Roe v Wade

[SkStu]

The genie is long out of the bottle where twitter (and social media in general) is concerned. If twitter was discontinued in the morning, something else would take its place.

I agree. But I also, probably a bit optimistically, feel that society will course correct at some point and begin to, at least, mandate some ethical walls or restrictions on what is acceptable in the name of health and well-being. Or due to an event that rationalizes a cultural swing back towards individual privacy and protection of information. Likely not in our lifetime but as P-Stu touched on for a different reason earlier, I think as X-ers and Millenials mostly here, we are raising a couple of generations that will be dealing with massive psychological health issues as a direct result of social media and online habits.

[John83]

The genie is long out of the bottle where twitter (and social media in general) is concerned. If twitter was discontinued in the morning, something else would take its place.
I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that that was not a serious suggestion.

Social media is certainly not finished developing, but I think it's a mistake to assume it will inevitably evolve into something harmless.

[SkStu]

I think your last comment is in response to me?

I wasn’t trying to say that it would inevitably evolve into something harmless and definitely not in an organic way if that is what you meant using the word inevitably.

However, if you agree with the basic premise that SM and bad online habits do cause harm to the individual and further agree that we innately, individually and collectively as a species aim to avoid harm, I think that it is fair to predict that SM will become far more regulated or restricted to lessen the harmful effects. Or that these companies will be required to avoid unethical practices that compound the harmful effects and subject to penalty if they don’t. The beginnings of a swing that way are visible to some degree but it hasn’t yet stuck. As I said above, I think it would take a pretty long time to shift completely - most probably because we are addicted - and likely need to be be based on some sort of triggering incident.

[John83]

I think our capacity to regulate it lags very far behind the capacity of various state and private groups to weaponize it. You can fine facebook (for example) all you like, but I think the only way to really eliminate the harm it can be put to is to shutter it, and I don't see that happening.

[osarusan]

I didn't say it was ok to pile onto a footballer over anything , people who do that on social media are sad losers.
My point was that when it happens (and it does) and the footballers start complaining that it is affecting their mental health it is in my opinion simply BS and an attempt to change the narrative from whatever mistake they made to a new narrative which is "Poor me look at my anguish"

I think it's pretty absurd to consider that you have any kind of position to determine whether people who are complete strangers to you have real mental health problems or not.

It reminds me of the 'sure what do they have to be depressed about' response to somebody with an apparently successful life revealing they suffer from depression.

[SkStu]

I just read that Dave Chappelle's stand-up show in Minnesota got cancelled by the booking location due to backlash about his jokes about transgenderism. What do folks think? Are transgender jokes off limits?

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62249771

My perspective is best summed up by a Ricky Gervais quote...


I see offence as the collateral damage of free speech. I hate the thought of a person's ideas being modified or even hushed because someone somewhere might not like to hear them. Outside actually breaking the law or causing someone physical harm, 'hurting someone's feelings' is almost impossible to objectively quantify.

[joey B]

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/20/quidditch-changes-name-to-quadball-after-jk-rowlings-trans-statements

Quidditch changed its name because of Trans comments from JK Rowling,I mean christ almighty…

[John83]

That's quite funny, really. I'm picturing the About page on their site:

"The sport of quadball was invented by She Who Must Not Be Named in 1997..."

[SkStu]

That's quite funny, really. I'm picturing the About page on their site:

"The sport of quadball was invented by Xe Who Must Not Be Named in 1997..."

fixed that for you :D

[Real ale Madrid]

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2022/0726/1312222-australian-rugby-league-players-boycott-pride-jersey/

You can't do anything these days without upsetting someone!

[seanfhear]

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2022/0726/1312222-australian-rugby-league-players-boycott-pride-jersey/

You can't do anything these days without upsetting someone!
Politics should be kept out of sport.

[pineapple stu]

I think that's a fairly inevitable outcome though. The only named objector in the piece (I think) is Haneen Zreika, who's Muslim; Islam is (broadly speaking, cos it's hard to generalise about 1.3bn people) a fairly homophobic culture and although it's not explicitly stated here, I think you can certainly take it that that's the objection here. I think there was a Seventh-Day Adventist player who had a problem with it as well previously? Similar idea.

So where do we draw the line when minority (often imported) cultures and our own disagree like here? Should we be inclusive of homophobic cultures or should we try to re-educate them? It's an issue that's not really discussed (probably because it's easier to ignore it for now), but I think it's only going to become more relevant in the coming years as these cultures become more prominent here (which I don't think is a good idea really, but that's a different thread)

I also think there's no real need for a rugby team to be releasing a one-off pride jersey, but it does seem that's a bandwagon that everyone wants on these days. I'd much rather see them promoting sustainability by not making one-off microfabric jerseys (or changing their kit every year, or needless third-choice kits), but I guess there's no money in that.

[Real ale Madrid]

I think that's a fairly inevitable outcome though.

Maybe, maybe not. I suppose I was just drawing a parallel between people getting upset about transgender jokes and people getting upset at a pride jersey. Where do you stop ? Should you be able to joke about anything? Should you be able for your jersey make a statement about everything? It seems what's good for goose isn't good for the gander with some people.


Should we be inclusive of homophobic cultures or should we try to re-educate them?

I'm not sure Islamic culture is any more or less homophobic than Christian culture? Both are certainly homophobic religions. Should we try and be inclusive of Israel Folau (Christian) who for example thinks gay people are going to burn in hell? I'd be more inclined to let him think whatever he likes - but keep it to yourself etc. Surely that has to be the overriding message.

[osarusan]

I think that's a fairly inevitable outcome though. The only named objector in the piece (I think) is Haneen Zreika, who's Muslim; Islam is (broadly speaking, cos it's hard to generalise about 1.3bn people) a fairly homophobic culture and although it's not explicitly stated here, I think you can certainly take it that that's the objection here.
Haneen Zreika was a different case. The players in this case are Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolu Koula and Toafofoa Sipley. We're looking at deeply Christian pacific islanders (or descended from them) for the most part.

[pineapple stu]

Maybe, maybe not. I suppose I was just drawing a parallel between people getting upset about transgender jokes and people getting upset at a pride jersey. Where do you stop ? Should you be able to joke about anything?

No, it's a fair point. Should you be able to joke about anything? Arguably so. If it's not funny, it's not funny. I'd be wary about things you can't make fun of though. Father Ted was important in that regard for example.

Islamic culture is a lot more homophobic than Christian culture, yep. Certainly now, given the huge fall-off in Christian observance and even relevance. Almost all countries where homosexuality is criminalised are Muslim countries, and almost all Muslim countries still have it criminalised. It's a couple of hundred years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_for_homosexuality_in_Europ e) since someone was executed for homosexual acts in Europe, but it's still a death penalty in many Muslim countries. Obviously there's different degrees (if that's the right word) of Christianity like there's different degrees of Islam. The Christian fundamentalists tend not to be able to dictate laws as easily as the Islamic ones though. (Which arguably brings us right back on topic!)

I'd be wary of telling Folau (who is the guy I was thinking of alright) to keep his thoughts to himself though. I'd rather he felt free to express them and was criticised for them. Who gets to decide what views are reasonable to express and what views aren't?

[mark12345]

Here's an update from a few days ago in American Faith https://americanfaith.com/ca-bill-allowing-killing-of-1month-old-newborn-babies-passes-state-senate-ab-2223/

From a few months ago, rather

[pineapple stu]

"Our apologies.
We can't find the page you're looking for."

That's probably for the best given your earlier contributions if I'm quite honest

[osarusan]

Here's an update from a few days ago in American Faith https://americanfaith.com/ca-bill-allowing-killing-of-1month-old-newborn-babies-passes-state-senate-ab-2223/




Founder
Phil Hotsenpiller
Phil Hotsenpiller is the Founder and President of American Faith and the Senior Pastor of Influence Church. He is a Biblical Prophecy Expert, Cultural Thought Leader, and a Passionate Patriot.

A cultural thought leader...

Inevitably, the people who rebel against mainstream medis seek their news from the most f**ked up sources.

[dahamsta]

@mark12345 don't post that garbage on Foot.ie again. You should be ashamed of your inability to separate facts and science from rhetoric and nonsense.

[pineapple stu]

I thought this thread was worth returning to in light of the Cass Report published this month (https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/), and the leaked files from WPATH (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/65e6d9bea9969715fba29e6f/1709627904275/U_WPATH+Report+and+Files.pdf) (pdf link) last month. They're both pretty damning on the whole transgender care issue. WPATH are considered best practice in the area, despite having a significant composition of activists, a flagrant conflict of interests - the report says "WPATH is not a medical group", "WPATH is not a scientific group", "WPATH has misled the public", among others.

The immediate obvious outcome is a large-scale international rowing back on routine proscription of puberty blockers for kids identifying as trans - there's little in the way of any research into their effectiveness or side-effects, and it seems they may well lead to infertility and/or cancer down the line (these are unconfirmed links - but of course the point is they haven't been investigated in trials. And the infertility one obviously stands to reason). The WPATH files showed that kids clearly didn't understand the potential ramifications (with regards fertility in particular) of what they were being proscribed, but they were proscribed them anyway. Some of the medical procedures described are frankly nothing more than mutilation -


Gender nullification surgeries, defined by WPATH as “procedures resulting in an absence of external primary sexual characteristics,” and bigenital surgeries, such as the creation of a pseudo-vagina cavity without amputating the penis, are the end result of activists overtaking WPATH [...] When Dr. Thomas Satterwhite, a renowned California surgeon, asks for the group’s input for “non-standard” procedures such as “top surgery without nipples, nullification, and phallus-preserving vaginoplasty,” no one raised any ethical questions about the destruction of perfectly healthy reproductive organs to fulfill customized body modification desires

It again emphasises a strong link between gender dysphoria and various pre-existing psychological issues (autism, depression, brain trauma, etc) -


Numerous studies indicate that many adolescents experiencing adolescent-onset gender dysphoria suffer from multiple psychiatric comorbidities that pre-date the onset of distress about their sex. Detransitioner testimony supports the hypothesis that some mentally distressed people could be drawn to self-diagnosing as transgender after being led to believe that sex-trait modification procedures are a miracle cure for all their psychological suffering"

It refers to a "Transition or suicide myth" -


But how much truth is there to the claim that genderaffirming care is “suicide prevention care”? The answer is very little [...] As indicated in surveys, transgender-identified youth are at elevated risk for suicidality and suicide.168 Crucially, however, completed suicide in this population is extremely rare, and elevated suicidality is most likely because of comorbid psychopathology, which is extremely common and independently linked to suicidal ideation and behavior. In short, there is no suicide epidemic striking transgenderidentified youth, and the claim that “gender” is the cause of and solution to this group’s suicidal tendencies is a classic mistaking of correlation for causation

The Cass Report finds this too -


There are many reports that puberty blockers are beneficial in reducing mental distress and improving the wellbeing of children and young people with gender dysphoria, but as demonstrated by the systematic review the quality of these studies is poor.
The Review has heard that the widespread claims that puberty blockers reduce the risk of death by suicide in this population may place pressure on families to obtain private treatment.
The Review has also heard from GPs who have been put under pressure to continue prescribing such treatments on the basis that failing to do so will put young people at risk of suicide.
The University of York systematic review found no evidence that puberty blockers improve body image or dysphoria, and very limited evidence for positive mental health outcomes, which without a control group could be due to placebo effect or concomitant psychological support.

She more than once cites the toxicity of debate around the matter as unhelpful (we can see that with the way RAM tried to debate the matter earlier in thread actually, but more clearly on Twitter and even from organisations charged with trans care such as Stonewall (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-tried-to-silence-warnings-of-weak-evidence-for-trans-healthcare-n299v00c3)) -


The surrounding noise and increasingly toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder and does nothing to serve the children and young people who may already be subject to
significant minority stress.

It looks at the idea (which dahamsta posted here) that only 1-3% of transitioners express regret, let alone want to detransition -


The current evidence base suggests that children who present with gender incongruence at a young age are most likely to desist before puberty, although for a small number the incongruence will persist.
[...]
Estimates of the percentage of individuals who embark on a medical pathway and subsequently have regrets or detransition are hard to determine from GDC clinic data alone. There are several reasons for this:
• those who do detransition may not choose to return to the gender clinic and are hence lost to follow-up
• the Review has heard from a number of clinicians working in adult gender services that the time to detransition ranges from 5-10 years, so follow-up intervals on studies on medical treatment are too short to capture this
• the inflection point for the increase in presentations to gender services for children and young people was 2014, so even studies with longer follow-up intervals will not capture the outcomes of this more recent cohort.

The quote "I felt like it wasn’t, you know, acceptable to go back. It wasn’t a thing to go back, you know. It wasn’t something that was talked about. It didn’t feel like an option that they wanted to discuss or even mention" is also pretty damning.

Her Appendix 4 lists the reasons why many clinics refused to co-operate with her study (not really surprising), and indeed tried to actively thwart it ("disappointingly, as will become clear in this report, attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services.") It's pretty much self-interested activist groups doing what they want with very little in the way of medical/scientific evidence which you'd want to expect from such a serious matter. Cass says "children have been "let down" by a failure to base gender care on evidence-based research. (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68770641)"

This is becoming a medical scandal to outstrip cervical cancer, thalidomide and others. It'll be interesting to see where it goes next - you wouldn't bet against class action law suits, and you'd hope some of the people involved serve jail time.

And in their own small way, I think those who put their pronouns on their emails or are otherwise "inclusive" of this sort of stuff will have some small amount of blood on their hands too.

JK Rowling is playing an absolute stormer on Twitter at the moment too - what an unlikely hero in all of this. And the abuse she's taken for it has been horrific.

[seanfhear]

I thought this thread was worth returning to in light of the Cass Report published this month (https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/), and the leaked files from WPATH (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/65e6d9bea9969715fba29e6f/1709627904275/U_WPATH+Report+and+Files.pdf) (pdf link) last month. They're both pretty damning on the whole transgender care issue. WPATH are considered best practice in the area, despite having a significant composition of activists, a flagrant conflict of interests - the report says "WPATH is not a medical group", "WPATH is not a scientific group", "WPATH has misled the public", among others.

The immediate obvious outcome is a large-scale international rowing back on routine proscription of puberty blockers for kids identifying as trans - there's little in the way of any research into their effectiveness or side-effects, and it seems they may well lead to infertility and/or cancer down the line (these are unconfirmed links - but of course the point is they haven't been investigated in trials. And the infertility one obviously stands to reason). The WPATH files showed that kids clearly didn't understand the potential ramifications (with regards fertility in particular) of what they were being proscribed, but they were proscribed them anyway. Some of the medical procedures described are frankly nothing more than mutilation -



It again emphasises a strong link between gender dysphoria and various pre-existing psychological issues (autism, depression, brain trauma, etc) -



It refers to a "Transition or suicide myth" -



The Cass Report finds this too -



She more than once cites the toxicity of debate around the matter as unhelpful (we can see that with the way RAM tried to debate the matter earlier in thread actually, but more clearly on Twitter and even from organisations charged with trans care such as Stonewall (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-tried-to-silence-warnings-of-weak-evidence-for-trans-healthcare-n299v00c3)) -



It looks at the idea (which dahamsta posted here) that only 1-3% of transitioners express regret, let alone want to detransition -



The quote "I felt like it wasn’t, you know, acceptable to go back. It wasn’t a thing to go back, you know. It wasn’t something that was talked about. It didn’t feel like an option that they wanted to discuss or even mention" is also pretty damning.

Her Appendix 4 lists the reasons why many clinics refused to co-operate with her study (not really surprising), and indeed tried to actively thwart it ("disappointingly, as will become clear in this report, attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services.") It's pretty much self-interested activist groups doing what they want with very little in the way of medical/scientific evidence which you'd want to expect from such a serious matter. Cass says "children have been "let down" by a failure to base gender care on evidence-based research. (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68770641)"

This is becoming a medical scandal to outstrip cervical cancer, thalidomide and others. It'll be interesting to see where it goes next - you wouldn't bet against class action law suits, and you'd hope some of the people involved serve jail time.

And in their own small way, I think those who put their pronouns on their emails or are otherwise "inclusive" of this sort of stuff will have some small amount of blood on their hands too.

JK Rowling is playing an absolute stormer on Twitter at the moment too - what an unlikely hero in all of this. And the abuse she's taken for it has been horrific.
Some home truths are coming out now.

Why were lunatics allowed to experiment on children ?

I don't know where a society that allows children to be experimented on is headed ? !

[sbgawa]

Couldnt agree with you more Stu on the HE/Him email bull****, i make a practise of avoiding doing business with anyone that carries on with that BS.
The problem with these zealots is they wont admit they are wrong despite the evidence, most of them are left wing versions of Donald Trump , evidence that doesnt agree with them is "Fake news"

[Real ale Madrid]

And in their own small way, I think those who put their pronouns on their emails or are otherwise "inclusive" of this sort of stuff will have some small amount of blood on their hands too.

JK Rowling is playing an absolute stormer on Twitter at the moment too - what an unlikely hero in all of this. And the abuse she's taken for it has been horrific.

Shocking to read this. Shocking.



She more than once cites the toxicity of debate around the matter as unhelpful (we can see that with the way RAM tried to debate the matter earlier in thread actually, but more clearly on Twitter and even from organisations charged with trans care such as Stonewall (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-tried-to-silence-warnings-of-weak-evidence-for-trans-healthcare-n299v00c3)) -


Calling me out on comments nearly 2 years ago and not tagging me and then saying I have "blood on my hands" all the while lamenting the toxicity of debate is a tad ironic no?

All on a thread called Roe v Wade - and yet I'm the toxic one.

This is unbelievably poor form.

[pineapple stu]

Really? That's what shocks you out of this? Really?

Not giving kids drugs linked to cancer and infertility? Not experimental surgery maiming them for life? Not pressure put on parents that their kids might commit suicide if they don't go for the surgery? Not the allegation WPATH is an ascientific body of activists which has abandoned the Hippocratic oath? Not the fact Hilary Cass has been advised not to take public transport because of hateful messages received? Not the fact that gender clinics actively worked against Cass during her report? Not the fact that no-one will talk to kids about detransitioning?

None of that shocks you?

There's a strong suggestion that many kids with autism or depression or even teenage angst look to this trans idea as a solution for all their problems - only to later find it's not a solution at all, and in the meantime some have done permanent harm to themselves.

Anything which blindly promotes inclusivity of this ideal can only be seen as problematic.

I will acknowledge the "blood on the hands" comment was maybe a bit excessive and borne out of anger and (a) this scandal and (b) the way the discussion is handled broadly. You can argue people didn't really know what was going on. Some may even have been advised by people they trust, such as doctors. But they know now.

[Real ale Madrid]

Really? That's what shocks you out of this? Really?

Not giving kids drugs linked to cancer and infertility? Not experimental surgery maiming them for life? Not pressure put on parents that their kids might commit suicide if they don't go for the surgery? Not the allegation WPATH is an ascientific body of activists which has abandoned the Hippocratic oath? Not the fact Hilary Cass has been advised not to take public transport because of hateful messages received? Not the fact that gender clinics actively worked against Cass during her report? Not the fact that no-one will talk to kids about detransitioning?

None of that shocks you?

There's a strong suggestion that many kids with autism or depression or even teenage angst look to this trans idea as a solution for all their problems - only to later find it's not a solution at all, and in the meantime some have done permanent harm to themselves.

Anything which blindly promotes inclusivity of this ideal can only be seen as problematic.

I will acknowledge the "blood on the hands" comment was maybe a bit excessive and borne out of anger and (a) this scandal and (b) the way the discussion is handled broadly. You can argue people didn't really know what was going on. But they know now.

I haven't had the chance to read any of the reports or digest it in full. I'm sure you are sincere in your anger and fair play to you for standing up for what you believe in but next time when dragging up posts from almost 2 years ago perhaps take a deep breath and leave off the personal attacks. Thanks.

[seanfhear]

Really? That's what shocks you out of this? Really?

Not giving kids drugs linked to cancer and infertility? Not experimental surgery maiming them for life? Not pressure put on parents that their kids might commit suicide if they don't go for the surgery? Not the allegation WPATH is an ascientific body of activists which has abandoned the Hippocratic oath? Not the fact Hilary Cass has been advised not to take public transport because of hateful messages received? Not the fact that gender clinics actively worked against Cass during her report? Not the fact that no-one will talk to kids about detransitioning?

None of that shocks you?

There's a strong suggestion that many kids with autism or depression or even teenage angst look to this trans idea as a solution for all their problems - only to later find it's not a solution at all, and in the meantime some have done permanent harm to themselves.

Anything which blindly promotes inclusivity of this ideal can only be seen as problematic.

