Rolfe
Adult human female
Just sitting here waiting for Emily's Cat, because she has chapter and verse on all this, due to having a relative who was directly affected by it.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Just sitting here waiting for Emily's Cat, because she has chapter and verse on all this, due to having a relative who was directly affected by it.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Your opinion is noted. In the mean time, your opinion is entirely irrelevant to a situation that occurred in a country where the law is not as you wish it to me.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, that's an interesting reverse ferret.
And several other similar posts. You were claiming that we could tell who was a transwoman because he wears women's clothes.
This is the only review I am aware of that looks at neurodevelopment effects of puberty blockers. The review clearly states there are no good reasons to think the effects are reversible. Activists laughably attacked the review and the author for 'only looking at animal studies and single-case/small sample studies' when these literally are the only studies available.
Baxendale, S. (2024). The impact of suppressing puberty on neuropsychological function: a review. Acta Paediatrica, 113(6), 1156-1167.
"There is no evidence that cognitive effects are fully reversible following discontinuation of treatment. No human studies have systematically explored the impact of these treatments on neuropsychological function with an adequate baseline and follow-up. There is some evidence of a detrimental impact of pubertal suppression on IQ in children."
Baxendale, S. (2024). The impact of suppressing puberty on neuropsychological function: a review. Acta Paediatrica, 113(6), 1156-1167.
"There is no evidence that cognitive effects are fully reversible following discontinuation of treatment. No human studies have systematically explored the impact of these treatments on neuropsychological function with an adequate baseline and follow-up. There is some evidence of a detrimental impact of pubertal suppression on IQ in children."
Rolfe
Adult human female
I've just heard that announced as a news item on the actual BBC. Glory hallelujah.
ETA: The rumour below is false. Starmer has a son and a daughter. He just made a weird slip of the tongue on live TV.
There is an interesting wrinkle here. In a clip of an interview from Sky News, Starmer says "I have two relatively young children, a boy who's 15 and a boy who's 13." However, in a tweet dated 25th November 2023 he said, "I want my daughter and her friends to grow up feeling safe."
His current Wikipedia article states that he has only two children, a son born in 2008 and a daughter born in 2010. Wikipedia is extremely woke, and would undoubtedly report a boy who had transitioned in his early teens as "a daughter, born in...", so that doesn't settle the question.
The video clip is undated as far as I can see, but if his children were 15 and 13 at the time, that would also put the video at some time in 2023.
The only two possibilities here is that Starmer managed to mis-speak in front of the TV camera and refer to his daughter as a boy, or that he has a trans child, a boy who transitioned some time in 2023. If the latter, then he is extraordinarily invested in this issue on one particular side and cannot in any way be regarded as an impartial party. It could have been a seriously weird slip of the tongue, but in the twitter thread below an astonishing number of quotes from him expressing heartfelt solidarity with TWAW and transing children are attached. Enough to make you wonder.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
There's nothing emotional about this. It's just a fact: I've looked into the research, and you haven't. I'm not upset about that, I'm not angry about it, it's just the way it is. But I'm not going to ignore that either, because it is relevant to our discussion.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Again, one must wonder who that safe space is intended to exclude, if it includes "all women" by design. Given that the goal is clearly not to create a safe space for everyone in the women's space (from context clues) who ought to be excluded from the space and why do you suppose should they be excluded, if at all?
Suppose there are two scruffy-bearded middle-aged siblings, both having typical midlife male body types. One of them ought to be included in the "safe space for all women" because she calls herself Danielle and hopes to physically transition someday, and the other one calls himself Andy and ought to be excluded because he does not think of himself as a woman (at least not at the moment). What is the key difference between these two males which makes it acceptable to exclude Andy from the safe space into which Danielle should be welcomed, and is there any practical way for service users to discern it?
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The trans posters on the other forum I belong to have been assuring everyone that Starmer is not just a vile transphobe but a murderer who has the blood of trans children on his hands ever since he accepted the findings of the Cass report.
No, I didn't bring it up; the point had in fact been made earlier.
But I'm giving appropriate weight to a group who are among those particularly negatively affected by self ID and males in female single-sex spaces. A few pages back, those participants in this thread who were blithely calling women bigots for not wanting males in female toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons, DV and rape shelters etc were challenged to address their dismissal of the concerns of Muslim and Jewish women. None has done so as far as I can see.
It seems to me to be important, if people are to be called bigots for expecting UK organisations to conform to UK law, then the people name-calling should examine their own bigotry against women of colour and faith.
