Roe v Wade

[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/commenti...hildren-review

Interesting that article links to another one. https://www.theguardian.com/society/...land-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...n_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/...501606620.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/h.../final-report/

[pineapple stu]

Interesting that article links to another one. https://www.theguardian.com/society/...land-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

[SkStu]

...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...

This is one of the facets of modern culture that drives me bonkers. The extreme polarization and lack of debate/dialogue. I might be wrong, i think ive said it here before, but i truly do think that extremism (far right/left) is a really really small group of people that each side tends to try and make bigger by accusing others of extremism... we give an unjustifiably amount of time to a small group of truly extreme individuals and the end result is that we see people in a similar binary fashion. The large population in the middle gets lost. Social media then compounds it and makes constructive debate nigh on impossible. Even traditional media, where you have shows that try to offer a platform for debate, gets affected because everything just gets taken to social media for dissection by toxic vultures. I dont know - pick your topic [transgender among kids is one] - but there is so much to legitimately debate on but seemingly no healthy way in which to do it. The "easy" thing to do is to provide a forum to safely exchange ideas, concerns etc, debate these respectfully and only eject those who are truly espousing hate speech - not just speech that doesnt align with your own particular world view. I kind of think that social media is the root cause of a lot of this but maybe it was always so just on a different scale/pace.

[Real ale Madrid]

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

Who pushed puberty blockers onto kids? Calling out people as zealots adds nothing to the debate. Specify who and back up your claims.

[sbgawa]

Who pushed puberty blockers onto kids? Calling out people as zealots adds nothing to the debate. Specify who and back up your claims.

Eh hello did you read the Cass report on the "gender identity clinnics" and that the whole rationalle behind the prescribing of Puberty blockers was wrong

[Real ale Madrid]

Eh hello did you read the Cass report on the "gender identity clinnics" and that the whole rationalle behind the prescribing of Puberty blockers was wrong

Sorry I should have been clearer - because I agree with that. But you mentioned "them" - the zealots - People who "made up Genders" - who are you referring to exactly?

[pineapple stu]

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?

I don't know how many kids are on puberty blockers in the UK - it's a reasonably small amount, but then there was a reasonably small amount of people whose cervical scans were faulty or who were victims of thalydomide, and those were still scandals. It is almost certainly less than the 4732 reported hate crimes - but which is worse, do you think? Especially given we're talking about "reported" hate crimes - what is that? And there's far more victims of what the Cass Report has highlighted than just those on puberty blockers. I really don't know why you're trying to deflect with irrelevancies like this to be honest.

Why is Rowling picking fights on Twitter? In this case she was highlighting the daftness of the Scottish hate laws. India Willoughby is not a women - it doesn't matter what she identifies as - and it cannot be a hate crime issue to state biological reality. Rowling has done incredible work in this regard despite torrents of abuse. To say "she could have done something else" again isn't a cogent argument and I don't know why you're deflecting to it.

[sbgawa]

The people working in those clinnics who perscribed the drugs with no medical proof of need, the people that have been hammering JK Rowling on social media for standing up to this nonsense.
Basically anyone who upon reading the Cass report isnt man or woman enough to say "you know what we were wrong"

[Real ale Madrid]

I don't know how many kids are on puberty blockers in the UK - it's a reasonably small amount, but then there was a reasonably small amount of people whose cervical scans were faulty or who were victims of thalydomide, and those were still scandals. It is almost certainly less than the 4732 reported hate crimes - but which is worse, do you think? Especially given we're talking about "reported" hate crimes - what is that? I really don't know why you're trying to deflect with irrelevancies like this to be honest.

Why is Rowling picking fights on Twitter? In this case she was highlighting the daftness of the Scottish hate laws. India Willoughby is not a women - it doesn't matter what she identifies as - and it cannot be a hate crime issue to state biological reality. Rowling has done incredible work in this regard despite torrents of abuse. To say "she could have done something else" again isn't a cogent argument and I don't know why you're deflecting to it.

I'm not trying to deflect with irrelevancies at all - I'm making the point that some people seem to be more interested in some issues than others even though those issues can seem closely related - that's all - its interesting.

I never said it was a hate crime! Was it a nice thing to do to call India out to her 14m followers - do you think they got some nice comments on X after that - 10s of thousands of abusive messages and for what? But hey isn't she doing incredible work! Again it seems that she cares for some people and not for others. Its weird.

[Real ale Madrid]

The people working in those clinnics who perscribed the drugs with no medical proof of need, the people that have been hammering JK Rowling on social media for standing up to this nonsense.
Basically anyone who upon reading the Cass report isnt man or woman enough to say "you know what we were wrong"

It seems an easy thing to say - using the word "Zealots" - and phrases like "Made up genders" - without giving specific examples. "Aren't they all gone woke" is another one you see.

With reference to the polarizing of the debate this sort of stuff serves no purpose.

[pineapple stu]

I'm not trying to deflect with irrelevancies at all - I'm making the point that some people seem to be more interested in some issues than others even though those issues can seem correlated - that's all - its interesting.

What's interesting? People should of course be more concerned about giving kids chemical cocktails based on really weak evidence which can lead to cancer and/or infertility down the line than some comments that you can't seem to quantify (again, what's a "recorded" hate crime? Is it one that's reported, looked into and dismissed?)

That doesn't mean people can't be concerned about both, but clearly one is more concerning than the other. I don't know why you think comparing the two is an argument here, or even why you've brought it into the debate.

I never said it was a hate crime! Was it a nice thing to do to call India out to her 14m followers - do you think they got some nice comments on X after that - 10s of thousands of abusive messages and for what? But hey isn't she doing incredible work!

You're not reading my posts. You say "For what?" - but I answered that; it was to highlight the daftness of the Scottish hate crime laws. Hence "India Willoughby is not a women - it doesn't matter what she identifies as - and it cannot be a hate crime issue to state biological reality.", which was an explanation, not me saying you had said that.

[John83]

I don't think it adds much to a debate to argue over which of two bad things is worse. We can agree that they're bad. It's not a competition. It's little more than a nasty little rhetorical trap, and anyone who brings up such comparisons should take a good hard look at themselves.