Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
So it ends up seeming like they WANT kids to have a really, really strong racial or ethnic association, but to have a weak sex association.
Click to expand...

It's an artifact of life in NZ in the 21st century.

Every organisation, from Alcoholics Anonymous to schools to major media companies, is in the midst of stridently and visibly announcing their commitment to Maori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi, so kids are smacked in the face with ethnic issues 500 times a day.

Gender is taking a seat way down the back of the bus.
 
The Atheist said:
It's an artifact of life in NZ in the 21st century.

Every organisation, from Alcoholics Anonymous to schools to major media companies, is in the midst of stridently and visibly announcing their commitment to Maori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi, so kids are smacked in the face with ethnic issues 500 times a day.

Gender is taking a seat way down the back of the bus.
Click to expand...

This is admittedly off topic, but does anyone in NZ genuinely think that making ethnicity an inescapable element of every interaction actually improves the relationship between maori and others?
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is admittedly off topic, but does anyone in NZ genuinely think that making ethnicity an inescapable element of every interaction actually improves the relationship between maori and others?
Click to expand...
No, it is craven politicians, media and academics, many of whom of course need their jobs to keep their ribs apart.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It seems like the cliff notes version is that non-clinical affirmation does NOT provide mental health improvement.
Click to expand...

More specifically social transitioning, rather than just affirmation. There is no reliable evidence that it does improve mental health, even though this is the rationale frequently given for promoting it. The study design doesn't allow a firm conclusion either way.

There is evidence that social transitioning leads to the persistence of gender dysphoria or cross-sex identification in children who would have desisted, which then increases the likelihood of moving on to medical interventions.
 
Samson said:
She is unsophisticated no doubt by your standards, but she is generally against experimenting with medicating and mutilating minors
New Zealand has legally embraced this activity
The depth of concern here on maleducation and race ideology is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Can you please give me a link to the "NZ political law" that you mentioned?
 
Arcade22 said:
Can you please give me a link to the "NZ political law" that you mentioned?
Click to expand...
Try this

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2021/0056/latest/whole.html#LMS487197

One passage

Some submitters did not agree with this as they believed it was inappropriate to conflate gender with sexual orientation. Some of these submitters believed that the bill contradicted itself by supporting affirmative medication and practices such as the use of puberty blockers. They suggested that this was an example of a dangerous conversion practice.
We disagree that gender-affirming care or supporting a gender transition could be classified as conversion practices. The bill provides that one of the elements of a conversion practice is that it is performed with the intent to suppress or deny someone’s identity. We note that the bill would not amend legislation around decisions concerning the healthcare of children, including the prescription of puberty blockers.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Can you please give me a link to the "NZ political law" that you mentioned?
Click to expand...

Samson said:
Try this

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2021/0056/latest/whole.html#LMS487197

One passage

Some submitters did not agree with this as they believed it was inappropriate to conflate gender with sexual orientation. Some of these submitters believed that the bill contradicted itself by supporting affirmative medication and practices such as the use of puberty blockers. They suggested that this was an example of a dangerous conversion practice.
We disagree that gender-affirming care or supporting a gender transition could be classified as conversion practices. The bill provides that one of the elements of a conversion practice is that it is performed with the intent to suppress or deny someone’s identity. We note that the bill would not amend legislation around decisions concerning the healthcare of children, including the prescription of puberty blockers.
Click to expand...
For example.
Is it conversion practice to suggest gender self ID should wait?
 
lionking said:
Great. Australian golf now goes on my **** list.
Click to expand...
Whereas you might like what English Swimming have done

Swim England announces transgender policy with ‘open’ and ‘female’ categories

Swim England has announced a new transgender policy with “open” and “female” categories for all its licensed events after arguing that “fair competition” must be the backbone of its approach. From September, athletes with a birth sex of male, or who are transgender or non-binary, must compete in the new “open” category for all Swim England’s licensed events. Athletes with a birth sex of female have their own protected category.
Click to expand...