I will acknowledge the "blood on the hands" comment was maybe a bit excessive and borne out of anger and (a) this scandal and (b) the way the discussion is handled broadly. You can argue people didn't really know what was going on. Some may even have been advised by people they trust, such as doctors. But they know now.Excellently informed post = = The truth is out there.

[pineapple stu]

I haven't had the chance to read any of the reports or digest it in full. I'm sure you are sincere in your anger and fair play to you for standing up for what you believe in but next time when dragging up posts from almost 2 years ago perhaps take a deep breath and leave off the personal attacks. Thanks.

I don't see what the issue with the thread being old is. It's a slow-moving forum and this is a huge development in what was being discussed

Similarly your complaints about the thread title and not tagging you are bizarre (you can't tag people here, and the thread naturally evolved away from the what is it originally was about, as can happen)

It does feel a bit like you don't want to engage in the topic given your previous reluctance to, but let's wait until your reply I guess. There seems no excuse for getting taken in by this stuff now.

There's a well-supported campaign now to get a full British government investigation into this, including how it got its teeth into schools to the extent it did.

[Real ale Madrid]

I don't see what the issue with the thread being old is. It's a slow-moving forum and this is a huge development in what was being discussed

Similarly your complaints about the thread title and not tagging you are bizarre (you can't tag people here, and the thread naturally evolved away from the what is it originally was about, as can happen)

It does feel a bit like you don't want to engage in the topic given your previous reluctance to, but let's wait until your reply I guess. There seems no excuse for getting taken in by this stuff now.

There's a well-supported campaign now to get a full British government investigation into this, including how it got its teeth into schools to the extent it did.

You've already attacked me by calling my posts toxic and saying I've blood on my hands. Now you are making me out to be some sort of lunatic. I won't be replying to any of your specific posts so no need to wait. The thread may be slow moving but the topic isn't - I've had some revisions to my opinions in the meantime. And some stuff I'd still standby but won't be discussing it here at length. There are many many well supported campaigns to get the British government to investigate into a lot of things. Lets hope their investigation into this particular issue happens if there is wrongdoing - and it is through and comprehensive when found.

[passinginterest]

The Journal has some good articles on this. There's articles from both sides of the argument and a podcast (haven't listened yet).
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tavistock-cass-report-6356143-Apr2024/
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tavistock-cass-report-ireland-6356357-Apr2024/
https://www.thejournal.ie/cass-report-transgender-healthcare-ireland-united-kingdom-6359360-Apr2024/

I think what's clear is that there was a lot of rapid developments in trans care and activism and that the science has lagged behind in terms of some of the approaches that have become popular with many activists. I'd by hypocritical if I didn't think a science based approach is best, but that does have to be caveated with potential bias, that could be inherent based on where funding has come from, what sources have been used/excluded from the study etc.

What's certainly clear is that there's a need for wrap around supports, medical, psychological etc. There needs to be better collection of data and monitoring of results from different approaches. Work needs to be done to encourage broader participation in the studies, as it's evident that some chose not to participate in the Cass report that could have provided more insights. There's a good point made in the "against" article on the Journal about anti-trans weaponisation of the report, and potential backlash.

[pineapple stu]

You've already attacked me by calling my posts toxic and saying I've blood on my hands. Now you are making me out to be some sort of lunatic. I won't be replying to any of your specific posts so no need to wait. The thread may be slow moving but the topic isn't - I've had some revisions to my opinions in the meantime. And some stuff I'd still standby but won't be discussing it here at length.
Unfortunately this sort of stance is all-too-typical

I did call your posts toxic - you were warned in thread for example. You suggested my concerns as those of a "snowflake" in your opening post on the thread - I wonder will you now concede they're very valid indeed? My post 61 looks fairly prescient for example. This stuff hasn't just come to light now, despite your numerous protestations in the thread which haven't stood the test of time - saying there's zero hard evidence linking autism and gender dysphoria for example. You "could be convinced" that organisations should be allowed force people as their pronouns to their emails, but now there's growing evidence that people with autism, depression, or other unfortunate mental issues latch on to this as something great; the solution to all their worries. But it's not. It's making things worse for them by papering over real issues. And even pushing them towards the hands of loonie activists. (You mentioned D&I - another group that needs to take a long hard look at itself. Ironically I'm telling us all what to think, they've removed the possibility of other opinions - of diversity, as it were)

I've not called you some sort of lunatic - that's an absurd leap. Typical of the way this is discussed too often - throw some mud, run away, hope it sticks

Meanwhile, 16 senior psychologists - some of whom worked at GIDS - are the latest to add their voices to the call for an investigation into "the scandal unfolding at Gender Identity Development Service clinics"
(https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2024/apr/21/we-are-ashamed-of-role-psychology-played-gender-care-observer-letters)

[Real ale Madrid]

Unfortunately this sort of stance is all-too-typical

I did call your posts toxic - you were warned in thread for example. You suggested my concerns as those of a "snowflake" in your opening post on the thread - I wonder will you now concede they're very valid indeed? My post 61 looks fairly prescient for example. This stuff hasn't just come to light now, despite your numerous protestations in the thread which haven't stood the test of time - saying there's zero hard evidence linking autism and gender dysphoria for example. You "could be convinced" that organisations should be allowed force people as their pronouns to their emails, but now there's growing evidence that people with autism, depression, or other unfortunate mental issues latch on to this as something great; the solution to all their worries. But it's not. It's making things worse for them by papering over real issues. And even pushing them towards the hands of loonie activists. (You mentioned D&I - another group that needs to take a long hard look at itself. Ironically I'm telling us all what to think, they've removed the possibility of other opinions - of diversity, as it were)

I've not called you some sort of lunatic - that's an absurd leap. Typical of the way this is discussed too often - throw some mud, run away, hope it sticks

Meanwhile, 16 senior psychologists - some of whom worked at GIDS - are the latest to add their voices to the call for an investigation into "the scandal unfolding at Gender Identity Development Service clinics"
(https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2024/apr/21/we-are-ashamed-of-role-psychology-played-gender-care-observer-letters)

Listen - there's a lot in that - and I will rebutt some of the items you've brought up in good time, maybe, if I ever get the chance to be as informed as I can. I haven't read the report or anything like in the level of detail you have. I don't like wading in on topics I'm not up to speed on - during Covid I got involved in some D&I initiatives in work and felt a little bit more informed at the time and I felt the initial criticism leveled at the pronouns discussion was unfair.

Few things -

Please do not drag me by my username into a long dormant thread to score some sort of point. If you want to mention general discourse then do it - there are plenty reference points online for you to link. Leave me out of it - or at least if you do, QUOTE ME - and quit it with the - "wasn't RAM awful that time when we discussed this in 2022 - isn't it typical".

Please do not call my posts toxic. I was not warned about my posts being toxic at the time - that is a lie. I regrettably used the word snowflake a few times and I apologized for that repeatedly. It was actually in reference to something Dahamsta said not you. That type of introspection is the opposite of toxic. You are ignoring this of course this to suit your narrative.

Saying people are "taken in" by "this stuff" - makes them out to be not of sound mind - as if they are incapable of making up their own minds. Please do not do that either. Its not a leap and its not throwing s1ht as you call it.

