Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
15
FlirtsWithRhinos · 31/07/2026 17:41

BettyBooper · 31/07/2026 17:18

What on earth were you deleted for? All seemed reasonable to me.

I reckon it was the c word that has an l in it.

I was wondering if there is a MN autodeletion on the word like there is for the c word that starts cry, but then I remembered pigeons call gender critical feminism that word all the time and it doesn't get deleted, so I think it's just the thing were GC people let those claims stand because we know that for GC Feminism the claim just looks ridiculous and backfires on the accuser, while Genderists get them deleted very quicky because they know that for Genderism they ... don't.

I forget who said it (maybe me 😂), but if you want to know what power is scared of, look at what you are not allowed to say.

BettyBooper · 31/07/2026 17:41

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:41

Surely it would be more productive and interesting to join the actual discussion?

Are you using AI to generate your posts?

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:43

BettyBooper · 31/07/2026 17:41

Are you using AI to generate your posts?

No, I'm a human not an AI bot :)

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:43

In terms of CSH, why do men only talk about oestrogen?

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:46

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:43

No, I'm a human not an AI bot :)

Also a reminder that there has not found to be any increase in suicides in young people with gender dysphoria, but a huge increase in suicides exists in adults who have ‘transitioned’

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:47

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:45

Devastating.

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:48

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:45

The man who invented lobotomies got a Nobel prize for it.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 31/07/2026 17:48

Humans can, of course, use AI bots to write their posts.

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:50

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:48

The man who invented lobotomies got a Nobel prize for it.

Presumably they weren't carried out on the basis of informed consent?

PrettyDamnCosmic · 31/07/2026 17:50

FlirtsWithRhinos · 31/07/2026 17:35

Seeing a lot of AI tells now.

That clears up the suddenly very well informed posts (well, presenting as well informed at least. As someone who deals with a lot of AI content at work, treat all "facts" with caution no matter hiw confidently delivered.)

Goes without saying, but anyone who delegates their side of the conversation to AI has no interest in learning or understanding the opposite position, they just want to bulldoze their own views.

An interesting coda to the earlier side track about understanding, learning and the value of taking the journey.

That clears up the suddenly very well informed posts (well, presenting as well informed at least. As someone who deals with a lot of AI content at work, treat all "facts" with caution no matter hiw confidently delivered.)

I gave up discussing with them because it's just Dr Google fed through AI. This poster has appeared here before under other names. They are not a scientist & have no expertise in the field yet discount experts like Dr Az Hakeem & Baroness Cass. They have no bona fides. It's pointless engaging with them as they are ignorant & just bulldozing through the usual TRA bollocks.

AimsAndObjectives · 31/07/2026 17:51

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:41

Surely it would be more productive and interesting to join the actual discussion?

That's a bit rich, since you repeatedly ignored @FlirtsWithRhinos 's posts yesterday.

I've dipped in and out of this thread and you are all over the place with your claims. Also, you are not posting any evidence and are being very selective in which posts you reply to.

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:52

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:50

Presumably they weren't carried out on the basis of informed consent?

What do you mean by informed consent? Participants consented at least as much as 11 year olds do to PB.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 31/07/2026 17:54

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:41

Surely it would be more productive and interesting to join the actual discussion?

I tried. For several pages. You chose not to.

As it turned out I have found it very illuminating watching the patterns in how you engage, which I might have missed had I been caught in the post-by-post immediate cadence.

Thank you very much for giving me that opportunity, I have learned a lot from it.

I shall continue to respect your wishes not to engage with you on things you do not consider worthwhile, and also continue to post what I think is worth saying.

Netherlands Puberty Blocker Review Comes to Opposite Conclusion, Dismisses Cass Review
OldCrone · 31/07/2026 17:54

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 16:04

Of course it's evidence. It's not the only explanation of the pattern ofc, but it's certainly the simplest and most obvious one, rather than coming up with unsubstantiated theories about how one treatment might lead to the other as you do here.

