by increasing demand from increasing populations.

And then there's the whole issue of abortion - particularly in US politics where it's a significant driving force. To forget this as someone who claims they've worked at an abortion clinic, is somewhat 'interesting'. The cognitive dissonance right there is pretty damn huge.

And I've not even mentioned the effects of reproduction on women's health - noting as part of this, women who don't have children have different health risks (for example women who carry male foetuses are at less risk of dementia!)

I'm not quite sure how you claim humans have 'moved past gametes and reproduction' when so many issues are directly related and driven by human reproduction.

It's almost as if you selectively have erased the concept from your conscience to protect yourself from the functionality and reality of a world you actively seek to psychologically detach yourself from. This is a form of denial which is so dangerous and so harmful I don't know where to begin with in. Imagine pretending all these issues were not real and did not exist.

Tbh, it's something only a man could say anyway because the realities of reproduction or potential to reproduce (including lack of ability) are an ever present concern for women - we spend a huge part of our lives either trying to prevent ourselves from reproducing, trying to find out why we aren't reproducing when we want to, living in fear of being used by men to reproduce or dealing with the consequences of having reproduced either with caring responsibilities that default to women or through the health consequences to our bodies. And when that's all done we have to deal with the consequences of our bodies changing because we can no longer reproduce!!!!

The idea that we have moved beyond gametes and reproduction is highly offensive to women. But you know this. And you get off on it, because you think you are superior because you are 'a woman who doesn't have to do all that mucky stuff'.

That one line is everything that proves you are a male in a single sentence. Undeniably, completely and conclusively.

And the best response you have is: thank you for your service - which again sums your mentality up - you see women as nothing more than service humans to the world and to validating your existence.

You are a man. You will always be a man.

And the best response you have is: thank you for your service - which again sums your mentality up - you see women as nothing more than service humans to the world and to validating your existence.

I’m trying to decide whether the use of ‘thank you for your service’ - a phrase often used by the cult members in The Running Grave - means @onepostwonder has read the Strike & Robin books or whether it’s a coincidence.

I think it does. I mean, this poster can only experience socialisation as a male because he is male. He can only see the world through the eyes of a male. His posts show that. I think it’s why so many trans identified males cling to the gender stereotypes so dearly. Without them, they would have nothing to tell them they are “a woman”. I think it’s so offensive to women that these men claim to be women and their frame of reference is the very stereotypes women are fighting to break free from.

But that is true of all different types of men for all different kinds of reasons! That doesn't make them entitled to be accommodated in female facilities.

Well I've skipped a whole bunch of pages.

Any concerns raised by TRAs about children being harmed or are we still on the me me me from one poster?

Actually, no need to answer that... 🙄

And it will be more clinically unsafe. Drug them all free for all will be a charm!

It may be just want women need.

It certainly is what some men want.

I'm finding it an increasingly odd response; I haven't read The Running grave so hadn't made that link.

I now read it as 'You've made a point that I am not going to answer because I would have to contradict myself or agree with you'.

It really reads as childishly sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going la la laaaa can't hear you.

It just confirms a lack of argument.

Nobody is obliged to answer anyone's question, obviously. So just don't respond then.

But yes, the use of the word service is very interesting

Women can not 'move past human reproduction' and the implications of it for them. Men can.

@thestudio The Finnish study is published here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70533

Although the study didnt, I think, include data on sexual preference the CASS report did include some information. It's known that those referred to the Tavistock included disproportionate numbers of those who were same sex attracted, who had a sex offender parent, who had suffered sexual abuse, who had been in care, who were autistic. So it would not be surprising if there were a disproportionate number of same sex attracted people.

Current referrals include many young women, a major change. There is not a substantial population of older females who take drugs to make them look more masculine or have had mastectomies. There are now 1000 women a year who undergo the procedure - older women have it done for breast cancer, younger women to look more masculine.

Indeed. Only a man who has not had to spend his life worrying about the impact of reproductive biology pretty much every day would say such a thing.

And the correct answer to that statement within the cult is"and I for yours"
Make of that what you will.

I do understand how hard it must be for a person to come to terms with a decision they made as a child. Sometimes a traumatised child. Then on finding their way to MN FWR and thought, I will educate those women only to find that we are unrelenting in making them view their decision with the attempt (I doubt it will sink in now, and maybe not for a long long time) to understand that decision better.

Not just the effect on the individual but on women in general. It really isn’t pleasant to discover that for decades you (general you) have been wrong. And to discover that you don’t have even the slightest understanding of consent or safeguarding such as we have see with the past poster who was telling teens it is perfectly fine to not tell a sex partner what sex they were.

Not to mention most male people who simply cannot understand consent and female single sex provisions.

But this wheedling ‘Whatabout if’ that we get from different male
posters needs to fucking stop.

But this wheedling ‘Whatabout if’ that we get from different male posters needs to fucking stop.

It’s not even original. Hayton did it. Willoughby did it, though not here.

I think the "Thank you for your service' "And I for yours" call and response referenced is quite telling. On the surface it is self effacing, humble and egalitarian but in reality it is a power play. The person initiating is either higher in the hierarchy, more powerful or influential. The respondents are definitely the lower, inferior members (even when the mantra is used between ostensibly equal members).
I think this reveals a lot about the attitude of the original user on this thread.

As an aside, I'm going to start reporting these "thank you for your service" posts @onepostwonder because, at this point, they fall into the wheelhouse of trolling and being deliberately inflammatory, which I'm pretty sure are against mumsnet guidelines.

I've been reporting them since yesterday.

I think a lot of posts are fillers to run this thread to the maximum. For TRAs, the sooner people forget about this Finnish study the better. But the same team are going to publish more data on the severity of mental health problems soon. Once again, there is no escaping reality.

...aaaand bang on cue @solerolover gets deleted