And lastly - in all my time posting on internet fora for the last 25 odd years I've never had to wake up and read anything like I did this morning when I logged on with a cuppa. You might want to tone things down a bit - not everyone is as vexed on such matters as you are. I'm really not sure why you are so belligerent on a football forum on Gender issues arising out of potential malpractice in the UK. Are there not loads of other places you could be discussing stuff like that, or are just trying to make a show of me? Like I said I've been posting on places like this for years - and guess what - I've been proved wrong more than I've been proved right. If I read up and discover you were spot on about everything I'll be sure and let you know. For now I'm off to wash the blood off my hands. :rolleyes:

[pineapple stu]

Fair points RAM - and again, I've clarified my initial comments which you seem to have originally accepted before rowing back a bit

I am not saying anyone is incapable of making their own minds up on anything - but there really is only one conclusion from this. Read through my post and the bits I reference and you'll likely, and independently, agree.

This is a Current Affairs forum and in fairness to the posters here (apart from the more Americanised ones - mark12345 for example) I've found the discussion - when it happens, which is too rare unfortunately - quite good. This is a big development on an existing topic; there's no reason not to re-open the discussion.

Latest development now is the Labour MP criticising the evidence in Parliament - 98% of trials ignored - but then issuing an apology a couple of days later. She'd been fed misinformation by Stonewall. One of the organisations called out for not cooperating with the report in the first place.

It looks like it'll take the Scottish parliament down too. The Scottish Greens - who seem to be just militant activists - are appalled at the idea puberty blockers are being discontinued. They repeat the lies about the weak evidence in Cass, and wonder what to tell people in treatment that it's being discontinued. (How about telling them the truth maybe?)

This stuff is horrific.

[seanfhear]

Fair points RAM - and again, I've clarified my initial comments which you seem to have originally accepted before rowing back a bit

I am not saying anyone is incapable of making their own minds up on anything - but there really is only one conclusion from this. Read through my post and the bits I reference and you'll likely, and independently, agree.

This is a Current Affairs forum and in fairness to the posters here (apart from the more Americanised ones - mark12345 for example) I've found the discussion - when it happens, which is too rare unfortunately - quite good. This is a big development on an existing topic; there's no reason not to re-open the discussion.

Latest development now is the Labour MP criticising the evidence in Parliament - 98% of trials ignored - but then issuing an apology a couple of days later. She'd been fed misinformation by Stonewall. One of the organisations called out for not cooperating with the report in the first place.

It looks like it'll take the Scottish parliament down too. The Scottish Greens - who seem to be just militant activists - are appalled at the idea puberty blockers are being discontinued. They repeat the lies about the weak evidence in Cass, and wonder what to tell people in treatment that it's being discontinued. (How about telling them the truth maybe?)

This stuff is horrific.The Truth is coming out ~ ~ Why did the politicians go along with all of this madness when there was no evidence to back it up ? !

[dahamsta]

Folks, tone down the rhetoric please, remember the golden rule: attack the post, not the poster. If you can't, add the poster to your ignore list.

[pineapple stu]

The Truth is coming out ~ ~ Why did the politicians go along with all of this madness when there was no evidence to back it up ? !
Well partly some of them are tapping into their votes from it - such as the Scottish Greens (I'm in Scotland at the moment so hearing a fair bit about them, hence the references). There's votes in this. I suspect those people believe in it, for whatever reason. As you say, there was never any evidence backing it up. It's a large part of why I find the pronouns stuff so problematic - it doesn't require evidence, it doesn't invite discussion (it instead demands you use the new pronouns for example), and it can put pressure on those who don't comply (transphobes).

For others, I'd say they just don't care - their job is to keep the economy bubble keeping inflating and that's it.

For others then, it's the sheer nasty way they were shouted down and dismissed as transphobes if they tried to question any of it. JK Rowling has a thread on Twitter (https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1779920317730709990?t=LXrfQHp8fkJ8pB08mNH1aw&s=19) of people whose careers have been hugely impacted by putting their heads up above the parapet.

There's a very good article in the Telegraph this week (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/04/23/suzanne-moore-cass-review-report-cult/) about it -


Having told children there are zillions of genders and provided schools with “trans-inclusive” information packs, lobbyists have spread the idea that unless kids conform to regressive stereotypes (the trans flag is literally pink and blue) then they may, in fact, be the opposite sex. Parents and teachers have gone along with this rather than be cast out of this new world of “inclusivity”.
How does anyone who has enforced this row back? How do we deprogramme a cult? Cult thinking, after all, involves unquestioning commitment; thinking one is on a special mission to save humanity; an “us versus them” mentality; peer pressure that may induce guilt or shame; the cutting of ties with family and friends; and being very fearful of ever leaving.

A couple of weeks ago this sort of article would likely not have been printed. That's progress at least. There needs to be an immediate review of how this is covered in schools now. Immediate.

Of course, this specific row is about puberty blockers in kids - but there's broader related issues to be tackled too, chief among them being allowing men complete in women's sport.

[pineapple stu]

Another well-written article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/26/cass-review-gender-identity-services-report), this time in the Guardian (that bastion of liberalness), and this time from David Bell, the original Tavistock whistleblower.


The policy of “affirmation” – that is, speedily agreeing with a child that they are of the wrong gender – was an inappropriate clinical stance brought about by influential activist groups and some senior gender identity development service (Gids) staff, resulting in a distortion of the clinical domain.
There's the damaging potential of this pronoun nonsense showing through again.

The conclusion really hits the point -


The pendulum is already swinging towards a reassertion of rationality. Cass’s achievement is to give that pendulum a hugely increased momentum. In years to come we will look back at the damage done to children with incredulity and horror.

As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish government is now on the brink of collapse over this. Last week the SNP ended their power-sharing agreement with the Scottish Greens - there was a rumour the Greens were going to end the agreement themselves over the SNP cancelling Scotland's 2030 carbon targets, but the Greens were also deeply unhappy about the Cass Report (and NHS Scotland's actions in cancelling puberty blockers for kids), and their leader mis-read the room when refusing to answer whether he even thought it was a scientific report, so the SNP took the chance to push the Greens away first.

That left the SNP in minority (63 v 65) and Labour immediately took the chance to lodge a motion of no confidence in the First Minister. That was due to be voted on tomorrow, but he fell on his own sword on Monday and resigned.

Technically the Government have 28 days to elect a new First Minister, otherwise it's to the polls. And all because one party wants to keep pumping poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere and the other wants to keep pumping poisonous chemicals into kids. Truly humans are awful at times.

[passinginterest]

For the sake of perspective, this gives another take and highlights some potential biases to be aware of (it may be this that Bell is responding to as he includes some rebuttals). It's also from the Guardian opinions section: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/hilary-cass-trans-children-review

[pineapple stu]

I think with respect, that's a bit of a news dump without any real context. Is there any particular comments in it which sum it up or which you feel give perspective?

