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?

I agree. It is absolutely a power play. But if you have been supported in believing that you are the person who is most marginalised, you won't believe it is a power play.

To me it denotes a lack of any intention of engagement and simply ignoring and dismissing what has been said.

While there is quite a lot of abuse being thrown in my direction (No I am not going to itemise it for you), FWR feels no different than if I were to find myself in a room with evangelical Christians who believed I was going to hell for not believing their beliefs.

As a woman, I belong in women's space. I don't find myself in some specific spaces because those spaces specifically involve issues or functions that do not apply to me. A person would have to be cruel or insane to demand access to all spaces (I am not going to itemise these for you either).

No, I've never read the book(s). I used the phrase after telling the poster I would no longer engage with them. There are other posters I will not respond to, but I have not told them to stop. I will stop responding.

Yes. Of course gametes and reproduction still work the way they always did.

Sex realists appear to apply this function as relevant and declarative to determining how one must be grouped or categorised in every context outside of reproduction, including social interaction and participation.

Culture has evolved beyond restricting everyone's role and access to society by potential gamete and biological function.

Gender. It’s a social construct. A man made idea.
The End.

If this is a room of evangelical Christians, I can only say that you deliberately sought it out, entered it, and have been insisting for some time now that you, too, are a Christian, while insulting us and berating us for not sharing your Zoroastrian beliefs.

You are male, you do not belong in women's spaces, women do not want you in our single sex spaces. You know this very well, but I will repeat it to be clear.

You are deliberately and persistently harassing women.

The entitlement is really quite something.

It's a stream of misrepresentation, duplicity and – dare I say it – an astounding lack of comprehension.

100%. And sex is real, immutable and cannot be bought via exogenous hormones or extreme body modification.

If this is a room of evangelical Christians, I can only say that you deliberately sought it out, entered it, and have been insisting for some time now that you, too, are a Christian, while insulting us and berating us for not sharing your Zoroastrian beliefs.

I don't think your reverse analogy maps. You are now claiming the men in FWR are women.

You are deliberately and persistently harassing women.

Yes, that is the sex realist belief. Women who are believed to be trans don't have to actually be doing anything to harass women, just exist.

It's not that you are trans, it's that you are male.

Sex realists are not bothered by the existence of men.

Edited to add: mostly.

We are if they are in our spaces.

Trans people don't need to be present to bother sex realists.

Some people will always be bothered by one's appearance or behaviour but that is not what this is about. The tribunals and law pertaining to this issue relate to whether male bodied people are allowed in female spaces, not what male people wear/call themselves.

Thank you for explaining what you meant.

However, you're incorrect to say that sex realists apply this function in every context. We quite simply don't. If we did we'd be campaigning for all schools and social clubs to be single sex. Which we aren't.

Just times when someone is more vulnerable, likely to be in a state of undress and so on. I think children benefit from some single sex activities. Brownies, boys brigade and so on. As a woman I like some women only time. But other times men are more than welcome, and can bring an alternative view or whatever.

I agree that this is not what that is about. This goes beyond tribunals and law.

I don't believe I was incorrect. With your response, I feel we disagree on biologic relevance to some spaces. But I believe we would probably agree on more spaces than we disagree.

Sex realists appear to apply this function as relevant and declarative to determining how one must be grouped or categorised in every context outside of reproduction, including social interaction and participation.

This is incorrect. Sex realists don't believe that biological sex is relevant in every context. I've never spoken to anyone who thinks we should be group that way all the time.

Yes, I agree. There are probably exceptions. But, as a general rule I feel it is fairly accurate.

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!!!!

Yes to your whole comment @RedToothBrush , but especially this part. A male person is a male person no matter how he identifies, and male people, will always be outsiders to female history (especially as it pertains to our ability to reproduce and everything that flows from that). Only a male person would dismissively handwave and say that humans have moved beyond "gametes and reproduction." As female people, we will never have that privilege.

EDIT: spelling

No, mate. You criticise this forum for being majority 'gender critical' voices. I'm talking about beliefs, not sex.

You are perfectly able to exist without entering women's single sex spaces, that are reserved for women only, as laid out in the Supreme Court exactly one year ago today. I do not care what you do with your life or what you believe; you are bound by the law just as we all are. Stay out of women's spaces.

Yep. Could not give a rat's arse if most spaces are mixed sex. but when spaces are reserved and marked for women, they are for women.

Not men. Not even short men, men with long hair, nice men, vulnerable men, men with creative ideas about gender essence.

Jesus, it's not much to ask for.

No she's not. No-one is claiming that men who accept they are men are actually women because they are posting here. This is not a single sex space – though I personally treat the Bluestocking threads as women's spaces and don't even look at them.

Yes, that is the sex realist belief. Women who are believed to be trans don't have to actually be doing anything to harass women, just exist.

First, you have said that you are trans. Second, that's just untrue. You harass women when you repeatedly treat them disrespectfully, for example by responding to their questions with "Thank you for your service" which is at best passive aggressive.

That's exactly what women told lesbians. The 'Lavender Menace' fought against such beliefs.