Edited

If it's not the only explanation it can't be evidence, can it?

PrettyDamnCosmic · 31/07/2026 17:55

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:48

The man who invented lobotomies got a Nobel prize for it.

The man who invented lobotomies got a Nobel prize for it.

To be fair to the doctors back in the 1940s they had precious few treatments for mental illness & vast asylums full of some potentially very dangerous people. Things were very different in the days before there were anti-psychotic drugs.

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:56

AimsAndObjectives · 31/07/2026 17:51

That's a bit rich, since you repeatedly ignored @FlirtsWithRhinos 's posts yesterday.

I've dipped in and out of this thread and you are all over the place with your claims. Also, you are not posting any evidence and are being very selective in which posts you reply to.

Like I said, I have boundaries around what I respond to based on what I think is productive and worth engaging with.

I don't feel entitled to a reply or conversation from anyone—that wasn't the point of my post to Flirts. I was simply suggesting that if she was going to interject, it would be more interesting and constructive to engage with the substance of the discussion rather than making continuous disparaging comments about me personally.

I don't think there's been any inconsistency in my position. If you believe there has, you're welcome to explain what you think is inconsistent.

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 18:00

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:52

What do you mean by informed consent? Participants consented at least as much as 11 year olds do to PB.

As mentioned in the stats I shared earlier, there were 3 children age 11 who were prescribed PBs out of 2700+ for the latest year we have stats. That's just 0.1% of children referred into the system. It's an exceptionally rare occurence. Also I think age 11 is old enough to take seriously a child's account of their own experience and needs. We do so in other contexts (e.g. in court processes the perspectives of a child of this age would be given meaningful weight).

AimsAndObjectives · 31/07/2026 18:00

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:56

Like I said, I have boundaries around what I respond to based on what I think is productive and worth engaging with.

I don't feel entitled to a reply or conversation from anyone—that wasn't the point of my post to Flirts. I was simply suggesting that if she was going to interject, it would be more interesting and constructive to engage with the substance of the discussion rather than making continuous disparaging comments about me personally.

I don't think there's been any inconsistency in my position. If you believe there has, you're welcome to explain what you think is inconsistent.

I don't think there's been any inconsistency in my position. If you believe there has, you're welcome to explain what you think is inconsistent.

No thanks. I'm learning way more sitting back watching you operate.

BettyBooper · 31/07/2026 18:03

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 17:56

Like I said, I have boundaries around what I respond to based on what I think is productive and worth engaging with.

I don't feel entitled to a reply or conversation from anyone—that wasn't the point of my post to Flirts. I was simply suggesting that if she was going to interject, it would be more interesting and constructive to engage with the substance of the discussion rather than making continuous disparaging comments about me personally.

I don't think there's been any inconsistency in my position. If you believe there has, you're welcome to explain what you think is inconsistent.

Your position is (I think) some children are very distressed because they are not the sex they would like to think themselves as. So they need time to think about this so we should give them PBs. And then cross sex hormones, which will definitely make them into mature adults (because, reasons). But they'll be infertile. But at least they won't be distressed!

Have I missed anything?

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 18:04

OldCrone · 31/07/2026 17:54

If it's not the only explanation it can't be evidence, can it?

That doesn't follow, there doesn't have to just be one explanation for a piece of evidence for it to be regarded as evidence. There are almost always multiple possible explanations for the same thing. In scientific medical terms, this is usually thought of in the terms of 'this piece of evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that..." rather than saying its the only possible hypothesis.

AimsAndObjectives · 31/07/2026 18:06

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 17:52

What do you mean by informed consent? Participants consented at least as much as 11 year olds do to PB.