A quick skim of that article suggests to me it's quite biased - for example puberty blockers are described as "previously-uncontroversial" - but that's not the case. Concerns have been raised about them before (David Bell for example), and Cass says they were effectively never properly tested. That in itself is hugely controversial (just the activists pushing this agenda never revealed that part...) The article repeats the myth that regret rates are 1% - but Cass says the data behind this is woefully inadequate. There's other examples too in there I think.

Bottom line - you can't dismiss a report which raises huge concerns in the area of trans ideology as "anti-trans" ("If the Cass review was held under a black light, we would see the fingerprints of anti-trans ideology"). If it's the case that an ideology is nonsense, then calling that nonsense out is what we need. And the suggestion that "young people [...] will, understandably, feel betrayed", with no real basis at all, is quite disgusting in light of what Cass says the dangers of the current ideology are.

So while I'm not sure what exact points you think should be taken from the article, I don't see it adds any sense of perspective.

[SkStu]

This is just an anecdote but it is interesting. My wife recently started a new job and befriended one of her new coworkers. They got to sharing stories and this coworker shared about her 14 y/o daughter who in 2019 had come forward to share that she was transgender and wanted to talk to a doctor about it. Her parents were shocked (and secretly devastated) but also wanted to be supportive to their daughter and brought her to counselling, to a doctor, she got a specialist referral that they were planning to take her to where medical/surgical interventions, including things like puberty blockers, were on the cards. They didnt realize that they were, in supporting her, acquiescing and providing approval for his journey. Kid starts totally changing her appearance through hair, clothes and chest restrictors and stuff. Anyway, Covid hits in March 2020 and everything gets shut down and locked down. Kid is off school and locked down most of the summer - she is away from her teachers and friends. Things start coming online properly the following year... anyway, about end of 2020, start of 2021 she comes to her mum and breaks down crying saying she doesnt know what she is doing and asks if they can go dress shopping. Turns out her teachers were promoting gender identity, talking about options, what to do if you feel a certain way, encouraging medical route. Some kids, her friends, latch onto this too and it becomes almost a trend as this lady put it to be transgender/queer and she felt confused [duh shes a teenager] and peer pressure, as well as being influenced by those in positions of perceived authority. She's on her way to college now and is a happy enough, well adjusted kid with some psychological health issues that she is dealing with capably. Covid kind of saved her from herself, her peers and her [no blame on them] ill-equipped parents.

Thats one person, one story in the arse end of Canada - but the number of similar situations - or worse where the kids go through with it - is many, many multiples of that. Kids are kids and teenagers are just slightly bigger kids going through a lot of change. They need to be protected from this stuff, not encouraged to entertain these notions at these ages or be unduly exposed to adult concepts at this age. Let kids be kids and let teenagers deal with teenage stuff as we all tried to do. It starts to build character and resilience. Let adults make adult decisions when they are adults. I'm going to probably get this wrong but the adult brain isnt fully developed until you hit your mid twenties. In other words, you do a lot of dumb fckin sh!t when you are young - without any encouragement. To have "the system" [medical, educational, pharma, media, etc], promoting, encouraging and providing essentially unfettered access to this type of stuff is crazy and wrong.

Pineapple, I am delighted you resurrected this thread and provided the links you did as i hadnt heard/read about any of that until then.

[pineapple stu]

I'm going to probably get this wrong but the adult brain isnt fully developed until you hit your mid twenties.
You're actually spot on - Hilary Cass mentions 25 in her report, for exactly the reasons you note.

That's a horrible story - and now add the risk of cancer and infertility to it (though it seems she avoided this thankfully - it's linked with puberty blockers. Testicular atrophy in males for example - because they're ****ing puberty blockers; what do you think they're going to do?) and also add in professionals telling you your child is at a higher risk of suicide if they don't go down this route (even though the data doesn't back this up) and you can see how nasty this stuff all is.

And yeah, the way so many people go out of their way to be inclusive of this - that's exactly what Cass calls out as a significant risk in her report. Shock as confused teenager attaches to something that seems popular and cool. There's guidelines on how to report suicides precisely because it's been shown teenagers can fall foul of social contagion and do something, however harmful, because they see others doing it and getting attention for it. And it's exactly why we shouldn't go putting our pronouns everywhere and pushing trans ideology, which can't even be properly diagnosed, and in many many cases is an unrelated mental issue.

[passinginterest]

I think with respect, that's a bit of a news dump without any real context. Is there any particular comments in it which sum it up or which you feel give perspective?

A quick skim of that article suggests to me it's quite biased - for example puberty blockers are described as "previously-uncontroversial" - but that's not the case. Concerns have been raised about them before (David Bell for example), and Cass says they were effectively never properly tested. That in itself is hugely controversial (just the activists pushing this agenda never revealed that part...) The article repeats the myth that regret rates are 1% - but Cass says the data behind this is woefully inadequate. There's other examples too in there I think.

Bottom line - you can't dismiss a report which raises huge concerns in the area of trans ideology as "anti-trans" ("If the Cass review was held under a black light, we would see the fingerprints of anti-trans ideology"). If it's the case that an ideology is nonsense, then calling that nonsense out is what we need. And the suggestion that "young people [...] will, understandably, feel betrayed", with no real basis at all, is quite disgusting in light of what Cass says the dangers of the current ideology are.

So while I'm not sure what exact points you think should be taken from the article, I don't see it adds any sense of perspective.

I think it's important to note that there's still other perspectives. Both the article I've posted and the one you posted are opinion pieces so are inherently biased. I'm not strongly on either side. I think it's regressive to going back to dismissing all trans identifying kids as just confused or suffering from some other psychological issues. It's interesting to note that Bell could be interpreted as taking a very conservative view of trans identifying people (to the point of his views being seen as anti-trans by the alternative article). For me, the big take away from Cass is that there's huge gaps in knowledge around trans care, the biggest issues are delays in accessing the wrap around supports needed. The numbers involved in puberty blockers are relatively small, but that seems to be the aspect a lot of commentary is caught up in. I don't think the report is even fully against them, it's more that long term studies are needed. The report on transition regret is dismissed, but again, there isn't a lot of alternative research out there, more is needed either way.

I think the pronoun argument in general is vastly over egged. I've seen a former colleague transition and speak regularly about the experience. They felt that things like using pronouns on email signatures made it easier for them and that seems to be the case. While I don't have pronouns on my email, it's not something I'd dismiss. If it helps people with trans or non-binary identities to be more comfortable then why not, it actually has no impact on me personally, it's a couple of extra words in the email signature. Can be handy dealing with unusual names too.

Similarly the whole identifying as cats etc. thing. It's a combination of far right scare mongering and kids seeing how far that they can push boundaries (and no doubt some of the trans and non-binary kids are doing similar, but within that there's a cohort of genuinely trans young people who need proper care). Scaremongering around "oh what will they be identifying as next" just strikes me as diluting the real issues. I think trans rights in general are not a million miles away from where gay rights were in the 1980s, there's a lot of fear and misinformation, let's not forget identifying as homosexual was still being treated as a phycological disorder and illegal in the very recent past. Trans identifying people seem to have existed throughout history, much like homosexuality, we just seem to be that bit further behind in terms of care, rights and understanding.

I hope the science and the understanding can advance without the debate becoming ever more polarised. It's always good to hear different views, and the science and care absolutely needs to find a happy medium with the more extreme elements of advocacy. Anyway, maybe that's a bit rambling, but I don't think it's a cut and dried, black and white argument either way. There's potentially bias in the Cass report, but it's very useful, broadens the debate and will hopefully lead to more and better studies and evidence across the full spectrum of approaches to trans identity.

[pineapple stu]

I think it's important to note that there's still other perspectives. Both the article I've posted and the one you posted are opinion pieces so are inherently biased.
I agree there's other perspectives. I don't agree the article I posted is inherently biased. It's by a professional psychologist in this area who investigated the area and ultimately was one of the first to try lift the lid on some of the things that were happening - misdiagnoses, bullying of people who queried the standard line, and so on. I don't see how he's biased? You mightn't like his views, but that's not the same as bias.

I do believe the article you posted was biased, because it repeats the standard myths and makes no attempt to really engage in the science of the matter. (Or maybe it does - you didn't point to any particularly relevant part, and I didn't see any)

The report on regret isn't dismissed - it's considered inadequate by any professional standards. There's a huge difference.

On Cass (and WPATH), the real takeaway is that groups of activists were going ahead with dangerous treatments with no medical basis whatsoever. You can spin that as "It's more that long-term studies are needed" but it's really not the same thing. It's beyond disgraceful that activists were pushing these sort of treatments with no clinical basis whatsoever, and they can't now come back and say "Yay - Cass is a win for us because we'll get research into this area"

Cass (and Bell) aren't anti-trans btw, and I don't know why you've used that phrase as often as you have. They are saying that proper treatment starts with removnig the activists from the scene, looking at the facts behind some of the more dangerous myths (around regret and detransitioning), looking at co-morbidities that could be the real issue to be treated rather than trans (particularly relevant in the suicide rate - simply transitioning doesn't seem to reduce suicide rates, because you're not treating the real issue, which is depression/autism/some other similar mental issue). It's really important that professionals diagnose these issues correctly.

And being gay and being trans can't really be equated. The latter is saying you're a different gender to what you identify as, in the face of all available evidence. It's simply not true, yet people are acting on it - men in women's sports, men in women's changing rooms, people being mistreated in hospital because doses for some medicines vary by sex. Now, you can feel quite strongly that you are female even if you're male, but I don't see why that isn't a mental issue, and I don't think anyone has shown otherwise to be honest. But there's definite neuroscientific proof of homosexual sexual attraction. It is real.

I don't think anyone mentioned identifying as cats? Bit of a strawman there I feel. I'm also uncomfortable with the modern trend of dismissing views as far-right (or far-left) and thinking that's a cogent argument of itself. Everyone seems to think people who hold different views to them are far right these days.

[dahamsta]

The problem I have with this issue, and it's prevalent in this thread too, is that it's one of the worst examples of the binarification(?) of modern politics. You have to be on one side or the other, black or white, there's no room for grey. It actually makes the already dirty word "politics" even dirtier, because the diplomacy and compromise that politics is supposed to be all about, is gone.

I'm 100% in favour of people being allowed to change their gender, despite the fact that it has affected me directly, personally, and adversely. I've taken it on the nose, emotionally and financially, because someone decided to change their gender without consulting or informing me. However my adversity doesn't cancel that person's right to be what they want to be.

However I'm currently 100% against puberty blockers for precisely the reasons mentioned above. Children get ideas, we don't enable every single idea they get. They want to play with knives, so maybe we buy them a pocket knife, we don't send them off to knife college at 10 years old. They want to try alcohol, so we let them try it and teach them the pros and cons, we don't start buying them flagons of cider. And they think about gender, and sex.

Yes, our brains aren't full developed until we're much older than the standard ages, but even that isn't fixed, some kids are 40 when they're 10, some people like me don't reach maturity..... yet. But we have to think in terms of majorities, and we already have numbers for those: 13, 15, 16, 19, 21. None of them are pre-puberty, for a reason.

I'm not going to debate this here, because the discussion here is too binary for me. I don't want to argue. But I do want to point out to the people here that I usually think of as pretty fair and balanced... in some ways you sound just as shrill on this topic as your opponents. It might be worth standing back and giving your postition a bit more thought.

[pineapple stu]

I think it's hard to respond to that one, partly because you've said you don't want to argue (which I respect) but partly because it's not clear who you're debating with and what point you're debating.

To clarify my position - I think when you say "You have to be on one side or the other, black of white, there's no room for grey", I agree that's a problem. It's why I don't like passinginterest trying to categorise the recent issues as anti-trans or far-right.

But ultimately, this is a medical scandal. Activists taking over medical best practice, pushing through highly-dubious treatments and coming with highly dubious factoids based on very poor evidence. Bullying of opposing views into submission. No room for questioning and considering alternative diagnoses (depression, autism, brain trauma, etc).

I don't think anyone can really argue the case for any of that. And because this is a medical scandal, everyone should benefit from it being exposed. Including people experiencing gender dysphoria. Especially those people, in fact.

[seanfhear]

I think it's hard to respond to that one, partly because you've said you don't want to argue (which I respect) but partly because it's not clear who you're debating with and what point you're debating.

To clarify my position - I think when you say "You have to be on one side or the other, black of white, there's no room for grey", I agree that's a problem. It's why I don't like passinginterest trying to categorise the recent issues as anti-trans or far-right.

But ultimately, this is a medical scandal. Activists taking over medical best practice, pushing through highly-dubious treatments and coming with highly dubious factoids based on very poor evidence. Bullying of opposing views into submission. No room for questioning and considering alternative diagnoses (depression, autism, brain trauma, etc).

I don't think anyone can really argue the case for any of that. And because this is a medical scandal, everyone should benefit from it being exposed. Including people experiencing gender dysphoria. Especially those people, in fact.
Let there be light on all that has gone on and why it went on ? !

[Real ale Madrid]

For the sake of perspective, this gives another take and highlights some potential biases to be aware of (it may be this that Bell is responding to as he includes some rebuttals). It's also from the Guardian opinions section: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/hilary-cass-trans-children-review

Interesting that article links to another one. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/05/record-rise-hate-crimes-transgender-people-reported-england-and-wales


In the year ending March 2023, 4,732 hate crimes against transgender people were recorded – a rise of 11% on the previous year. The Home Office report said that comments by politicians and the media over the last year may have led to an increase in these offences.

Fairly outrageous numbers.

[passinginterest]

I agree there's other perspectives. I don't agree the article I posted is inherently biased. It's by a professional psychologist in this area who investigated the area and ultimately was one of the first to try lift the lid on some of the things that were happening - misdiagnoses, bullying of people who queried the standard line, and so on. I don't see how he's biased? You mightn't like his views, but that's not the same as bias.

I do believe the article you posted was biased, because it repeats the standard myths and makes no attempt to really engage in the science of the matter. (Or maybe it does - you didn't point to any particularly relevant part, and I didn't see any)

The report on regret isn't dismissed - it's considered inadequate by any professional standards. There's a huge difference.

On Cass (and WPATH), the real takeaway is that groups of activists were going ahead with dangerous treatments with no medical basis whatsoever. You can spin that as "It's more that long-term studies are needed" but it's really not the same thing. It's beyond disgraceful that activists were pushing these sort of treatments with no clinical basis whatsoever, and they can't now come back and say "Yay - Cass is a win for us because we'll get research into this area"

Cass (and Bell) aren't anti-trans btw, and I don't know why you've used that phrase as often as you have. They are saying that proper treatment starts with removnig the activists from the scene, looking at the facts behind some of the more dangerous myths (around regret and detransitioning), looking at co-morbidities that could be the real issue to be treated rather than trans (particularly relevant in the suicide rate - simply transitioning doesn't seem to reduce suicide rates, because you're not treating the real issue, which is depression/autism/some other similar mental issue). It's really important that professionals diagnose these issues correctly.

And being gay and being trans can't really be equated. The latter is saying you're a different gender to what you identify as, in the face of all available evidence. It's simply not true, yet people are acting on it - men in women's sports, men in women's changing rooms, people being mistreated in hospital because doses for some medicines vary by sex. Now, you can feel quite strongly that you are female even if you're male, but I don't see why that isn't a mental issue, and I don't think anyone has shown otherwise to be honest. But there's definite neuroscientific proof of homosexual sexual attraction. It is real.

I don't think anyone mentioned identifying as cats? Bit of a strawman there I feel. I'm also uncomfortable with the modern trend of dismissing views as far-right (or far-left) and thinking that's a cogent argument of itself. Everyone seems to think people who hold different views to them are far right these days.

I'm similar to dahamsta in terms of the debate on this. I don't get involved in internet arguments in general because nobody ever wins. I used anti-trans once as far as I can tell and that was in parenthesis referring to the opinion of the author of the article, not a direct expression of my views.

I did say the post was a bit rambling and wandered into some other territory regarding the identifying as cats stuff, but it had come up in other personal conversations around the issues and seems to be widely used as to discredit trans and non-binary identities. I tend to agree with you that labels like far right probably don't add much, maybe conspiracy theorists or agitators might be a better term (although I was using it purely in this specific case, there's a wiki on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_boxes_in_schools_hoax).

The articles are opinion pieces for a reason. A clinician is as biased as anyone else, there are other psychiatrists out there who have different view, Cass even says one of the main issues is polarisation of views and the difficulty of even having open conversations around them. I'm not even trying to argue that he doesn't have valid points, I'm just saying it's far from black and white.

There's another article here from the Indo with lots of quotes from Cass that I think demonstrate that it's a very complex issue https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-belongto-responds-to-uk-cass-report-we-urgently-need-gender-care-for-young-trans-people/a501606620.html

I think the medical scandal is how far behind and how lacking the services are, the clinical approaches are evolving and need more controlled trials, but the report doesn't completely condemn any of them.

I fully agree that all voices should be heard, I think like most issues the advocacy groups should have a voice, but it does need to be linked to good medical science and care.

Just for completeness, here's the link to the actual report with a nice summary of key findings and recommendations. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

[pineapple stu]

Interesting that article links to another one. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/05/record-rise-hate-crimes-transgender-people-reported-england-and-wales

Fairly outrageous numbers.
Are they outrageous numbers? 4732 cases recorded in a country of 60 million - plus billions of others online (including bots). Is that really a lot? What's a recorded case? JK Rowling was investigated for hate crime for calling India Willoughby a man - does that count? It didn't go anywhere, but it may well still have been "recorded". In fact, there was a spike in cases being reported when the new hate crime laws came in in Scotland earlier this year (which Rowling was protesting) - and it arguably also encouraged people to report things too (I know that's a different period to the one you quote - but it's an example of how external factors can influence stats).

I don't think anyone is justifying or calling for hate crimes. But equally I don't think you can simply post a number and call it outrageous with no real analysis.

I'm also genuinely curious if that's all you feel worthy of discussion two weeks after this all broke?


The articles are opinion pieces for a reason. A clinician is as biased as anyone else
I can't really agree with this. A clinician is an expert in their field. They cannot in any way be said to be as biased as, say, a trans activist group. Certainly you've given no reason as to why you think Cass, Bell et al might be biased.


I think the medical scandal is how far behind and how lacking the services are, the clinical approaches are evolving and need more controlled trials, but the report doesn't completely condemn any of them.
No, the medical scandal is how a group of activists took over best practice and started making stuff up, and bullying others into agreeing with them. A natural consequence of that, of course, is that services will be lacking. But that's a sympton, not the root cause.

I think the reports openly condemn them btw. It says much of the studies into this area are based on extremely weak evidence and poorly-conducted studies (for example, comparing irrelevant groups, or drawing conclusions based on correlation rather than causation). Cass calls out a number of invested clinical groups who actively hindered her Report. The WPATH report absolutely condemns WPATH (who are followed by the likes of Stonewall, Mermaids, Tavistock, etc) as anti-scientific, anti-medicine, and as having abandoned the Hippocratic Oath.

I don't see how you could condemn a group more to be honest.

I also don't agree that all voices should be heard by the way. That's like having a discussion on evolution and then - for balance - bringing in a flat-earther who believes God made the world 6000 years ago. That's not a voice worth hearing.

[Real ale Madrid]

Are they outrageous numbers? 4732 cases recorded in a country of 60 million - plus billions of others online (including bots). Is that really a lot? What's a recorded case? JK Rowling was investigated for hate crime for calling India Willoughby a man - does that count? It didn't go anywhere, but it may well still have been "recorded". In fact, there was a spike in cases being reported when the new hate crime laws came in in Scotland earlier this year (which Rowling was protesting) - and it arguably also encouraged people to report things too (I know that's a different period to the one you quote - but it's an example of how external factors can influence stats).

I don't think anyone is justifying or calling for hate crimes. But equally I don't think you can simply post a number and call it outrageous with no real analysis.

I'm also genuinely curious if that's all you feel worthy of discussion two weeks after this all broke?



How many children have been given puberty blockers in the UK - is it more or less than 4,732 reported transgender hate crimes - why are people like JK Rowling and Graham Linehan so angry over the former and not the latter?

Now that you bring it up - India Willoughby identifies as a woman - it may not be a hate crime to refer to them as a man - but it seems to be a pretty sh11ty thing to do if you have 14m followers on X. JK Rowling has a nett worth almost £1 Billion - why is she picking fights on twitter - she could fund some unbelievable research!

[sbgawa]

The zealots who pushed made up genders are not just going to say they were wrong and go away quietly. They are a left wing version of Trump where anything that doesnt conform to their view of the world is fake news and not to be believed.
People laughed at Trump when he said he was fed up with experts , the people pushing the whole Transgender agenda are the mirror image.
The debunking of the pushing of puberty blockers on kids who were just mixed up kids means nothing to them......
They will move on quietly to the next on trend issue without ever admitting they were wrong or the damage they did to innocent Children