I'm a lifelong atheist and make no secret of it, but that doesn't mean I cannot understand and empathise with women who have a particular faith and for whom self ID means not just the return of the urinary leash, but also means they cannot even shop for clothes outside their homes, never mind go to a gym, even for women-only swim sessions as males are allowed to participate. Does this affect a friend of mine - it does. But that's not the point and I have avoided making this personal other than to point out my own need for same-sex carers. It's not just my friend, it's all women in her situation.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm thinking perhaps the video clip is a slip of the tongue, but it's odd.
It is odd, but saying 'children' first then using the wording 'a boy who's' twice rather than just saying 'I have two sons' to start with, I think increases the likelihood it was just a slip of the tongue.
Rolfe
Adult human female
It's even more than that. One poster was sanctimoniously telling us that he treated all human beings with kindness and humanity, irrespective of, among other things, religion. That's why I brought up the issue of women of minority religious faiths (this time, anyway, I've alluded to it before). I have asked him directly several times to answer this point, but have been ignored every time. All we established was that he doesn't include people who disagree with him on this issue as human beings worthy to be treated with kindness and humanity.
I did remark that the usual response from TRAs to the question of Moslem women was to switch to Islamophobe mode and declare that nobody should be given any special accommodations on account of following this (or indeed any other) religion, but surely someone who "treats all human beings with kindness and humanity" and specifically includes religious faith among the attributes that he includes, wouldn't do that.
No idea, because no answer.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes, perhaps that's all it is. Indeed, although his children aren't named, even in the Wikipedia article, a lot of people must know who they are. Under the circumstances, if one of them was trans, it's likely it would have been leaked by someone.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Indeed, if any man can instantaneously become a woman in the moment, simply by saying that he is, then the entire notion is pointless. Which the SC judges most certainly took into consideration.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Begging the question that the wider usage is as you say. I don't think it is. I think you're overestimating how prevalent the newspeak actually is.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Couldn't care less. The complexity is not the issue.
You put forth a rubric of level of effort as a measure of womanhood. Dylan Mulvaney makes more of an effort to conform to regressive stereotypes of womanhood than Tig Notaro. Thus, by your rubric, Dylan is more of a woman than Tig.
The development of secondary sex characteristics will start, but we don't have any evidence regarding whether neurodevelopment is permanently affected. The restructuring of the brain at puberty happens in precisely timed-stages, and some of these are dependent on sex-steroid hormones and some are not. The timing of these stages in relation to each other is thought to be critical because there is evidence that different parts of the process getting out of sync is a risk factor for psychiatric problems. I remember reading about this long before the puberty blockers were prescribed for gender dysphoria. In addition, puberty is thought to be a 'critical period', that is, a period where certain things have to take place during that time for development to occur normally. When I looked at the literature on puberty blockers, all of this was ignored. That in itself is a sign that something has gone very wrong.
Moreover, almost all children who take puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones and we know nothing about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of never going through natal puberty, because there is no systematic follow-up data.
Most people who make claims about blockers being reversible and being able to choose which puberty you want to go through, don't even know that pubertal hormones are involved in brain restructuring. They think puberty just means visible secondary sexual characteristics.
As Baxendale stated "Completely reversible neuropsychological effects would not be predicted given our current understanding of the ‘windows of opportunity’ model of neurodevelopment. If neuropsychological deficits associated with puberty blockers were completely reversible, it would mean that puberty is very different from the other pre-programmed windows of opportunity in neuropsychological development and any literature supporting this would present a significant challenge to our current understanding of neurodevelopment."
IOW, for the effects of blockers to be fully reversible, much of our current understanding of neurodevelopment would have to be wrong.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
We have clarity. I remembered about the Wikipedia archive of earlier versions of the articles. Starmer is noted as having a son and a daughter in an entry dated 2011. It was a slip of the tongue.
I'm very glad about this, because it makes it far less likely that he'll be motivated to try to undermine the judgement. I suspect his fervour is simply that Stonewall said to him, this is the latest progressive cause, you don't want to be on the wrong side of this one. And he said, oh is it? In that case I'll support it and promote it enthisuastically. Like a lot of brainless people in influential positions.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its about facts; observable, scientific, reality based facts, NONE of which support the TRA side of the debate... none. The meme you quoted from my post is simply a demonstration of how those facts work.
No matter how much you dodge, weave, obfuscate, handwave, ignore and fail to parse the meaning of what you are being told, the facts will never be on your side - at best, your dismissal of them is laughable; at worst, disgusting.