• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
I'd be interested in their citations for that "medical consensus".
Click to expand...


Can you not (or, perhaps more likely: do you not want to) understand that the clinical approach/policies/therapies/surgeries provided to transgender people - in every progressive industrialised nation on Earth - are, in and of themselves, proof positive of a) a medical consensus, and b) the acceptance by mainstream medicine that transgender identity is a valid condition and not a disorder (or the product/symptom of a disorder)?

Maybe ask yourself a simple question such as this: can you - if you really set your mind to it - figure out if there’s any difference in they way that mainstream medicine approaches/treats/accommodates therapies & practices related to transgender identity, compared with how it approaches/treats (say) people who identify as having three legs; or people who identify as Norse warriors; or people who identify as attack helicopters?

And if you get so far as to figure out the correct answer to that question, then maybe you might get closer to finding the correct answer to the question in my first paragraph above.

Somehow, however, I suspect that we’re in “exercises in futility” territory here, amirite? After all, views born of the mixture of denial plus stubborn conviction can often be near-impenetrable, even when clear evidence is right there in plain view. Just ask any 9/11 Truther - I’m guessing those denialists will, likewise, probably never even countenance looking at the observable evidence or the mainstream scientific POV.


ETA: as an addendum to the above, there are of course still areas where the interaction between mainstream medicine and transgender identity needs plenty of consideration, refinement and optimisation. The most obvious such area is the approach provided to children and young adults presenting with transgender identity. But the fundamental principle - the reality of transgender identity as a valid lived condition and not a disorder - is by now a settle truth within mainstream medicine. (Except to denialists of course…)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I wonder how far you’d get if you emailed the APA … and informed them, earnestly and with the full force of your conviction, that their views/approaches/policies/therapies related to people with transgender identity were nothing more or less than “made-up pseudoscientific theories”? ....
Click to expand...

You mean the same way that the APA's positions on, say, homosexuality and lobotomies weren't "made-up pseudoscientific theories"? ... :rolleyes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-03479-001
 

Attachments

  • tweet.jpg
    tweet.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 8
lionking said:
Tavistock? A very reputable organisation not far back. Be honest. Was it one of your mainstream medical organisations? It certainly was for many
Click to expand...


You’re completely missing the point, unsurprisingly.

Some of the Tavistock’s methods proved to be sub-optimal at best, and dangerous at worst. But - as indeed I was writing in my previous post before having read yours - the optimal approach to children and young adults presenting with transgender identity is a) extremely difficult to get right (and far far more difficult than I suspect you realise, and b) such a new area of clinical therapy/intervention that there are almost bound to be mistakes made along the way.

On top of that, there’s the long-established phenomenon where small insular clinical units sometimes gradually deviate from standard practice to to point where there is an improperly increased risk of harm to patients. One example that springs immediately to mind is what became known as the Bristol Heart Scandal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_heart_scandal

You can read the sad details in that link. Your attempted argument wrt the Tavistock (which, btw, is wayyy less scandalous than Bristol was) is in effect the same as trying to argue that the Bristol failings/malpractice were/are an indictment of the very concept of performing paediatric heart surgery; that in effect the Bristol scandal shows that it is wrong and dangerous to try to operate on babies’ hearts; that paediatric cardiac surgery lies outside mainstream medicine; and that the scandal is in fact good evidence to stop this whole “pseudoscientific” practice of cardiac surgical intervention in babies… :rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
You’re completely missing the point, unsurprisingly.

Some of the Tavistock’s methods proved to be sub-optimal at best, and dangerous at worst. But - as indeed I was writing in my previous post before having read yours - the optimal approach to children and young adults presenting with transgender identity is a) extremely difficult to get right (and far far more difficult than I suspect you realise, and b) such a new area of clinical therapy/intervention that there are almost bound to be mistakes made along the way.

On top of that, there’s the long-established phenomenon where small insular clinical units sometimes gradually deviate from standard practice to to point where there is an improperly increased risk of harm to patients. One example that springs immediately to mind is what became known as the Bristol Heart Scandal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_heart_scandal

You can read the sad details in that link. Your attempted argument wrt the Tavistock (which, btw, is wayyy less scandalous than Bristol was) is in effect the same as trying to argue that the Bristol failings/malpractice were/are an indictment of the very concept of performing paediatric heart surgery; that in effect the Bristol scandal shows that it is wrong and dangerous to try to operate on babies’ hearts; that paediatric cardiac surgery lies outside mainstream medicine; and that the scandal is in fact good evidence to stop this whole “pseudoscientific” practice of cardiac surgical intervention in babies… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Much of this post is hopelessly off topic. But just to clarify, you think that Tavistock’s “methods” were sub-optimal, but it’s objectives were spot on? Or were they a reputable medical authority in the past but not now? I’m completely uninterested in the Bristol Heart Scandal.
 
lionking said:
Much of this post is hopelessly off topic. But just to clarify, you think that Tavistock’s “methods” were sub-optimal, but it’s objectives were spot on? Or were they a reputable medical authority in the past but not now? I’m completely uninterested in the Bristol Heart Scandal.
Click to expand...


That’s unfortunately pretty much what I expected to hear back. The very response you’ve just provided 9to my entirely on-topic post) demonstrates your blinkered non-sceptical position succinctly, and in consequence I have zero interest in engaging with anything you have to say on this subject.

Fortunately for me, and for medicine, and for transgender people (including youngsters), there are people in the real world - actual experts, rather than self-appointed inexpert uninformed closed-minded armchair “experts’, who are certain they are right (and the real experts are wrong) because…. well, who the heck knows why - who actually know what they’re talking about. This thread is indeed a nasty, bigoted, closed-minded mess. You and your fellow denialists are welcome to it - I’ll continue my practice of dropping by from time to time to check that the toxicity levels are up to their usual esteemed standard. Have fun!
 
crazycat said:
This is primarily for stanfr and Vixen. This has been discussed time and time again here. (I rarely post, but I've been reading this for years)
Click to expand...

You have the patience of a saint, holding off for this long!

crazycat said:
Current laws in many places allow someone self-ID as trans. No doctor, no hormones, no dressing as the other gender, or even attempting to act as the other gender.
Click to expand...

The best example I know is the awful right-wing bitch, Lauren Southern. She is legally a male under Canadian law. It's the only thing I agree with her on - she did it solely to highlight the absurdity of the law.

Hideous person, but the best-looking bloke I've ever seen.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...speaking-at-auckland-council-venues-phil-goff

crazycat said:
Genuine transwomen may or may not be a threat in female safe spaces, but people who only call themselves transwomen ARE a threat. And there is often no way for the women in those formerly safe spaces to tell the genuine from the imposters. The imposters are there for a reason and the reason isn't good for the poor ciswomen involved.

I think the results of self-ID is what Rolfe and Emily's Cat are complaining about. They have said so upthread. They, and the men who are concerned for women's safety and dignity, are not anti-trans.
Click to expand...

Very well said, and it's something the pro-trans insanity won't accept. I pointed out on the very first couple of pages of the thread that I know for a fact men do that, and boast about it.

Let them share trans-only spaces with other "women" with male genitals and they'll change back in no time.
 
LondonJohn said:
That’s unfortunately pretty much what I expected to hear back. The very response you’ve just provided 9to my entirely on-topic post) demonstrates your blinkered non-sceptical position succinctly, and in consequence I have zero interest in engaging with anything you have to say on this subject.

Fortunately for me, and for medicine, and for transgender people (including youngsters), there are people in the real world - actual experts, rather than self-appointed inexpert uninformed closed-minded armchair “experts’, who are certain they are right (and the real experts are wrong) because…. well, who the heck knows why - who actually know what they’re talking about. This thread is indeed a nasty, bigoted, closed-minded mess. You and your fellow denialists are welcome to it - I’ll continue my practice of dropping by from time to time to check that the toxicity levels are up to their usual esteemed standard. Have fun!
Click to expand...

It is rather telling, but not surprising, that you have not answered my questions.
 
Manger Douse said:
From the study quoted:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
Click to expand...

For crying out loud! Women cannot be convicted of rape so of course transwomen will show a higher rape statistic. She-eesh.

Such poor logic. For example, I could tell you the crime rate was 10% (a made up figure for illustration purposes). However, that doesn't mean 10% of the people in your class at school are criminals or that 10% of your work colleagues are, or even 10% of your family are. Why? Because crime figures follow social trends. Criminals tend to concentrated in the lower social classes, more closely monitored by police, less likely to have good lawyers to get them off, belong to a criminal culture or family, etcetera. Likewise, you can't just say because one transwoman once had a sexual assault conviction, therefore all transwomen are dangerous.

Virtually all the gay people I ever knew were upper class or middle class and therefore less likely to be convicted of criminal offences, sexual or otherwise.
 
The Atheist said:
You have the patience of a saint, holding off for this long!



The best example I know is the awful right-wing bitch, Lauren Southern. She is legally a male under Canadian law. It's the only thing I agree with her on - she did it solely to highlight the absurdity of the law.

Hideous person, but the best-looking bloke I've ever seen.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...speaking-at-auckland-council-venues-phil-goff



Very well said, and it's something the pro-trans insanity won't accept. I pointed out on the very first couple of pages of the thread that I know for a fact men do that, and boast about it.

Let them share trans-only spaces with other "women" with male genitals and they'll change back in no time.
Click to expand...

So a couple of right wing politicians are dressing up as women to make a political point. Gimme a break.
 
Vixen said:
For crying out loud! Women cannot be convicted of rape so of course transwomen will show a higher rape statistic. She-eesh.

Such poor logic. For example, I could tell you the crime rate was 10% (a made up figure for illustration purposes). However, that doesn't mean 10% of the people in your class at school are criminals or that 10% of your work colleagues are, or even 10% of your family are. Why? Because crime figures follow social trends. Criminals tend to concentrated in the lower social classes, more closely monitored by police, less likely to have good lawyers to get them off, belong to a criminal culture or family, etcetera. Likewise, you can't just say because one transwoman once had a sexual assault conviction, therefore all transwomen are dangerous.

Virtually all the gay people I ever knew were upper class or middle class and therefore less likely to be convicted of criminal offences, sexual or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (at least one conviction for sexual assault
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._assaults_involving_transgender_prisoners.doc
 
Manger Douse said:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (at least one conviction for sexual assault
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._assaults_involving_transgender_prisoners.doc
Click to expand...

"In relation to the 97 sexual assaults in the female establishments between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2019, 7 were incidents where prisoners who identify as transgender were involved. And of the 7 incidents, 6 were assaults where a transgender prisoner was the assailant or suspected assailant. In the 7th incident, the transgender prisoner had ‘active involvement’, " ibid

Seven out of 97. Stop it.
 
Vixen said:
"In relation to the 97 sexual assaults in the female establishments between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2019, 7 were incidents where prisoners who identify as transgender were involved. And of the 7 incidents, 6 were assaults where a transgender prisoner was the assailant or suspected assailant. In the 7th incident, the transgender prisoner had ‘active involvement’, " ibid

Seven out of 97. Stop it.
Click to expand...

This isn't about incidents in prison - 58% transwomen had previous for sexual assault
 
Just thought I'd post this laughable article in the Atlantic, about how maybe women are just as good as men in athletics, they just haven't been given the opportunities:

School sports are typically sex-segregated, and in America some of them have even come to be seen as either traditionally for boys or traditionally for girls: Think football, wrestling, field hockey, volleyball. However, it’s becoming more common for these lines to blur, especially as Gen Zers are more likely than members of previous generations to reject a strict gender binary altogether. Maintaining this binary in youth sports reinforces the idea that boys are inherently bigger, faster, and stronger than girls in a competitive setting—a notion that’s been challenged by scientists for years.

Decades of research have shown that sex is far more complex than we may think. And though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as one of those articles that needed to be written. Somebody had to advance the notion that the only reason girls aren't just as big, fast and strong as boys is sexism. That said, I am kind of surprised that the editors at the Atlantic went ahead and published it.
 
Vixen said:
If a man touches a woman's arm he can be done for sexual assault but if a woman does it, is she put on a sex register?
Click to expand...
Now you're just making stuff up.

Since you refuse to look at the numbers where you live, I'll pull up some data for the United States, where "[n]early 98 percent of perpetrators are male."
stanfr said:
That's an outright lie.
Click to expand...
What are the correct figures where you live?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Now you're just making stuff up.

Since you refuse to look at the numbers where you live, I'll pull up some data for the United States, where "[n]early 98 percent of perpetrators are male." What are the correct figures where you live?
Click to expand...

Do you understand the distinction between "predators" and "rapists"? Apparently not...
Instead of cherry picking, back up and do some basic research, try this for starters:
Rape statistics
The table at bottom shows that you are wrong.

And you might want to consider the following pertinent info from the same cite:
"Most rape research and reporting to date has concentrated on male-female forms of rape. Male-male and female-male rape has not been as thoroughly researched, and almost no research has been done on female-female rape"

I don't deny that the vast majority of sexual assaults/rapes are commited by men, but to say that 99% of "predators" (not my words) are male is incorrect.
Do you still not understand the distinction?
I could spell it out for you if necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom