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.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks