Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Worth stressing that, as you said above, the recommendations re covid were rushed out at an incredible pace (for obvious reasons) and based upon brand new and rapidly evolving evidence base Which is why you had different governments/regiond coming up with recommendations that differed on certain aspects (although also agreeing on many too) What's interesting is that, with hindsight, even the outliers (like Sweden or the UK) didn't turn out anywhere as big a disaster as many people (including me) thought they would be. Which goes to show that even the unpopular recommendations at the time had a sound rationale. Which is why we should trust medical experts on issues like these. The experience and training they have is very important and should always trump the half-baked opinions of people like you or me.
Absolutely.
In this particular instance, there's been a lot of time spent discussing the scientific studies reviewed in the Cass report, when frankly, the vast majority of us are not remotely qualified to comment on the science either way. Meanwhile, very little attention has been given to some of the issues we can, as lay-people, have a view on, two of which are the apparent lack of follow-up on the well-being of the young people that have used the service, and the apparent lack of screening of autism, ADHD, etc. and possible mental health issues before and during treatment.
Realistically, I'm never making it through this report because it's nearly 400 pages long and cites even more reports/studies, and I've simply got better things to do than try and parse the specifics of a medical review.
A Guardian follow-up on why some doctors and scientists may be nervous of conducting research or even statistical analysis and follow-up surveys in the area. Essentially suggesting that the career risks aren't worth it unless you're invested in getting a particular result already.
'This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research https://www.theguardian.com/society...in-gender-medicine-research?CMP=share_btn_url
'This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research https://www.theguardian.com/society...in-gender-medicine-research?CMP=share_btn_url
Wonderfully said, the harm and distress that the media frenzy has done to trans youth is impossible to quantify. Working with LGBTQ+ youth and having this week off, I'm not sure what this report and the media hype will have done to the trans young people I work with.
Probably not good.
I think this bit of the article is particularly relevant to parents like @The Boy
The fact that mental health services have been underfunded for decades is a big issue here. That’s why it takes so long for kids to get the support they need via the NHS. Compounded by the toxicity experienced by people working in the field, as outlined in the article. If medical professionals choose to walk away from an area of medicine where they will get harassment and abuse that means longer and longer wait times. But, at the end of the day, this report is a step towards setting up proper, evidence based, services that will help children and families in distress and make sure they get treatment and interventions that have been proven to give the best long term outcomes. Which is a good thing, even if the price to pay is the fuss being created in the media right now.
Last edited:
I've never really understood arguments like this. I've used it to argue with religious nutters about homosexuality and it being unnatural.
The difference here is that anemome biologically physiologically make sex changes. We don't. We are giving things that we as a species have produced to produce that change.
I'm not against that happening but let's not pretend the situations are the same?
Because in that occasion, it happened to match with your own views on the matter?
Anemone fish and Gobies, not anemones.
No. Just follow the science. With the pandemic, vaccines and trans issues. All considered the same, sans political pandering.
So you’re following the science on trans issues? Which has clearly identified that we need more evidence to support most of the currently used medical interventions. Evidence that the NHS is already working on generating. In the same way it generated evidence on the most appropriate interventions for covid.
OK, guess you got me there? Question can be ignored because of a typo and an m instead of an n.
Right, except as someone who is also a scientist, 'science' is not always uniform. Very respected international public health scientists had differing views on the extent of the measures taken, especially based on the different circumstances of the countries.
What's the hard science you're referring to with trans issues that reflects the level of science available for vaccines?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The thing is with puberty blockers, the Cass report has stated that they aren't to be stopped being prescribed, they want research on them in relation to use with trans young people. All the crap about the damage they do and yet they are still used more frequently with early onset puberty than were being used with trans young people. How come the people calling for them to stop the use in this field aren't calling for them in the other if they are so damaging???
With all drugs it's risk vs benefit. Prescribing any drug creates risk, so you need a benefit to outweigh that risk. With puberty blockers used in early onset puberty, the benefit is simply delaying puberty. So you run trials to prove that the drugs can help achieve that outcome, make sure they're reasonably safe and then you have enough evidence to prescribe them in that context. Because, let's not forget, these kids still end up going through puberty at about the same age as other "normal" kids.
Prescribing the same drugs to gender dysphoric/trans kids you're looking for different outcomes. The treatment goal here isn't simply delaying puberty. Are there medium to long term psychological/mental health upsides to prescribing drugs these drugs in this, different, context? Is it possible that there are unintended long term physiological downsides of delaying puberty long past the point most people would go through it? These are the questions we need more evidence to answer, according to this report.
Where early onset puberty is concerned, their use stops when the child reaches a "normal" age to allow puberty to happen. With young transgender people (or young people questioning their gender), my understanding is that they're being used during "normal" puberty age, and this is where the research falls short.
I think ultimately there's little evidence that a) delaying puberty is as harmless as has been made out, and there are concerns that important milestones are missed outside of the obvious examples (I've definitely seen concerns about mental and skeletal development), and b) that puberty will actually simply start as normal after being delayed, should a young person wish to cease treatment.
Terfs really are the dumbest possible people
The treatment goal is exactly the same to delay puberty, if they then move onto hormones the blockers are removed and they aren't on them for anything more than 1 to 2 years in most cases and they wouldn't be prescribed them till around 14/15 anyway, due to the way the Tavistock worked and how slow they were. Some may get blockers earlier, but from my own experiences those that get the blockers physiocogically are better than they were previously. They are no magic cure to all mental health issues, but they do assist in taking away a huge concern for the trans young people whilst they explore who they are.
I may be slightly biased when I say I don't like the report, I'm fully aware of peer reviewed research documents that were not even looked at by Cass, I know she contacted organisations that operate trans youth groups, but didn't engage with the actual groups. I've read through it and whilst it's suggesting a change in how trans youth are treated i.e. a more holistic approach which something we (those working with trans youth outside of the medical world) have been saying for years and how we need more funding for training and centres, the rest isn't great. I've returned to work this week and the mood amongst the trans youth is very low and it's going to take a lot of work to elevate the mood.
No, it isn't the same. The long term treatment goal is better outcomes for trans kids, which is the evidence you need to support the use of puberty blockers in this cohort. Even ignoring that, there's an obvious difference between taking puberty blockers to normalise an abnormally early puberty vs taking them to make a normal puberty abnormally late.
My worry is not the drug itself. But do they have the correct personel to determine the case to be solid or it's just kids being kids.
There are no actual scientific test like birth test where the result is 100%, at best it will be "expert opinion" based on observations and some personality test.
Can they guarantee their observation is at least 99% accurate? What if they diagnosed wrong? At least with 18 years old they're responsible for their own choices in life.
There are no actual scientific test like birth test where the result is 100%, at best it will be "expert opinion" based on observations and some personality test.
Can they guarantee their observation is at least 99% accurate? What if they diagnosed wrong? At least with 18 years old they're responsible for their own choices in life.
Which is even harder if they’re not paying attention to the other myriad of mental health issues these patients seem to often present with.
Would some be better served if doctors focused on these other issues first. How do puberty blockers and hormones interact with these issues over the long term. Etc.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Her life must be so depressing.
Could you answer her question though?
I have the same concerns. I'm all for people identifying as whatever they want but injecting kids with drugs that's going to affect a body's natural development seems risky. Sounds to me like the pharmaceutical industry is manipulating certain aspects of this scenario. Let's start flooding the market with drugs that'll "help".
These decisions should only be made by the person when they're old enough to make a rational choice. Children go though a lot of issues that they need help with and adding drugs that's going to drastically alter hormonal development during puberty isn't something that should be messed with until that process is complete.
Sure. Since gender is a social construct, anyone who conforms to that specific construct is a woman.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure what point she's trying to make. It makes it sound like a bloke wakes up one day and thinks "you know what, today I'll be a gal, tomorrow we'll see".
I don't think transgender women identify as women, I think they are women, because their behavior/attitude/whatever conforms to the social construction of how we define women.
I know a transgender woman who was a man when I met her. I don't think of her as a man trying to be a woman, I think of her as a woman, because everything I see when I look at her and what I hear when talk to her are things that I would immediately, in an unconscious way associate with the behavior and attitude of a cis woman.
Those types of tweets make it sound like they're pretending. They're not, they are who they are, but sadly for them they were born with the wrong type of equipment.
I don't agree with her lamenting but I think she's more referring to the biological aspects of what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman.
Fair enough. I think in these tweets she is deliberately trying to pin down the vagueness of of a woman defined as a social construct.
As far as I'm aware the biological aspects define your sex, not your gender.
In a way it has to be vague by definition, as constructs change over time and even depending on the place.
It's impossible to say "a woman is this or that" because there will always be women who aren't that. Then what?
Then you also can't say who is or who os not. Most ordinary people consider it completely intertwined with your biological sex. Which is why they can define as a woman as someone born a girl grown into a woman.
I have no interest in saying who is or isn't a woman, I want people to tell me who they are and I'll be fine with it.
If people want to mix two different concepts, then either they don't know better, which is fair enough, it's a matter of getting informed; or they do it on purpose to devalue transgender people, like J.K. does, in that case, you're just a horrible person.
Would you mind giving some specific aspects of what the current social construct for being a woman is? Or point to some reading? I don't think it's going to be old school things such as 'plays with dolls' 'wants to be a princess' and other tropes but I've always been a bit curious about what it encapsulates.
That's the thing, it's impossible to define, or at least I can't define it. It changes all the time and it's different in different cultures.
I think most people haven't thought that deeply into it or as Gehrman/Shamans2 says, the two concepts are so intertwined for most, they struggle to separate them.
My personal philosophy is treating transwomen i meet in real life as women out of courtesy and because they have it hard enough. It doesn't change my fundamental belief what a women is though. Which is the traditional view.
I perfectly understand that and I've talked to loads of people like that. If they don't it out of malice, I'm kinda ok with it, especially if it's older folks who are stuck in their mindset.
But folks like J.K. know pretty well what the difference is, and use these confusing semantics to shit on transgender people and make life much harder for them.
I've been there. Knowing transgender women in real life, not just read about them online, changed my mindset without any effort, it just happened naturally and now I see them as women, not to be nice but because it just happens.