Unlike World Swimming, Swim England has decided against a ban on transgender women in female sport. Its new policy contains provision for athletes to self-ID in low-level “unlicensed” events, such as intra-club recreational races. But the timings and scores posted at these events will not be applicable to Swim England rankings or eligible as records.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty sensible to me - hopefully other organisations will take this lead.
 
//Dumb semi-related point of order question that Googling has failed to really get me anywhere on//

Does anyone have a reputable source for a reasonable breakdown of Male to Female transitions numbers compared to Female to Male transitions numbers?
 
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
//Dumb semi-related point of order question that Googling has failed to really get me anywhere on//

Does anyone have a reputable source for a reasonable breakdown of Male to Female transitions numbers compared to Female to Male transitions numbers?
Click to expand...

Here's a bit of info:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33644314/

NIH abstract said:
The prevalence gender dysphoria has recently been estimated as high as 390 to 460 per 100,000 with a consistently greater prevalence of trans women (MTF) than trans men (FTM). We report here the changing demographics encountered in our experience over the past 2 decades
...
Consistent with many reports, we are seeing an increasing number of gender dysphoric individuals seeking hormonal therapy. The age at initiation has been dropping over the past 25 years, and we have seen a steady increase in the number of FTM such that the incidence now equals that of MTF.
Click to expand...

Hilighting mine. This is from a very limited study, just one clinic in New York, so these numbers may not be representative of the country as a whole, and it also only covers people receiving hormone treatment. I don't think there's good data on this, but the number of people claiming trans identity without undergoing any form of medical intervention (including hormone therapy) may be increasing, which would also limit the significance of this survey.
 
From 4thWaveNow on Twitter:

@4thWave_Now said:
The US gender juggernaut is facing increasing press scrutiny:
@TheEconomist "When medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium."

archive.ph/jj188
Click to expand...

The medical community is starting to speak up, and maybe some journalists are finally listening.
 
d4m10n said:
Let's see how the trans rights crowd is reacting:

https://twitter.com/hfuriouss/status/1642915023965020171 a

https://twitter.com/JessicasuAKA/status/1642909878522896384

https://twitter.com/MadBartender/status/1642915561922342912

https://twitter.com/ughablughablugh/status/1642946087370756096

https://twitter.com/MagnificentJak/status/1643008402174377985

https://twitter.com/Mermaids_Gender/status/1642912538454028290
Click to expand...
The first five are people with very few followers and with hardly any likes to the comment. Hardly a cross section.

The Mermaids one called it disappointing and called for their policy to be reversed. Hardly an over the top reaction.
 
Last edited:
US Dept of Education consulting on changes to Title IX

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-ath-nprm.pdf

Seems to allow limitations based on sex at birth, but not blanket bans.

In particular, the Department proposes amending § 106.41(b) of its Title IX regulations to provide that, if a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity, those criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
Click to expand...

The Department recognizes that prevention of sports-related injury is an important educational objective in recipients’ athletic programs and that—as courts have long recognized in cases involving sex-separate athletic teams—fairness in competition may be particularly important for recipients in some sports, grade and education levels, and levels of competition.
Click to expand...

Unclear where this may end up.
 
Robin said:
Hardly a cross section.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, let's come up with a sample of representative activist groups. We know that Mermaids wants males to compete against females (and set new female swim records) but what do the other groups say?
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
The Economist is obviously talking about the GIDS situation in the UK not the US.
Click to expand...

The headline: What America has got wrong about gender medicine

It is, in part, about how the US is getting further behind other countries who are listening to whistleblowers (rather than decrying them as transphobes and ostracizing them) and doing systematic reviews, and holding off on puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and surgeries until there’s compelling evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The right policy is therefore the one Britain’s nhs and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial.

Ideally, American regulators would insist on trials, too. If the culture wars put that compromise out of reach, professional bodies should uphold their own protocols by welcoming whistle-blowers and advance science by calling on patients to be in trials. Sometimes, they will need to protest against illiberal laws. Above all, they should not add to the tragedy.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom