Misogynistic and Selfish, Edinburgh's Rape Crisis Centre's CEO is a trans-woman, i.e. a man !

[Magic Man]

Links have been provided, and here we go again:

The evidence supporting "gender affirming care" is of very low reliability

Below are links to articles and videos that would probably take several hours to read / watch. Here are some summaries of the links below: - Young people with gender dysphoria often have serious mental conditions like depression and suicidal thoughts. It's important to treat people with these...

www.religiousforums.com

Final Report – Cass Review

cass.independent-review.uk

The WPATH Files — Environmental Progress

Leaked files from WPATH reveal widespread medical malpractice on children and vulnerable adults at global transgender healthcare authority World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware o

environmentalprogress.org

I already addressed the Cass report multiple times. It in no ways supports your claims here.

The link about WPATH there was written by Mia Hughes, who is a known anti-trans activist. If you have something unbiased on the subject, let me know.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm a fan of talk therapy, and I've said so countless times on this forum.

But GAC goes far beyond talk therapy into the use of dangerous irreversible drugs and sometimes surgeries on healthy tissues.

The problem is that WPATH created / popularized GAC and GAC is simple bad medicine. Look to the previous post to learn about the scandal that is WPATH and the degree to which WPATH uses pseudo-science and bad medicine.

You still haven't provided evidence regarding WPATH.

GAC involves a lot of things, including medication and surgery. Nothing involved is especially dangerous, so stop using that word. For young people, GAC is mostly about talk therapy. It only moves into other avenues after a long process where everyone involved can be sure further steps are warranted.

 

[icehorse]

I already addressed the Cass report multiple times. It in no ways supports your claims here.

The link about WPATH there was written by Mia Hughes, who is a known anti-trans activist. If you have something unbiased on the subject, let me know.

your assessment of the Cass report is simply wrong. The NHS is taking it seriously, are they transphobic?

As for the WPATH files... this is a large collection of factual claims. WPATH has had several months now to dispute the avalanche of claims contained in the WPATH files and they have not done so.

Again, logic 101, what's important is whether a claim is true or not. IT DOES NOT MATTER who makes the claim. And of course, it's almost by definition that a whistle-blower against trans-medicine would be critical of trans-medicine, doh!

So as a summary of the WPATH files:

It contains a roughly hour long video of highly placed WPATH staff openly discussing the various ways in which they know they are doing bad medicine and pseudo-science.

It also contains hundreds of WPATH emails and internal communications that demonstrate the same bad medicine approach.

The WPATH files are taken from WPATH itself, why does it matter who published them?

 

[Magic Man]

Let's take a look at JKR's tweet from several years back:

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill

It seems clear that the first four lines are in clear solidarity with trans people, and that line 5 is a criticism of trans activism.

No, it seems clear that that was meant as obfuscation. She was doing two anti-trans things here, one of which I already addressed in this thread.

1) She supported Maya Forstater, who posted anti-trans content.

2) She uses the old "for stating sex is real", like you're doing here. This is and wasn't about whether "sex is real". Biological sex is a real thing. No one denies that. The problems stem from gender, not sex.

Do you trans activists know what the first # refers to?

Yes, as I showed above.

 

[icehorse]

You still haven't provided evidence regarding WPATH.

GAC involves a lot of things, including medication and surgery. Nothing involved is especially dangerous, so stop using that word. For young people, GAC is mostly about talk therapy. It only moves into other avenues after a long process where everyone involved can be sure further steps are warranted.

The party line is what you just said. But WPATH itself admits that it's simply not the case. E.g., it's common that the kids and their parents are not capable of providing informed consent.

As for not being dangerous, you must be crazy or cruel to say such things. The dangerous side effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are well known, and the surgeries are also a disaster. Once a kid starts into the drug aspect of GAC they are almost guaranteed to be committed to medicalization for the rest of their lives.

Off to work, back in a bit.

 

[Magic Man]

your assessment of the Cass report is simply wrong.

Sorry, but it's not.

The NHS is taking it seriously, are they transphobic?

It depends on what you mean by "taking it seriously". If you mean "working to obtain more and better data on healthcare for transgender youth", then no, they're not transphobic. If you mean something else, then I'd needs specifics.

As for the WPATH files... this is a large collection of factual claims. WPATH has had several months now to dispute the avalanche of claims contained in the WPATH files and they have not done so.

Then show me the factual claims.

Again, logic 101, what's important is whether a claim is true or not. IT DOES NOT MATTER who makes the claim. And of course, it's almost by definition that a whistle-blower against trans-medicine would be critical of trans-medicine, doh!

It doesn't matter who makes the claim, as long as the claim is verified to be accurate. I'm not reading the screed of an anti-trans activist on the issue. If they are factual claims, then show me a trustworthy source confirming them.

So as a summary of the WPATH files:

It contains a roughly hour long video of highly placed WPATH staff openly discussing the various ways in which they know they are doing bad medicine and pseudo-science.

It also contains hundreds of WPATH emails and internal communications that demonstrate the same bad medicine approach.

The WPATH files are taken from WPATH itself, why does it matter who published them?

It doesn't, as long as what was published is actually accurate. Just give me an unbiased source showing the claims you're making, and I'll accept them.

 

[Magic Man]

The party line is what you just said. But WPATH itself admits that it's simply not the case. E.g., it's common that the kids and their parents are not capable of providing informed consent.

Admits what is not the case? Who said it's common that kids and parents are not capable of providing informed consent? (As in, show me a source for that, don't just tell me a name.)

As for not being dangerous, you must be crazy or cruel to say such things. The dangerous side effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are well known, and the surgeries are also a disaster. Once a kid starts into the drug aspect of GAC they are almost guaranteed to be committed to medicalization for the rest of their lives.

Off to work, back in a bit.

Not crazy or cruel, just pointing out your continued use of selective loaded language. All drugs are "dangerous" in that they can have bad effects. Ibuprofen is dangerous and can kill you. You're calling them dangerous to try to make them sound extra bad, rather than just letting the facts speak for themselves.

The surgeries are not a disaster either. Again, loaded language.

Obviously medical intervention like this is going to have risks and complications. The question is what they are, how they're treated, and how bad they are relative to other healthcare.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, any group that resists trans activism is going to get hate, doh!

To oppose people's advocacy for themselves
does indeed sound like hate

 

[icehorse]

1) She supported Maya Forstater, who posted anti-trans content.

No, this is not what the Maya story is about, try harder.

2) She uses the old "for stating sex is real", like you're doing here. This is and wasn't about whether "sex is real". Biological sex is a real thing. No one denies that. The problems stem from gender, not sex.

Many trans activists deny that sex is real - that's who you're supporting.

 

[icehorse]

Admits what is not the case? Who said it's common that kids and parents are not capable of providing informed consent? (As in, show me a source for that, don't just tell me a name.)

I'm not sure I can go any more slowly for you...

In the video provided in the WPATH files, top WPATH officials admit that frequently their patients and their families are incapable of giving informed consent to the GAC protocols they are agreeing to.

Not crazy or cruel, just pointing out your continued use of selective loaded language. All drugs are "dangerous" in that they can have bad effects. Ibuprofen is dangerous and can kill you. You're calling them dangerous to try to make them sound extra bad, rather than just letting the facts speak for themselves.

Not all drugs are equally dangerous, doh!

These drugs are far more dangerous and irreversible than the trans activists would have you believe. The common chant is "oh, they're safe and reversible". And neither is true.

So given that NO GOOD EVIDENCE exists that GAC improves mental health outcomes, it is scandalous that GAC continues to be used. This flies directly in the face of the medical promise of "first, do no harm".

Obviously medical intervention like this is going to have risks and complications. The question is what they are, how they're treated, and how bad they are relative to other healthcare.

No, that's not the question. If we were to compare this to say the drugs used for chemotherapy we could say something like "chemo drugs are dangerous, but they also offer some good chances to cure cancer". So in the case of chemo drugs, there is a known upside.

But there is no good evidence that there is any upside to the drugs used in GAC. The whole point of GAC is to improve the mental health of people suffering from gneder dysphoria, and there is no proof that using these drugs improves mental health.

 

[Soandso]

You just keep supporting the maiming and sterilization of confused gay kids. If it's "paternalistic" of me to oppose such barbarous actions, so be it.

Are you saying trans people are confused gay people? Even adult trans people?

 

[Magic Man]

No, this is not what the Maya story is about, try harder.

It's exactly what the Maya story is about. She posted anti-trans content, and that's why her contract was not renewed.

Many trans activists deny that sex is real - that's who you're supporting.

No, they don't. You're supporting people who lie to you and everyone else, including on this.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not sure I can go any more slowly for you...

In the video provided in the WPATH files, top WPATH officials admit that frequently their patients and their families are incapable of giving informed consent to the GAC protocols they are agreeing to.

I'm not sure I can make this any clearer to you. Who are these "top WPATH officials"? What specifically did they say, and in what context?

Not all drugs are equally dangerous, doh!

And the drugs you're talking about aren't as dangerous as plenty of others that you wouldn't call "dangerous" because you're not desperate to portray them in a bad light. That's my point. D'oh!

These drugs are far more dangerous and irreversible than the trans activists would have you believe.

Cool, then show the evidence. (You might sense a common theme here.)

The common chant is "oh, they're safe and reversible". And neither is true.

The chant is not always "they are reversible". Some of it is acknowledged as not completely reversible. There are a lot of medical procedures people can get that aren't reversible. You'll need to show why this one is so special.

So given that NO GOOD EVIDENCE exists that GAC improves mental health outcomes, it is scandalous that GAC continues to be used. This flies directly in the face of the medical promise of "first, do no harm".

You're intentionally confusing things. Let's assume you're right here. "Not enough evidence that it improves mental health outcomes" is not the same as "does harm".

No, that's not the question. If we were to compare this to say the drugs used for chemotherapy we could say something like "chemo drugs are dangerous, but they also offer some good chances to cure cancer". So in the case of chemo drugs, there is a known upside.

Cool, and the drugs in this case have a known upside. So, I guess the answer to my question are "no worse than other drugs".

But there is no good evidence that there is any upside to the drugs used in GAC. The whole point of GAC is to improve the mental health of people suffering from gneder dysphoria, and there is no proof that using these drugs improves mental health.

"That doesn't mean puberty blockers and hormones should be withheld from patients who are likely to benefit from them, Cass cautioned. And U.S. experts told MedPage Today that the report should be taken in "totality" and that treatments should be available while the evidence base is enhanced."

Cass Review Finds Weak Evidence for Puberty Blockers, Hormones in Youth Gender Care

Review leader Hilary Cass, MD, says medical treatment for gender is 'built on shaky foundations'

www.medpagetoday.com

Your own Cass acknowledges that patients who are likely to benefit from the drugs you're talking about should still have access to them. You're misconstruing the report and its findings. It's not saying "gender-affirming care is actually harmful". It's not even saying "gender-affirming care is not helpful". It's just saying that broadly speaking we need more and better evidence on the subject.

 

[Magic Man]

You just keep supporting the maiming and sterilization of confused gay kids. If it's "paternalistic" of me to oppose such barbarous actions, so be it.

I'm still waiting for the support for these claims. It would be nice if you didn't completely ignore this and keep making baseless claims to spread propaganda.

 

[icehorse]

Are you saying trans people are confused gay people? Even adult trans people?

What I said a few posts ago (FFS), is that many kids with GD, when left to go thru puberty naturally, end up growing out of their GD, and a lot of those kids end up being gay. Not too surprising that a kid who doesn't quite understand sex and sexual attraction could be confused about whether they're gay (quite common), or trans (rare).

 

[icehorse]

No, they don't. You're supporting people who lie to you and everyone else, including on this.

I always find it particularly amusing when I hear variations on the "it's not happening" argument, rofl!

You're intentionally confusing things. Let's assume you're right here. "Not enough evidence that it improves mental health outcomes" is not the same as "does harm".

NO I AM NOT ! This is doubly bad because of both things:

1 - These drugs are dangerous and often irreversible
2 - There is NO GOOD EVIDENCE that these drugs help kids with GD.

Cool, and the drugs in this case have a known upside. So, I guess the answer to my question are "no worse than other drugs".

Pay attention. There is NO UPSIDE to the drugs used in GAC. They do not improve mental health outcomes.

Your own Cass acknowledges that patients who are likely to benefit from the drugs you're talking about should still have access to them. You're misconstruing the report and its findings. It's not saying "gender-affirming care is actually harmful". It's not even saying "gender-affirming care is not helpful". It's just saying that broadly speaking we need more and better evidence on the subject.

No, you are. There are other uses for these drugs. For conditions other than GD. The Cass Report only looked at treatments relating to GD.

I'm still waiting for the support for these claims. It would be nice if you didn't completely ignore this and keep making baseless claims to spread propaganda.

I have sent you the links several times.

I cannot make you read them however, and it's clear you are dedicated to remaining ignorant. Until you actually read the evidence you've been sent I'm done talking to you. You are arguing from what appears to be willful ignorance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You just keep supporting the maiming and sterilization of confused gay kids. If it's "paternalistic" of me to oppose such barbarous actions, so be it.

This put things out of order. The third quote should be the second, so jump over the second and read it last.
Reviewing more recent posts it occurred to me you want to attack me but you say things like this:

The opinions I express here are in keeping with all my gay friends and with groups like the LGB alliance. And frankly those groups have a lot more credibility than the unknown posters on this forum. I'm happy to stand with the LGB Alliance.

***pssst*** I run a group affiliated with the local LGBT center, which also is where we meet. There's one none queer in it (one of the two guys), two trans women, and a bunch of bi cis women (the other guy is bi).
There's also a LGBT clinic in LA (they oversee all my trans related care). The Quakers here have a billboard welcoming LGBT. All those Pride events also include the T.

ve repeatedly shown you evidence. Everyone reading this thread can see that. And they can see that you've refused to look at it.

Yeah. We can see what has happened. We can read everyone's individual contributions. We can all see you are prejudiced with the way you are so obsessed with soeaking hate against trans people you dismisss people outright who have strong counter claims against your own claims.

 

[Magic Man]

I always find it particularly amusing when I hear variations on the "it's not happening" argument, rofl!

As always, you're welcome to support your claim with evidence. I'm still waiting on several other claims' evidence, so I won't hold my breath, though.

NO I AM NOT ! This is doubly bad because of both things:

1 - These drugs are dangerous and often irreversible
2 - There is NO GOOD EVIDENCE that these drugs help kids with GD.

You just did it again. "Not enough evidence for the widespread use they have right now" is different from "harmful". Again, all drugs are harmful. The irreversible nature of some of the treatment is taken into account already.

Pay attention. There is NO UPSIDE to the drugs used in GAC. They do not improve mental health outcomes.

Pay attention. There is upside, and they do improve mental health outcomes.

No, you are. There are other uses for these drugs. For conditions other than GD. The Cass Report only looked at treatments relating to GD.

Was this supposed to contradict me? Because it agreed with me. As Cass said, these young people with gender distress should have access to the drugs you're talking about (because they can be helpful to them).

I have sent you the links several times.

No, you've posted links to the Cass report and about some "WPATH files". I've addressed both. The Cass report does not in any way say that "confused kids are being maimed and sterilized". It only says that we need more and better data on gender-affirming care practices. The WPATH files you haven't provided anything of substance on, just an article by a known anti-trans activist.

I cannot make you read them however, and it's clear you are dedicated to remaining ignorant. Until you actually read the evidence you've been sent I'm done talking to you. You are arguing from what appears to be willful ignorance.

It fascinates me that so often in these discussions this happens. The anti-trans person falling for the anti-trans propaganda tries projects and pretends that it's actually the reasonable people speaking rationally and factually who are being willfully ignorant.

Look, you've provided a lot of propaganda here. I'm familiar with it already. I've addressed the propaganda and why it's not what you say it is. Kids are not being maimed and sterilized. There is no "cruel treatment" of them. Either provide actual evidence of these claims or stop making them. And stop accusing others of your own faults.

 

[icehorse]

Look, you've provided a lot of propaganda here. I'm familiar with it already.

I'm sure the NHS and other national healthcare systems across Europe will be grateful to you for pointing out that they've made a mistake changing their health care policies because they're relying on "propaganda"..

From Magic Man's dictionary:

propaganda: Any information that doesn't fit my ill informed opinions.

 

[icehorse]

No, you've posted links to the Cass report and about some "WPATH files". I've addressed both. The Cass report does not in any way say that "confused kids are being maimed and sterilized". It only says that we need more and better data on gender-affirming care practices. The WPATH files you haven't provided anything of substance on, just an article by a known anti-trans activist.

Your summary of the Cass Report is wrong and dangerous. Many countries in Europe are radically altering their trans medicine policies based on the findings in the Cass report.

For anyone who wants to get up to speed, the WPATH organization has been the world's de facto leader in determining healthcare protocols for trans people. It creates the SOC (standard of care) document that most of the western world has relied on for many years. The WPATH files do indeed include a summary article. But the link also provides links to hundreds of other documents and a long video. Many of the documents come from WPATH's internal communications, and the video is taken from an hour-long zoom-call discussion between high ranking WPATH officials. Taken together, this information clearly establishes that WPATH officials know they do bad science and bad medicine, and they continue to do it anyway.

Here's the WPATH link again:

The WPATH Files — Environmental Progress