A parent's signature and a clinician's reassurance describe a process. They do not, on their own, supply the capacity that eleven year olds do not yet have.

https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2068592576001687876

Read some Piaget please! (@prof_curiosity1) on X

A Trial in Name Only

https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2068592576001687876

Cairngormwildfire · 31/07/2026 18:06

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 18:00

As mentioned in the stats I shared earlier, there were 3 children age 11 who were prescribed PBs out of 2700+ for the latest year we have stats. That's just 0.1% of children referred into the system. It's an exceptionally rare occurence. Also I think age 11 is old enough to take seriously a child's account of their own experience and needs. We do so in other contexts (e.g. in court processes the perspectives of a child of this age would be given meaningful weight).

What relevance is that stat to my question - how do you define informed consent? And how does the small numbers of 11 year olds given PB to date change the ability of 11 year olds to give informed consent for this trial?

Could you at least make sure your AI responses answer the questions asked before pasting them here.

BonfireLady · 31/07/2026 18:07

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 13:24

This is simply wrong on the biology and medicine.

Puberty is just the physical changes — bone growth, the growth spurt, secondary sex characteristics, brain maturation — that estrogen or testosterone cause in a developing body. It doesn't matter where the hormone comes from. A body given estrogen builds bone density, stops growing, and develops secondary sex characteristics through the exact same pathways it would if that estrogen came from ovaries instead of a pill. The hormone doesn't check chromosomes or birth certificate before it binds :) :) :).

Your claim that it's "impossible to go through the puberty of the opposite sex" is doing political work, not describing biology. Take the case of people with CAIS, born with XY chromosomes and testes who have them removed before puberty (once routine, due to cancer risk) and are then given estrogen externally. They go through a normal female puberty as a result — breast development, fat redistribution, bone changes, the full range of typical female pubertal hormonal effects. Of course there are still differences - they never menstruate, since CAIS also means no uterus, but otherwise it's real puberty by any physiological measure.

No one claims these women are stuck in a permanent pre-pubescent state, failed to mature into adulthood, or suffered brain damage from having their puberty driven by external rather than gonadal hormones.

Edited

Puberty is just the physical changes — bone growth, the growth spurt, secondary sex characteristics, brain maturation — that estrogen or testosterone cause in a developing body. It doesn't matter where the hormone comes from.

I'm going to borrow your words to me: this is simply wrong on the biology and medicine. Specifically, the words between your hyphens/em dashes are correct and the words either side are not. It's been explained already by a PP that puberty requires more than just oestrogen or testosterone.

Your claim that it's "impossible to go through the puberty of the opposite sex" is doing political work, not describing biology.

No, it's describing biology. Someone with CAIS will not go through a normal female puberty when given oestrogen. For example, as you say, there is no uterus and the person in question has testicles not ovaries. There is no normal female puberty in the world that involves testicles. The important thing here is that there has been no disruption to the hypothalamus releasing the Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone (GNRH), so the normal pubertal development pathway is still firing, despite the CAIS DSD.

No one claims these women are stuck in a permanent pre-pubescent state, failed to mature into adulthood, or suffered brain damage from having their puberty driven by external rather than gonadal hormones.

Puberty has been driven by GNRH, just like it is for everyone else because nothing has blocked it from getting started. Considering no testosterone can ever be processed effectively, and the person with CAIS most likely assumed themself to be a normal female until there was no observable sign of pubertal development, the only hormone that makes sense for bone health and secondary sex characteristic development is oestrogen. Because the process of puberty wasn't blocked from starting, there is no indication that there would be brain damage.

Also DSDs have absolutely nothing to do with gender identity.

Fidgetbreak · 31/07/2026 18:49

Sunnibee · 31/07/2026 15:59

I actually don't think it's good at all to stay on PBs until 16 and wait that late for cross sex hormones. Thats rarely the desire of the young person either. It was imposed because clinicians in the UK were so cautious of giving children cross sex hormones, rather than for any medical reason. The focus on PBs is in many ways a red herring. It's something that is required as part of a cautionary approach to treatment, not an interventionist one.

Edited

Might want to review the evidence before diving head first into more child experiments.

Jonni Skinner

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEp-fRd8G1I