Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Mycroft]

Nothing personal, but I know that the women I listen to actually exist, and I know the terms of the discussions.

There's a small population of women we can poll without relying on unverifiable personal anecdotes: the women on this forum.

If you choose not to believe my personal experience is true, I understand. Many people on the internet make unverifiable claims, and one should be skeptical.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cite please.

First, it's never happened. Seriously, you will not find a single case study. Second, it comes from a basic understanding of how puberty works, and how puberty blockers work. Puberty blockers are somewhat of a misnomer, because they only stop PART of the process. This is actually useful in the case of precocious puberty, because they pause the part that starts too early, allowing the two parts to sync up properly. But the non-paused part is going to happen regardless of the blockers. And if it isn't synced with the paused part, you don't go through normal puberty. You cannot go through normal puberty.

All of this stuff has been hashed out before in this thread. You aren't bringing anything new to the debate.

The issue is fraught with politics, but this is what the Mayo Clinic says.

What they say is bull ◊◊◊◊, and not backed up by any actual medical studies. I know because I've actually dived into the research, read the papers cited that supposedly support these positions. And they don't.

My inclination is to go with the Mayo Clinic over you.

My inclination is to go with the actual research. And the actual research gives ZERO support to the claim that puberty blockers used for gender dysphoria are fully reversible. Instead, the research evidence actually suggests that putting kids on puberty blockers locks them into transitioning, rather than giving them a pause to evaluate the decision.

I think I know at least as much as you do

You quite clearly don't.

, but I also know we should avoid personalizing the debate.

I'm trying not to. But it's just a fact that you aren't actually familiar with these issues. I don't expect you to be, I wasn't before this thread. I spent a fair amount of time diving into the actual research literature on the topic, and you clearly haven't. These are just facts.

 

[Brainster]

It's revealing to see Labour's response to the decision. Keir Starmer apparently reversed himself and no longer believes that transwomen are women. He hailed the decision as providing real clarity and "a welcome step forward." Translation: "Thanks for getting us out of this corner we painted ourselves into!" I can't help but wonder if the craziness on display in the demonstrations in London against the decision helped convince him that is was time to cut and run. We'll see if the Democrats in the US come to their senses.

 

[Ziggurat]

Watch how easy it is:

Bob, a cis male, decides he wants to exploit the self ID loophole and enter a women's restroom, in search of vulnerable prey.

He is confronted while doing so, and despite not identifying as a woman, he claims to in order to avoid penalty. He deliberately misrepresented himself with the intent to maliciously deceive. He lied, by any definition.

Where did you bog down in the above?

The part where you assume the premise. What actually happens is that Bob enters a woman's restroom. He is confronted, and he claims he is a woman. That's what we're actually working with. All that stuff about his internal state of mind or intentions? We don't have access to any of that.

Is he lying? Under self-ID, no, he isn't. The declaration made it so. Doesn't matter if he never identified as a woman previously, he's identifying as one now. So he is one now. That's how self-ID works. There is no such thing as lying under self ID.

 

[Mycroft]

You could start by reading this paper pointing fact-checking the AAP policy statement on gender-affirming care which cites this evidence, and this more recent letter fact-checking the AAP's re-affirmation of their policy. Note that this was already discussed in detail many times in this thread and the Cass review in the UK has confirmed what we had already discussed about the lack of evidence for AAP, Endocrine Society and WPATH guidelines.

And the largest study to date, published since then.

That’s a lot of reading material. Any chance you can pare it down to the reversibility of puberty blockers?

Every independent systematic evidence review has found the same weak evidence base for gender affirmation in minors and every country that has conducted an independent review has scaled back the practice. Why do you think that is?

I don’t know. The older I get the less I think I understand how the world works.

I do think policy should be set by a medical consensus and not a political one.

 

[Mycroft]

You quite clearly don't.

I'm trying not to. But it's just a fact that you aren't actually familiar with these issues. I don't expect you to be, I wasn't before this thread. I spent a fair amount of time diving into the actual research literature on the topic, and you clearly haven't. These are just facts.

