The 'Trans' Issue.

[wrighty]

On 4/11/2024 at 10:04 AM, The Phantom said:

Watching Star Trek Discovery last night.  One of the characters has decided she is now a they/them. 

Although admittedly she/they are host to a long-lived symbiont that has inhabited and has the personalities of many previous hosts (male and female).  

Next Generation did something similar. Troy, I think, fell in love with some guy that was actually some kind of bug in a male body.  When the host body died it moved into a female body, which was confusing. (My recollection of the details here may not be 100% accurate - I’ve watched far too much of this shite over the years)

[Declan]

3 hours ago, wrighty said:

Next Generation did something similar. Troy, I think, fell in love with some guy that was actually some kind of bug in a male body.  When the host body died it moved into a female body, which was confusing. (My recollection of the details here may not be 100% accurate - I’ve watched far too much of this shite over the years)

I didn't know JK Rowling wrote for Next Gen.

[Ghost Ship]

On 4/11/2024 at 4:35 AM, Chie said:

Nil

Really - what does that mean?

I might be mistaken but i thought that from previous posts you had made on this general topic that you were quite eagerly awaiting the final outcome of the Cass review following the  interim report because it would - naturally - agree with your POV.

Are you perhaps disappointed that the scientific and medical review by a world leading pediatrician is not in agreement with what you think is "right"?

PS - Do you still think it's acceptable for biological males who have passed through puberty to participate in women only events?

 

[quilp]

On 4/11/2024 at 4:35 AM, Chie said:

Nil

 

8 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

Really - what does that mean?

I might be mistaken but i thought that from previous posts you had made on this general topic that you were quite eagerly awaiting the final outcome of the Cass review following the  interim report because it would - naturally - agree with your POV.

Are you perhaps disappointed that the scientific and medical review by a world leading pediatrician is not in agreement with what you think is "right"?

 

The poster removed their comment for reasons unknown but the gist of the post was that the Cass Review, "wasn't THAT bad!" (posters capitalisation) and accusing me of not reading the review (I'd read every word). It was also an attempt to downplay the conclusion of the review and also, predictably, cited Helen Joyce of the group Sex Matters as being a "hate group" for simply disagreeing with trans ideology and standing up for women's rights.

I can well imagine the disappointment, nay shock, that the reviews findings induced in the trans-activists when everything they've held dear with sanctimonious conviction didn't hold up to proper investigation and clinical scrutiny by certified experts.

As I suggested, the findings of the review only confirmed what most people have been thinking anyway, that the ideological had overtaken the science and grown out of all proportion, with claims such as that of the administration of puberty-blockers to pre-teens being safe and "reversible."

As the review stated, this whole episode was based on dodgy 'evidence' and actively promoted through an ideological agenda by misguided 'professionals' who sought to publicly silence whistle-blowers through lies and intimidation, as has been witnessed by the villification of some Tavistock employees, and anyone else who dared question the treatments being offered to confused children who really could not have known any better.

Adults, should they wish to pretend they're something they're obviously not and purport themselves as such then fine, so be it, just leave kids out of it. 

[The Phantom]

1 hour ago, quilp said:

 

The poster removed their comment for reasons unknown but the gist of the post was that the Cass Review, "wasn't THAT bad!" (posters capitalisation) and accusing me of not reading the review (I'd read every word). It was also an attempt to downplay the conclusion of the review and also, predictably, cited Helen Joyce of the group Sex Matters as being a "hate group" for simply disagreeing with trans ideology and standing up for women's rights.

I can well imagine the disappointment, nay shock, that the reviews findings induced in the trans-activists when everything they've held dear with sanctimonious conviction didn't hold up to proper investigation and clinical scrutiny by certified experts.

As I suggested, the findings of the review only confirmed what most people have been thinking anyway, that the ideological had overtaken the science and grown out of all proportion, with claims such as that of the administration of puberty-blockers to pre-teens being safe and "reversible."

As the review stated, this whole episode was based on dodgy 'evidence' and actively promoted through an ideological agenda by misguided 'professionals' who sought to publicly silence whistle-blowers through lies and intimidation, as has been witnessed by the villification of some Tavistock employees, and anyone else who dared question the treatments being offered to confused children who really could not have known any better.

Adults, should they wish to pretend they're something they're obviously not and purport themselves as such then fine, so be it, just leave kids out of it. 

The medical process of changing someone's sex, the prescription of drugs and the inevitable psychological counselling are all very profitable for the providers too. 

[quilp]

46 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

The medical process of changing someone's sex, the prescription of drugs and the inevitable psychological counselling are all very profitable for the providers too. 

That too, of course. 

