It is 4,732 in a population 60 million in terms of the number of people being reported. That's a vanishingly small number of people. (And again, that assumes there's no Twitter bots or foreign accounts being reported, which there probably is, knowing Twitter)
And you say it's 1 in 55 has had to report a case - but that assumes they all only have one case each to report, which seems unlikely. Far more likely it's even less than that again have reported a case. But what's a reported case? JK Rowling was reported, but nothing came of it. Is that a reported case, calling a man a man? If so, why inflate the numbers with things that aren't actual cases?
It mayn't be nice of course, but is it outrageous, as RAM claims? Or is it just human nature and in line with how many Irish people have been called a facking Paddy in England? (I'll put my hand up for that one for what it's worth)
And I still don't see why RAM has chosen to compare it to puberty blockers.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 07/05/2024 at 8:12 PM.
It is also about 3% of all hate crimes (and 1.8% of the trans community that reported a hate crime). One is one too many but also it has to be put in some context. All 5 categories of hate crimes are significantly on the rise over the last 5 years too which i find interesting.
But there are two different discussions happening now, as PineappleStu points out. Transgender people should not suffer harm at anyones hands, neither should kids suffer harm through experimental medication and invasive surgery by those with a warped agenda. Those two arguments very easily coexist.
Sorry now but that's complete nonsense.Originally Posted by John83
To be fair I referenced something added to the debate by someone else by quoting it directly. It was added to an article discussing the Cass report and is an important contextual piece of information. I do wonder if the people who are so entrenched by this report care about transgender people or just the idea of transgenderism. It's a perfectly legitimate argument.
That's a fairly bad-faith argument in fairness. There's nothing in my posts that would indicate that.
I've made it clear that the issues raised by the Cass Report can only help people suffering from gender dysphoria - by having better information available, by helping discount invalid studies which were being used as the basis for best practice, by helping open the door to discussion about alternative diagnoses such as autism/depression/brain trauma (and as a result giving better treatment), by raising concerns about links between current treatments and cancer/infertility, by highlighting pressure put on parents to put their kids through this (the idea that transitioning prevents suicide, which is one of the discounted studies, for example), by raising concerns about how hard it is for people to back out of treatment once they've started down that road, and so on.
All of this benefits people suffering from gender dysphoria.
In the meantime, I don't think you (or passinginterest) have engaged with any of those points. Your only contribution is to highlight a statistic you can't quantify (what's a "reported" incident?), and passinginterest has news-dumped an article for "balance" but which really just reiterates some points which have since been discredited.
Am I to take it from your reference to "people who are so entrenched by this report" that you don't agree with the two reports' findings?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 08/05/2024 at 9:09 AM.
Not true.
If you are really concerned about Transgender people then it wouldn't be ok for a Billionaire with 14m Social Media followers to bully a transgender person online. I don’t think that’s acceptable no more than pushing hormones into children is. That doesn’t look like you really care about transgender people. You fundamentally can’t accept that that a woman can be a man or vice versa. You are entitled to that belief as you quite correctly point out that there is no neuroscientific proof of being transgender, but I and plenty of others don’t see it as a black and white issue as you do. There was no neuroscientific evidence of homosexuality either until the 1990s. Do we really know everything about Transgenderism? The bottom line for me is - I don’t tell anyone how to feel or how to act. Yet I’m told if I promote pronoun usage I’ve blood on my hands as a result. It doesn't make sense to me.
On the contrary - there is plenty to be concerned with in the Cass report as you absolutely and correctly point out – but it needs to be part of an overall debate on Transgender issues and their care. Which is misunderstood by the public in general and hopelessly underfunded. Healthcare in general is a complete mess in the UK. The government there seem to be pushing healthcare as a luxury not a human right like our pals in the US. Have no doubt whatsoever that the concerns of Transgender people will be isolated to rich ones in that scenario and reports like Cass will be quickly forgotten.
But this has already been clarified - Rowling was challenging dubious hate crime laws. It is not a hate crime to call a man a man. And that then leads to dodgy statistics which you can quote but still can't actually quantify (that is - what is a "reported" hate crime?)
You think those two things are equal? I don't.
Correct, I don't accept that. (I have previously stated if you go through surgery, then I'd be much more supportive of acknowleding your change, but that still doesn't actually make you identical to the opposite gender). I see no evidence for it, and I see plenty of harm coming from widespread acceptance of it.
And plenty of involved people disagree with the idea a man can decide he can be a woman btw - for example Richard O'Brien (of the Crystal Maze), has said "There is a continuum between male and female. Some are hard-wired one way or another, I'm in between" (he "views himself as 70% male and 30% female"). But his wiki continues "In 2017, O'Brien caused controversy when he said that he supported the statements of Germaine Greer and Barry Humphries that transgender women are not real women. He offered his sympathy to the trans community. In a 2020 interview with The Guardian, O'Brien was reported as stating: 'I think anybody who decides to take the huge step with a sex change deserves encouragement and a thumbs-up. As long as they're happy and fulfilled, I applaud them to my very last day. But you can't ever become a natural woman.'" Caitlyn Jenner (a former Olympic medal winner) has taken flak from trans activists for being opposed to men being allowed in women's sports (which is a branch of the same idea).
So I don't really know why you think that a perfectly natural view - that is, I am male and can't simply decide that I am female and expect everyone to go along with that - is somehow demonstrative of a lack of care for trans people. It's merely a rejection of the gender affirmation model which has proven so damaging. That's not a lack of care though. I'd argue it's the opposite, and I'd argue that to continue holding to the gender affirmation model - after all the criticisms of it in the two reports - is the real lack of care for affected people.
The underfunding of hospitals argument is a red herring. Underfunding of hospitals didn't cause this scandal. Activists taking over best practice organisations, putting in place treatments without any sort of scientific basis (and indeed poor medical follow-up) and bullying anyone who disagreed with them caused it.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 08/05/2024 at 10:27 AM.
Interesting article in the Indo last month on all this - specifically around the direction the Government is taking on it.
Fairly damning comments there. It increasingly appears there was a huge element of groupthink involved in all of this, led by activists who shouted down any and all disagreement with their views as "phobic" or "hate crime". But ultimately the activists are increasingly now being seen as wrong. You wonder what damage has been done by their approach - and indeed what other areas of society still have activists dominating discussion by shouting people down in similar fashion.The 2020 programme [for Government] agreed by Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party is radically different to the 2025 programme in relation to transgender issues and even drops a commitment to ensure public bodies use people’s correct pronouns.
Dr Paul Moran, a consultant psychiatrist at the National Gender Service, said he was relieved to see that implementing WPATH in Ireland was no longer a government aim.
“We would welcome that the Programme for Government reflects the step back from a radical approach to gender care that is happening around the globe,” said Dr Moran.
“It is more complicated than the activists would lead you to believe, so we welcome the commitment to evidence-based care. The WPATH model of care was not evidenced based and that has been shown by the Hilary Cass report. WPATH has come under scrutiny for supressing evidence in America and has been significantly discredited.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
UK Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman.
I am taking this as an indication that common sense is continuing to prevail in this debate and a deserved victory for biological women.In short, the 88-page ruling, which you can read in full here, external, says:
- A person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the female gender “does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect”
- Gender reassignment and sex "are separate bases for discrimination and inequality"
- The definition of sex under the Equality Act “makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man”
- Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex “would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way”
- The biological interpretation of terms in the Equality Act, “which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC (gender recognition certificate)”
- Nothing in the ruling "is intended to discourage the appointment of trans people to public boards or to minimise the importance of addressing their under-representation on such boards"
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Great day for biological women ~ Sense was bound to win out in the end.
This should be mandatory on all DEI talks to be quite honest. (Actually, about the only thing I agree with Trump on is that it should be cancelled - a waste of time and money for activists, and it is overwhelmingly activist-types on those committees, to go talking up utter nonsense like pronouns on their emails and so on)
Why does it make a difference to anyone what a person wants to identify themselves as?
There are 2 questions, Does it directly affect you at all and does it make that person happy? If the answer is no and yes then move the fcuk on an stop worrying abouts between someones legs.
The amount of idiocy about it is incredible, "I dont care that Trump is collapsing the economy because at least hes getting rid of these transgender and woke types".... a direct quote I got from someone in the last week, and not on tv, from a guy that was kind of a mate up to that point.
In sport there does have to be some sort of ruling because of the actual competitive advantages that can happen, but again the amount of cases are so miniscule that it really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
Its just another issue that is being used to rile up the masses to deflect from what they are actually doing with voter rights and Christian nationalism policies that are being forced through over here
Its really not that complicated!!!
What could possibly go wrong?
Because people are getting wrong medical treatment because of this. People are being pressured into gender surgery for their kids because it reduces the chances of suicide - but if doesn't. Depression is often a symptom of the real issue. So people are dying because of this
Because people are having invasive surgeries on the back on activist medical "advice". The Keira Bell case, which got the NHS GIDS service shut down, is an appalling case to read through
Because people are getting sacked or suspended from their jobs because of this. Here's a recent example - in a medical setting where real gender is really important to give proper patient care.
And because it's a lesson in the power of group think and abuse triumphing over rational thought. I can see strong parallels with those advocating for our refugee system for example.
I've no problems keeping it in context. But this is still really important. Too important to say "Does it impact you?" The Magdalene Laundries didn't impact me and I'm ****ing glad the lid was lifted on that
Last edited by pineapple stu; 16/04/2025 at 8:55 PM.
Have you a point there? Because I can't see itWhat could possibly go wrong?
I still don't see what the point of your post was though?
Do you think complex current affairs topics can be discussed by cartoons and one-liners?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 16/04/2025 at 9:18 PM.
Lets keep all the gays and transgenders in the closet where they belong eh!
Its really not that complicated!!!
In what way? The activism will continue, I suppose...and there will continue to be different perspectives on what is right in the space. Is that what you meant?
WTF Razor? Thats a bit offside. None of this is about that... its about recognizing common sense and science across a broad swathe of issues (the ones that PStu has called out - and more). You admit yourself trans women should be restricted from female sport - what prevents you from being open to considering how it applies to other issues?
Last edited by dahamsta; 17/04/2025 at 3:23 PM.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
That this is some kind of Trojan horse, and others (perhaps the real targets) will be next. Or something like that.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks