"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[flowerpower]

You make too many statements that don't stand up to scrutiny. Just because one day I am discussing racism doesn't mean that I am not interested in transgender discrimination -- or any other sort of discrimination. It's merely that we typically discuss one topic at a time. So nobody that I know, except for you, has "decided[...] that transphobia is the worst kind of discrimination."

And no, it is not an "issue that affects everyone." I am a gay man, quite comfortable with my own gender and my own sexuality (although so old it hardly matters anymore). I am content to leave the issue where I think that it belongs -- between the trans individual and their healthcare provider -- and yes, for the under-aged, with their parents. (I am well aware that some parents will not be supportive -- but that's no different than those parents who aren't supportive of their gay kids, either, or their sons who want to do ballet).

This post softened up my opinions on the matter a little bit (take note @Shadow Wolf ) - I suppose I'm really just commenting on what I've observed. I don't understand how trans people are being celebrated and encouraged in our society today while we have George Floyd and likely racially motivated shootings still going on unrectified.

Since when did the trans thing even become such a hot political talking point? Was this all Caitlyn Jenner's fault? The publicity is probably what led to the backlash - and then the backlash against the backlash.

I have noticed a lot more trans people around today than 8 years ago - and I always wonder whether these people would be trans if it weren't for social contagion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This post softened up my opinions on the matter a little bit (take note @Shadow Wolf ) - I suppose I'm really just commenting on what I've observed. I don't understand how trans people are being celebrated and encouraged in our society today while we have George Floyd and likely racially motivated shootings still going on unrectified.

Since when did the trans thing even become such a hot political talking point? Was this all Caitlyn Jenner's fault? The publicity is probably what led to the backlash - and then the backlash against the backlash.

I have noticed a lot more trans people around today than 8 years ago - and I always wonder whether these people would be trans if it weren't for social contagion.

You should have been around after Stonewall, as I was. Stonewall happened in 1969. Before that, there really wasn't any such thing as "gay pride." Mostly, we hid, had our private clubs and some out-of-the-way bars that most people didn't know about. I was in a boy's private boarding school from 1961-65, and do you know, I was, as far as I knew, the only gay boy in it. (Naturally, I later found out that this wasn't entirely accurate, and that it did, in fact, have approximately the usual percentage.)

That was a time when very few people could say, "I have gay friends (or relatives) and they're ok." Because most people didn't know they had gay friends or relatives -- although almost certainly they did.

Trans issues are, I think, somewhat deeper and more intractable than that -- although in many ways they shouldn't be! Think about it -- a high school shower after football practice, and I had an absolute eyeful of good looking guys to ogle. What do you suppose they might have thought, had they known what was going through my mind? But at least we all had the same basic parts. That would not be quite true if there were a trans-girl in the girls shower, would it? Or, more shockingly, in my view, a trans-guy in the boys shower! The eyeful then would be switched totally from my case -- it would be everybody else in the shower coping with something that can't be hidden, as my thoughts were hidden!

There are very real issues for trans people to deal with like that: where to go to the bathroom, which sports team can I play on (and is it fair to the others), and so on. I don't have all those answers, and I don't think anybody does. But at least we can try.

That is what I'm all about -- I would like to live in a world where people care about each other, in spite of their differences, no matter how shocking. I would like to live in a world in which we at least strive for fairness, for accommodation, for kindness and openness to each other's differences, wondering whether those differences might even be gifts!

See, nobody much fusses about same-sex marriage anymore -- we fought that battle (and believe me, it was a long, hard fight), and now men are marrying men and women marrying women in TV shows and commercials, and it's almost becoming mainstream. (I know there will always be those who simply can't accept that, but we should even try to be kind to them, too -- just not let them ruin life for anyone else.)

 

[icehorse]

There are very real issues for trans people to deal with like that: where to go to the bathroom, which sports team can I play on (and is it fair to the others), and so on. I don't have all those answers, and I don't think anybody does. But at least we can try.

That is what I'm all about -- I would like to live in a world where people care about each other, in spite of their differences, no matter how shocking. I would like to live in a world in which we at least strive for fairness, for accommodation, for kindness and openness to each other's differences, wondering whether those differences might even be gifts!

Totally agreed!

My criticisms are focused on those current solutions that are needlessly zero-sum.

 

[John53]

39 pages in and I still don't what is meant by "trans activist".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Despite what my many detractors here on RF like to claim, I mostly only post on topics where I have some degree of understanding. I don't know anything about the pros and cons of blood thinners.
But - for example - I think that diet plays a HUGE role in good health and I think the government's take on diet, things like the "4 food groups" is horrific.

You leave it up to the medical experts and researchers involved in studying them, right?

Speaking only for myself, I'm extremely concerned about rights and personal freedoms. So I support a woman's right to choose. And I support preserving choices for children and youth, which imo, GAC does not. A very common side effect of GAC is that kids become sterile. So we have confused kids, who have never experienced sex or a grown up romantic relationship, and we're rushing them into interventions that will deny them those choices forever. And to boot, with only low quality evidence.

If you're extremely concerned about rights and personal freedoms, then you should butt out of other peoples' psychiatric medical decisions and allow people TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES about what's best for them, after consulting with psychiatrists and medical professionals. Why do you allow others this right when it comes to every other medication/treatment on the planet, save for this one? In this case, somehow you know more than the people involved? How could that be?

So let's circle back again: If a kid or youth is experiencing GD, what should be the number one goal of healthcare providers?

I've already answered this.

While this is not unique, GAC is an example of a protocol developed and championed by advocates. WPATH is the driving force behind GAC, and WPATH is substantially motivated by advocacy, not purely the best healthcare outcomes.

You have claimed this repeatedly but not actually demonstrated it. As a person who works in the mental health field, I find this to be misunderstanding of the attitudes and processes involved.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you know that the trans issue is a lot more complicated than people oddly being "interested in everyone else's psychological issues."

There are so many very serious social issues that go along with the recent trans (or gender fluid) phenomenon that it's virtually impossible to keep up with them all. And, yes - biological women and children are directly affected by it.


One of the reasons that this is made into such a huge, inflammatory topic whenever it's brought up - is that our society has seemingly decided that (as far as discrimination goes) transphobia is the worst kind of discrimination there is (somehow it's actually overtaken racism as unacceptable bigotry) - that whenever someone really wants to discuss it in good faith, it's shut down with smokescreen statements like "why do you care about something that has nothing to do with you?"

What other people decide to do with their bodies is something that has nothing to do with me. And vice versa.

The big problem with this is that it's an issue that affects everyone and it hasn't even come close to being discussed sufficiently because the people who insist that we just accept and embrace transsexualism without a second thought won't allow that discussion and anyone who has valid concerns gets told to shut up and labeled a bigot.

There are enormous problems with transsexualism as it's approached and regarded in our society.

Being willfully ignorant about them won't resolve anything.

What are these "enormous problems" you speak of? Please list them.
Please also list the ways in which biological woman and children are "directly affected" by trans people ... in a negative way, correct?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh right - I forgot - the "we're just people who want to be left alone to live our lives how we want since we aren't hurting anyone" argument.

While there's some merit to it, I see it as a total cop out.

The massive surge in transsexualism and its presence in political talking points for the last 8 years or so is not something that should be ignored.

And there are a lot of unresolved issues that go along with it - which is why it's such a hot topic in our society today - they remain unresolved and the people who want to shut the conversation down in the same way that you just did with your cop out statement prefer those issues to remain unresolved because it serves a much greater agenda that, so far, trans people have the upper hand in.

Sorry, the "leave us alone - we're not hurting anyone" cop out doesn't fly with me or most people I know. We remain silent about it in polite conversation however because many trans people are happily enjoying their monopoly on playing the discrimination card and have actively bastardized the world "bigot" in the process.

I can't take anyone seriously who says or believes something like that about a heavily victimized and marginalized group of people with very little power. Especially when that same group is currently being victimized across the country via Republicans passing anti-trans legislation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is a really bad faith response from you - I really was hoping for better.

1. I agree it's more acceptable to be gay now than it was 20 years ago. I'm glad that's the case. I think the mark of a decent society is a society that tolerates and accepts gay people.

One problem: do you understand that Gay is not the same as Trans?

A lot of gay people I know are sick of having their experiences and struggled lumped into trans issues and insisting that they all belong to the same "community" and that their sexuality doesn't define who they are as a human being either.

That's a shame (if true, which is doubtful). They should understand the struggle that trans people deal with, given the massive similarities in the struggles both of their causes have faced and continue to face.

The point being made was that the same arguments being made against trans people are the exact same arguments that used to be used against gay people.

2. "Or I might just actually know what I'm talking about because I've actually put hundreds of hours into researching the topic."



Yeah right. I totally believe you.

Even if I did believe you - which I don't - I still wouldn't respect your opinion on this any more than I already do. (which is little more than pretty easily dressing it down to the ridiculous bunch of nonsense that you're prattling on about.

3. "Many throw it away. Not suicide, but by letting themselves be what others (especially advertisers) want them to be. It's an unlive life when your opinions match the hyperpartisan opinions found on a screen."

What the **** does this pseudo-philosophical gibberish have to do with anything?

4. "I can't? You've never heard of these things called listening amd questions?"

No @Shadow Wolf - you can not read people's minds no matter how hard you try.

Yes - talking to people can give you a reasonable understanding of what they think, feel and believe (and they might even offer insight if you're lucky enough) but your insistence that you yourself can actually read other people's minds and see what extent they actually care about any given issue at any point in time is beyond laughable - like, was this an actual joke of yours?

5. Why did you dodge my final question?

The question was: did you start identifying as trans within the last 8 years?

I find the rest of this to be pretty rude. But you do you.

 

[icehorse]

You leave it up to the medical experts and researchers involved in studying them, right?

Recently, I provided a mountain of evidence on a separate thread. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the pro-GAC posters have not reviewed that evidence.

What I see is that our healthcare systems is awash in advocacy and profiteering. I think a LOT of doctors and nurses and hospital administrators would agree. I suggest a book or article called "Bitter Pill", if you're interested in this claim.

So IF (and it's a big IF), our healthcare industry wasn't so compromised, then yes, I'd be more trusting of the experts.

But this situation is a sort of poster child of advocates and profiteers running the show.

If you're extremely concerned about rights and personal freedoms, then you should butt out of other peoples' psychiatric medical decisions and allow people TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES about what's best for them, after consulting with psychiatrists and medical professionals. Why do you allow others this right when it comes to every other medication/treatment on the planet, save for this one? In this case, somehow you know more than the people involved? How could that be?

I'm talking ONLY about kids. As I've said, I don't care what adults choose to do with their bodies as long as their choices don't bog down healthcare for everyone else.

Do you think a GD kid in the throws of puberty is really in a position to understand the nature of a life-long dependency on drugs? On giving up normal sexuality forever? On giving up ever having kids? And so on.

No way.

So I'm advocating to PRESERVE kids' rights to choose. GAC takes away their ability to choose.

==

As far as WPATH and GD and GAC..

What I see is that "transitioning" has often become a foregone conclusion. That's advocacy bull****. One glaring sign of this is the lack of good studies that compare GAC outcomes against talk therapy only.

"Transitioning" should NOT be the foregone conclusion when dealing with a GD kid. It should be the last resort. Why? Because it's radical, dangerous, and irreversible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Recently, I provided a mountain of evidence on a separate thread. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the pro-GAC posters have not reviewed that evidence.

What I see is that our healthcare systems is awash in advocacy and profiteering. I think a LOT of doctors and nurses and hospital administrators would agree. I suggest a book or article called "Bitter Pill", if you're interested in this claim.

So IF (and it's a big IF), our healthcare industry wasn't so compromised, then yes, I'd be more trusting of the experts.

But this situation is a sort of poster child of advocates and profiteers running the show.

If true, this would be a uniquely American problem.

And as far as I can tell, your claim that activists, advocates and profiteers are "running the show" is not borne out in reality.

I'm talking ONLY about kids. As I've said, I don't care what adults choose to do with their bodies as long as their choices don't bog down healthcare for everyone else.

So you assume to know better than doctors, psychiatrists and the person experiencing it themselves, only in the cases where children are involved.

Do you think a GD kid in the throws of puberty is really in a position to understand the nature of a life-long dependency on drugs? On giving up normal sexuality forever? On giving up ever having kids? And so on.

I think they're capable of making decisions about and for themselves with the guidance of parents, doctors and mental health professionals, a LOT more than people who've never met them and don't know the first thing about them.

No way.

So I'm advocating to PRESERVE kids' rights to choose. GAC takes away their ability to choose.

You're not though.

==

As far as WPATH and GD and GAC..

What I see is that "transitioning" has often become a foregone conclusion. That's advocacy bull****. One glaring sign of this is the lack of good studies that compare GAC outcomes against talk therapy only.

What you "see" doesn't seem to match the reality of what is actually going on. You seem to see bogymen everywhere here.

"Transitioning" should NOT be the foregone conclusion when dealing with a GD kid. It should be the last resort. Why? Because it's radical, dangerous, and irreversible.

In your non-professional, non-transgender, layperson's opinion.

 

[icehorse]

If true, this would be a uniquely American problem.

And as far as I can tell, your claim that activists, advocates and profiteers are "running the show" is not borne out in reality.

WPATH has global reach. Thankfully, many countries in Europe with superior healthcare systems are seeing through WPATH's issues.

The most useful studies would compare mental healthcare outcomes for GAC vs. talk therapy. Why haven't a bunch of those studies been done? I think a reasonable conclusion is that the pro-GAC collective have been effective in promoting the idea that "the cure" for GD is transitioning. Transitioning is a radical, dangerous, irreversible approach, correct? So why is that there is no high quality evidence that it's more effective at improving mental health than less invasive and dangerous approaches?

So you assume to know better than doctors, psychiatrists and the person experiencing it themselves, only in the cases where children are involved.

Hmmm. I've answered this question many times. I'm simply reporting on the findings of experts who oppose GAC.

And, we all have access to research studies. The dearth of comparison studies that I mentioned above is telling. And all it takes is a basic understanding of how research is done to see this glaring omission.

I think they're capable of making decisions about and for themselves with the guidance of parents, doctors and mental health professionals, a LOT more than people who've never met them and don't know the first thing about them.

And the experts I'm learning from have concluded that NO ONE can predict which GD kids will grow out of GD without be subjected to unproven, dangerous, irreversible protocols.

You're not though.

Going through GAC takes a away far more choices than not going through GAC. I will agree however that neither is a perfect solution. It's just that GAC is worse.

What you "see" doesn't seem to match the reality of what is actually going on. You seem to see bogymen everywhere here.

Tell that to the many top halthcare providers in Europe with whom I agree. Are they all seeing bogymen? Or are they more qualified than you are? Overall, their healthcare systems are much better than ours.

In your non-professional, non-transgender, layperson's opinion.

Again, not just my opinion.

But that said, what part of GAC being radical, dangerous, and irreversible do you disagree with?

 

[icehorse]

Hey @SkepticThinker -

In other threads I've provided lists of citations. Lists that would take many hours to consume. Here is just one article from that list. This article was written by Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala - who is the head of Finland's GD healthcare program (more or less).

She and her colleagues adopted the Dutch Protocol (which is the basis for GAC), around 2011, tried it for many years and discovered it wasn't working and was often making outcomes worse.

Again, this is just one of many experts whose expert opinions I've read, but I think if I could ask the pro-GAC folks to read just one article, this would probably be it:

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tell that to the many top halthcare providers in Europe with whom I agree. Are they all seeing bogymen? Or are they more qualified than you are? Overall, their healthcare systems are much better than ours.

You keep saying this but I showed you where that just is not the case.

 

[Brian2]

Then what was your point?

That you don't need to be called a woman to have what are called female traits, or to be called a man if you have masculine traits.

 

[Brian2]

Then what are you saying?

That you cannot change a man into a woman or a woman into a man.

You realise that these qualities can be socially imposed, right? So, the "traits" you're talking about are literally "things that are socially and culturally imposed on us".

Also, you would not therefore argue that a biological woman who is "thing oriented" therefore doesn't count as a woman. So, if these are the traits you were talking about when you said "Masculine traits remain in the boys and feminine traits in the girls", that statement is just false. Obviously, "masculine traits" and "feminine traits" are variable and non-exclusive.

Yes females can have masculine traits and males can have female traits. They are non-exclusive and do not determine if someone is male or female.

Right. So what's the issue?

The issue is that these procedures should wait until someone is a mature adult.

Hence the difference between "non-gender conforming" behaviour and "being trans". This is like arguing that there are a lot of people who find a lump and think it might be cancer, but it turns out not to be cancer, are an argument against treating cancer.

The point is that being gay doesn't necessarily mean they aren't trans. Non-gender conforming behaviour and homosexuality are two different things, and proper and timely medical diagnosis and intervention accounts for that. Gay kids aren't "being trans'ed".

If many teens who think they might be trans, go through that and come out the other side as gay and not thinking they are trans, that is an argument for not starting medical intervention till after the confusing teen years.

 

[Father Heathen]

That you don't need to be called a woman to have what are called female traits, or to be called a man if you have masculine traits.

That isn't what transgenderism is, so moot point.

 

[icehorse]

You keep saying this but I showed you where that just is not the case.

did you read the article I just linked to?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That you cannot change a man into a woman or a woman into a man.

Yes you can. Gender is a social construct.

Yes females can have masculine traits and males can have female traits. They are non-exclusive and do not determine if someone is male or female.

Right. So what you said about about these traits "remaining" in their respective genders is false.

The issue is that these procedures should wait until someone is a mature adult.

I agree. Which is what GAC does.

If many teens who think they might be trans, go through that and come out the other side as gay and not thinking they are trans, that is an argument for not starting medical intervention till after the confusing teen years.

You seem very confused. Do you not understand how gender affirming care works? The entire point IS to defer to decision until adulthood. They're not performing surgery on minors. They delay puberty until they can make an informed decision as an adult.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The issue is that these procedures should wait until someone is a mature adult.

Yes, this. And to be fair, although these aren't quite the same thing, I also believe that purely cosmetic surgeries should be banned for all minors. No more nose jobs or boob jobs for self-hating 15 or 16 year olds.

 

[icehorse]

Yes you can. Gender is a social construct.

sex is not the same as gender