We should take another break for a while. Give time for your emotions to cool.

 

[Mycroft]

That the entire concept of "women's clothes" is meaningless in the context you were using it.

Transwomen wear women's clothes. That's not meaningless at all.

Please stop the gaslighting.

 

[lionking]

If you delay puberty until adulthood you can change your mind with few consequences. If you force a person to go through puberty when they prefer to transition, you pretty much guarantee a less than optimal result.

This is a terrible, unforgivable lie. I hope you are doing this through ignorance and not deliberately. Have a look at the Cass report on the impact of puberty blockers. They are usually not reversible and there are many court cases in the UK launched by young people who were assured that they were reversible.

Doctors who carried out these procedures on underaged children should be debarred and/or jailed.

 

[Mycroft]

Exactly. You don't actually know how to handle the transgender access issue. So why do you think you're in a position to lecture people who want to keep him out?

No more than ordinary men should be assumed to be just as wicked as Bryson. They don't all need to be in order to justify sex segregation.

If Trans-people should not be lumped in with the likes of Bryson, then bringing Bryson into the argument is meaningless fear-mongering.

 

[Elaedith]

That’s a lot of reading material. Any chance you can pare it down to the reversibility of puberty blockers?

No, I can't 'pare it down to the reversibility of puberty blockers' since the citation you were asking for was in regards to most cases of gender dysphoria resolving at puberty if children are not transitioned.

The fact that you think this is a lot of reading material is telling and confirms what I and others are pointing out about your lack of knowledge. This is not 'a lot of reading material'. It is an absolutely miniscule amount of reading material. I read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in this area before I began commenting on the thread, and I already had a relevant PhD and academic background beforehand.

I don’t know. The older I get the less I think I understand how the world works.

I do think policy should be set by a medical consensus and not a political one.

Then you should oppose the politically-driven consensus in the US and Canada and support the evidence-driven approach in the UK and several European countries that have conducted independent systematic reviews. Of course, that would require going against your tribe.

 

[lionking]

Meant to share this one earlier, about a surprising ruling in the Ninth Circuit, from a trans activist POV:

This ruling sets a devastating precedent for transgender rights. Issued by a majority Democratic-appointed panel in the 9th Circuit, it marks the first significant decision in which Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against transgender protections. By prioritizing cisgender discomfort over the tangible harm faced by transgender people, the court has effectively sanctioned a legal framework in which transgender individuals can be forced to live as their assigned sex at birth.​

9th Circuit Upholds Bathroom Ban, Says Trans Students Violate Cis People's Privacy

The ruling, the first of its kind, asserts that the rights of cisgender people to not have a transgender person in the same bathroom are more important than the equal protection of trans students.

www.erininthemorning.com

The bricks of the transgender “rights” facade are falling down around the world. Sanity is returning.

 

[Thermal]

The part where you assume the premise. What actually happens is that Bob enters a woman's restroom. He is confronted, and he claims he is a woman. That's what we're actually working with. All that stuff about his internal state of mind or intentions? We don't have access to any of that.

Is he lying? Under self-ID, no, he isn't. The declaration made it so. Doesn't matter if he never identified as a woman previously, he's identifying as one now. So he is one now. That's how self-ID works. There is no such thing as lying under self ID.

In this bit, '...despite not identifying as a woman, he claims to...'

The 'claiming to' is literally identifying as a woman. It may not last, it may not be genuine, but that claim is self-id. The only definition of what a woman is, under self-id, is that claim.

Ok, I got you now. Your playing games with definitions, ignoring the applicable context.

"It's literally impossible to lie about your self ID!"

*demonstrates lying about self ID*

"No, the word identify means exactly what I say it does, no more, no less!"

This is exactly how others here play games with the definitiom of woman. "It means adult human female, no more, no less!"

woman

1. an adult female human being: 2. an adult who lives and identifies as female…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth"

Eta: using Cambridge dictionary to pacify the Brits

 

[Mycroft]

The funny thing is, you think this is an argument in your favor, when it's actually an argument against you. Yes, gender identity has nothing to do with it. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Gender identity isn't sufficient to justify transcending sex segregation, precisely because gender identity isn't what matters.

I didn't think it was an argument at all, it was my reaction to something very stupid.

 

[Rolfe]

Transwomen wear women's clothes. That's not meaningless at all.

Please stop the gaslighting.

There is no requirement for a man to wear anything in particular to be recognised as a transwoman. That is the TRA position, and they have succeeded in getting it recognised by most jurisdictions.

It started with campaigns to remove the requirement for "sex reassignment surgery" to be recognised as a transwoman. The campaigns against "gatekeeping" continued until every requirement, from a psychiatric diagnosis to shaving, was removed. Transwomen wear whatever the hell they want to, just like everybody else.

 

[Mycroft]

No, I can't 'pare it down to the reversibility of puberty blockers' since the citation you were asking for was in regards to most cases of gender dysphoria resolving at puberty if children are not transitioned.

The fact that you think this is a lot of reading material is telling and confirms what I and others are pointing out about your lack of knowledge. This is not 'a lot of reading material'. It is an absolutely miniscule amount of reading material. I read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in this area before I began commenting on the thread, and I already had a relevant PhD and academic background beforehand.

Then you should oppose the politically-driven consensus in the US and Canada and support the evidence-driven approach in the UK and several European countries that have conducted independent systematic reviews. Of course, that would require going against your tribe.

I really don't think one needs a PhD to comment on an internet thread, especially when the issue is as politically charged as this one.

Honestly it seems more politicized in the UK, not less.

 

[Rolfe]

Any fool knows anyone can rape anyone else...

Maybe where you live, where "assault by penetration" has been wrapped up into the definition of rape. Something I don't approve of at all, but that's by the way.

In the country where that incident actually happened, rape is defined in law as the non-consensual penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus by a penis. The only way a woman can be convicted of rape is where she has acted as an accessory to a man, for example holding the victim down.

If there is no man present, there can be no rape.

 

[Mycroft]

There is no requirement for a man to wear anything in particular to be recognised as a transwoman. That is the TRA position, and they have succeeded in getting it recognised by most jurisdictions.

I never claimed a requirement.

It started with campaigns to remove the requirement for "sex reassignment surgery" to be recognised as a transwoman. The campaigns against "gatekeeping" continued until every requirement, from a psychiatric diagnosis to shaving, was removed. Transwomen wear whatever the hell they want to, just like everybody else.

They wear whatever the hell they want, which is mostly women's clothing.

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe where you live, where "assault by penetration" has been wrapped up into the definition of rape. Something I don't approve of at all, but that's by the way.

In the country where that incident actually happened, rape is defined in law as the non-consensual penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus by a penis. The only way a woman can be convicted of rape is where she has acted as an accessory to a man, for example holding the victim down.

If there is no man present, there can be no rape.

Well that's ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up. I hope it changes.

 

[Rolfe]

I bet Ashley, or Lesley, or whoever, appreciates your tolerance when they dress up in womanface. I hope they never encounter obnoxious, entitled, bullying creeps.

It's not tolerance. It's accepting how my friends are, while not necessarily ceasing to feel that they are beyond weird.

Sadly, last time I saw Ashley, he was cosying up to one of the entitled, bullying creeps. It may be for the best that I now live a long way away from him.

 

[Elaedith]

I really don't think one needs a PhD to comment on an internet thread, especially when the issue is as politically charged as this one.

Honestly it seems more politicized in the UK, not less.

Evaluation of the approaches to treatment of gender dysphoria in minors is a scientific issue, not a political one. If you want to take part in discussion of a scientific issue on a skeptic's forum, you should at least do some basic research first, and also come prepared to listen to people who are better informed than you if you won't do any research yourself. Suggesting that being ignorant of the evidence is more acceptable when the issues is 'politically charged' is nonsensical. If anything the opposite is true.

What you are actually doing is parroting talking points from your side and then projecting this onto others, assuming that they have also done no research and must be parroting points from the other 'side'. It doesn't seem to occur to you that people disagree because they are not treating this as a political issue and because they have actually examined the primary source evidence independently.