[Chie]

17 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

Really - what does that mean?

I might be mistaken but i thought that from previous posts you had made on this general topic that you were quite eagerly awaiting the final outcome of the Cass review following the  interim report because it would - naturally - agree with your POV.

Are you perhaps disappointed that the scientific and medical review by a world leading pediatrician is not in agreement with what you think is "right"?

PS - Do you still think it's acceptable for biological males who have passed through puberty to participate in women only events?

 

I responded and then deleted.

1. The comment was written after reading an overview, that chose to omit several important things about the report. And after discovering those things, I deleted my comment.

2. I celebrated the initial findings that led to the opening of several new regional centres. In the hope that it would cut waiting times and provide better healthcare for trans people. That celebration was premature as waiting lists etc are higher than ever.

3. The cass report chooses to ignore hundreds of case studies that show the proven benefits of gender affirming care. Including studies that show how well understood puberty blockers are in trans youth. Ignored on the basis of “they weren’t double blind studies”. Which is literally impossible in this situation, as a double blind study would involve giving one group blockers, and another group a placebo. And the group given the placebo would notice pretty quickly that the blockers WERE NOT working. Cos, ya know, puberty. So demanding a double blind study is ridiculous and asinine. Puberty blockers have been around, used and studied since the 80s. They didn’t just appear in the last five years.

4. The scientific world is in agreement with us. See point 3.

5. Follow up question to point 3. Cisgendered kids take puberty blockers to stop precocious puberty. Some start taking these blockers as young as 5-6 years old. Meaning these cis children could be on blockers for up to six years before they are taken off, and allowed to go through puberty. Trans kids take the exact same blockers for near the exact same reason (delay puberty), for the exact same amount of time. If these blockers are so dangerous, why is it only trans kids that have been banned from taking them? Surely it would be cisgendered kids too right? No?

6. Regarding sport. To answer your question, yes. Funny isn’t it how people like you shout the word “biology” and claim that taking hormones still leaves an unfair advantage. And yet, last year, a trans male (born female) boxer scored three knock outs against a cis male opponent. Even Leah Thomas, the transphobes go to, won one single race, one time. And yet competed in a myriad of races she didn’t even come close to winning. It’s almost like the hormones they take are having an effect of their body. Reducing and increasing their performance to levels equal to their cis counterparts. But that would be madness no? 😅

7. All this hate from middle aged people. And yet…https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-year-in-review-2023

Kinda makes you wonder why we get all the hate, given you all apparently obsessed with searching trans porn online. Apparently 58% of you are more likely to regularly search it up.

 

Edited April 26 by Chie
Word insertion technique

[Declan]

1 minute ago, Chie said:

I responded and then deleted.

 

In these circumstances, the convention round here is "Nevermind" not "Nil".

Or become a subscriber and you can delete posts. 

[The Voice of Reason]

25 minutes ago, Chie said:

 

7. All this hate from middle aged people. And yet…https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-year-in-review-2023

Kinda makes you wonder why we get all the hate, given you all apparently obsessed with searching trans porn online. Apparently 58% of you regularly search it up.

 

That’s not what the article says at all. That’s a complete misrepresentation.

You need to read it properly.

[The Phantom]

2 hours ago, quilp said:

That too, of course. 

A trans kid is the ultimate accessory in Hollywood too now. 

[Chie]

4 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

That’s not what the article says at all. That’s a complete misrepresentation.

You need to read it properly.

A typo, but I mean…

Edited April 26 by Chie

[Bobbie Bobster]

On 4/12/2024 at 4:28 PM, wrighty said:

some kind of bug in a male body

 

[Ghost Ship]

2 hours ago, Chie said:

A typo, but I mean…

 

How can a typo convert "boomers were 58% more likely to watch transgender porn than younger folks" into something with a completely different meaning - "Apparently 58% of you [boomers presumably] regularly search it up"?

In any case, that "research" doesn't tell you anything about boomers - it only tells you something about the viewing habits of people who watch porn online - who I'd suggest are from from representative of the population, whether boomers or "younger folks"

I suspect you read it and saw what you wanted to see rather than what was written.  

[Ghost Ship]

There's a good article in - surprisingly - The Guardian today by David Bell who was a consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock Clinic and was one of the early clinicians to speak about what was going on in GIDS but was ignored.  He's looking at the Cass Report

"...Those who say a child has been 'born in the wrong body', and who have sidelined child safeguarding, bear a very heavy responsibility..."

"... It has been suggested that the Cass report sought to 'appease' various interests, with the implication that those who have promoted these potentially damaging treatments have been sidelined. But in reality, it is those of us who have raised these concerns who have been silenced by trans rights activists who have had considerable success in closing down debate, including preventing conferences going ahead. Doctors and scientists have said that they have been deterred from conducting studies in this area by a climate of fear, and faced great personal costs for speaking out, ranging from harassment to professional risks and even, as Cass has experienced, safety concerns in public.

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"

The Cass review of gender identity services marks a return to reason and evidence – it must be defended | David Bell | The Guardian

 

Anyone interested in reading some history of what went on in GIDS at the Tavistock should read "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes, the former(?) Newsnight journalist.

Time to Think (book) - Wikipedia

Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children: Amazon.co.uk: Barnes, Hannah: 9781800751132: Books

 

[Ghost Ship]

11 hours ago, Chie said:

... 6. Regarding sport. To answer your question, yes. Funny isn’t it how people like you shout the word “biology” and claim that taking hormones still leaves an unfair advantage. And yet, last year, a trans male (born female) boxer scored three knock outs against a cis male opponent. Even Leah Thomas, the transphobes go to, won one single race, one time. And yet competed in a myriad of races she didn’t even come close to winning. It’s almost like the hormones they take are having an effect of their body. Reducing and increasing their performance to levels equal to their cis counterparts. But that would be madness no? 😅 ...

 

 

OK.  (By the way, what do you mean by the rather disrespectful comment "people like you"?  That's not very kind...)

1.  Taking hormones does still leave a male advantage if that person has gone through male puberty.  It's obvious.

Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage - PMC (nih.gov)

Transgender Women Competing In Sports: LGBT Doctor Analyzes The Scientific Truth (youtube.com)

To take just one example, height is an advantage in many sports.  A trans-woman doesn't suddenly shrink because they're taking hormones to suppress testosterone production.  That's literally bollocks.

 

2.  I'm not particularly into boxing, but who are you talking about?  Is it Patricio Manuel?

Obviously not all men are better than all women in "athletic" ability.  Some women who are very talented will be better than some men - possibly even most men.  I'm not at all surprised that a biological woman boxer could knock out a man.  (Although if you are referring to Manuel they've never knocked anyone out according to Wikipedia so I don't really know what you are saying.  If it isn't Manuel who is it?)

I used to play mixed hockey and I got a concussion from a girl much smaller than me.  It happens.

If you are talking about Manuel I note that they fight at super featherweight which has a maximum weight of 59 kg.  I can easily imagine that an athletic and well put together biological woman who has been taking testosterone could defeat a 9 stone man who I would consider underdeveloped.  (I remember when Johnny Owen died many boxing experts suggested that it had been a mismatch because anybody weighing as little as he did from the UK must have been underdeveloped and malnourisdhed compared to his similar weight opponent from a developing country.  He boxed at an even lighter weight than Manuel - 54kg? - but the point remains the same)

I suspect any trans-man boxing at middleweight or above against a reasonably developed man  would get slaughtered.

 

3.  In any case, what a trans-man can achieve in a sporting activity against men is irrelevant when it comes to considering the inherent advantages that a trans-woman who has undergone male puberty carries over when competing against women.

 

4.  It's also irrelevant that Lia (isn't that the correct spelling?) Taylor only won one event.  (I don't know if that's true or not, but let's assume it is). 

As I've already pointed out above, some women will always out-compete some men.  Nobody who argues that trans-women should be excluded from women only sports are doing so because trans-women will always win.  They do so because trans-women have an inherent advantage over all the women they beat or displace from the sport.  That is the issue.  (Laurel Hubbard is a case in point.  By selecting her for the 2020 Olympics NZ unfairly denied a woman competitor from the Oceania region from participating in the Games.  And again it's irrelevant that Hubbard actually bombed out.  Makes it even worse actually).

This is also one of the reasons why men are excluded from women's only events.  It's not because they will always win, it's because they will always have unfairly beaten any women behind them in the rankings.

It's also clear that Taylor must have had an unfair advantage over women as they had a pretty mediocre record as a male but soared through the rankings in "women only" events.    A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying Advantages of Lia Thomas (swimmingworldmagazine.com)

 

5.  What's with ending sentences with "No?"?   Are you a moody teenager?

 

Basically everything you've written "Regarding sport..." makes me think that you have no understanding at all of what sport and fair competition is about.  You haven't got a clue.

And just to be clear, neither I nor anybody else wants to exclude trans-women from participating in sport.  What they can't do is participate in the protected category of women-only events. 

If it's the principle of just competing that counts, they can compete in the men's or open categories as whether or not they win or do well won't matter to them.  (Although I suspect if they have no chance of winning or doing well they suddenly won't be so bothered about "just being able to compete and take part..."

Edited April 27 by Ghost Ship