[Merged] Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Yes it has.

No, it has not.

It has been tested. And mental wellness is desired and beneficial.

You will search in vain for any study of what happens to kids who take puberty blockers for gender dysphoria but then stop without going on cross sex hormones. No such studies exist, because almost all kids treated with puberty blockers go on to take cross sex hormones. That alone is concerning. But even the studies on kids who go on to take cross sex hormones don't really examine medical outcomes, and NONE of them examine long term outcomes of any kind.

So no, they have not been tested for safety at all, and their efficacy measurements are all short term and not very convincing.

 

[acbytesla]

No, it has not.

You will search in vain for any study of what happens to kids who take puberty blockers for gender dysphoria but then stop without going on cross sex hormones. No such studies exist, because almost all kids treated with puberty blockers go on to take cross sex hormones. That alone is concerning. But even the studies on kids who go on to take cross sex hormones don't really examine medical outcomes, and NONE of them examine long term outcomes of any kind.

So no, they have not been tested for safety at all, and their efficacy measurements are all short term and not very convincing.

That in fact is nonsense. A quick Google Scholar search shows multiple studies.

 

[Ziggurat]

That in fact is nonsense. A quick Google Scholar search shows multiple studies.

Have you actually read them? I bet you have not. They will not show what you think they show.

 

[acbytesla]

Have you actually read them? I bet you have not. They will not show what you think they show.

Yeah they do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah they do.

Then provide links.

 

[Pixel42]

That in fact is nonsense. A quick Google Scholar search shows multiple studies.

York University did far more than "a quick Google Scholar search", they did a systematic review. You'll find the results in the Cass review, if you ever bother to read it.

 

[theprestige]

Then provide links.

Remember when acbytesla dropped into this thread, making a big deal out of needing to see links to sources of claims? Pepperidge Farms etc.

 

[Matthew Best]

I wonder how much evidence it will take before acbytesla leaves and tells everyone how toxic this thread is?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

On issues that only effect one sex, I don't see any good reason to give the opposite sex a vote.

If a politician decides to self-identify as the opposite sex, are they then entitled to vote on matters that you say only affect their newly-changed sex?

 

[smartcooky]

Then provide links.

**** crickets ****

 

[Aber]

I suspect that there are major flaws in the census count

Yes there probably are, but not in the direction you believe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles...r of transgender people,to their sex at birth.

But on Wednesday, Mary Gregory - a deputy director at the ONS - said some people may have misunderstood the question.

Writing on the ONS's website, she said there was "potential bias" in how the question was answered "by those who responded that they had lower levels of English proficiency, some of whom may have mistakenly given an answer suggesting they were trans".

 

[smartcooky]

No, it won't.

You have absolutely no idea how many transgender people are out there. And how hard it is to tell what their actual biological sex is. I guarantee you would have a very hard time differentiating a trans-female from a CIS--female. I personally know dozens of transgender individuals and I can't do it. It's almost embarrassing to say this since I'm a straight CIS male. But some of the most attractive women I've met are men.

If you think detecting transwoman as male is difficult, you are living in a fool's paradise... and if you can't see that the above specimins of humanity are males, you need to pay a visit to Specsavers.

No transwoman has ever fooled me. I have occasionally had trouble telling from a photo, but every one I have ever seen in person (and being in the retail business for over 30 years, I have met many dozens) I twigged to it immediately.

 

[smartcooky]

Despite all the evidence free assertions from acbytesla that puberty blockers are reversible, there is absolutelty NO scientific study that shows this to be the case. No other drugs or medicines are allowed to be used or prescribed (outside of strictly controlled drug trials) while the long term and side effects are still unknown. I see no reason why Puberty Blockers should be any different. When the fully ideologically-captured NZ medical profession starts to call the reversibiilty of PBs into question, you know that the Gender Affirming Care industry is headed for trouble.

Puberty Blockers Not “Safe & Reversible” - Ministry Of Health

Family First NZ is welcoming an overdue turnaround in the Ministry of Health’s policy on puberty blockers for young people with gender dysphoria. Up until last week the Ministry of Health stated that “ Puberty Blockers are a safe and fully ...

www.scoop.co.nz

Up until last week the Ministry of Health stated that “Puberty Blockers are a safe and fully reversible medicine that maybe used from early puberty through to later adolescence to help ease distress and allow time to fully explore gender health options.”​

​

But last Friday that advice was quietly changed by the Ministry. “Safe and fully reversible medicine” has been removed and replaced with “Blockers are sometimes used from early puberty through to later adolescence to allow time to fully explore gender health options.”​

​

Medical professionals and medical groups – including The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) – recently sounded growing international concern around the use of puberty blockers to treat young people with gender dysphoria because of the low certainty of benefits but the significant potential for medical harm.​

​

Britain’s NHS recently withdrew a claim that the effects of puberty blockers are “fully reversible”​

​

Sweden’s leading gender clinic - Stockholm’s Astrid Lindgren children’s hospital– recently ended routine treatment of minors under the age of 18 with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones,​

​

Finland revised its treatment guidelines in June 2020, prioritising psychological interventions and support over medical interventions, particularly for youth with post-pubertal onset of gender dysphoria.​

​

Professor Christopher Gillberg, an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry, and who gave expert evidence in the British High Court regarding Keira Bell’s harmful transitioning believes prescribing drugs to delay puberty is a scandal and tantamount to conducting ‘a live experiment’ on vulnerable children. He said “In my years as a physician, I cannot remember an issue of greater significance for the practice of medicine. We have left established evidence-based clinical practice and are using powerful life-altering medication for a vulnerable group of adolescents and children based upon a belief.”​

Pubert blockers for Under 18s are banned in the UK...

Puberty blockers: Indefinite ban to be introduced

Health Secretary Wes Streeting says the way the drugs have been used is a "scandal" following a review.

www.bbc.com

They are about to be banned in Northern Ireland...

Puberty blockers set for indefinite ban in Northern Ireland

Puberty blockers suppress the release of hormones and are prescribed to children questioning their gender.

www.bbc.com

... and it looks like Scotland will follow suit

Scotland to follow UK ban on puberty blockers for under-18s

The temporary ban on drugs being given to under-18s questioning their gender identity had already been extended twice.

www.bbc.com

The tide is turning on the Gender Affirming Care industry, and its about time!

 

[acbytesla]

York University did far more than "a quick Google Scholar search", they did a systematic review. You'll find the results in the Cass review, if you ever bother to read it.

Yes, they did. So did the American Tobacco Institute when they had Universities create reports that said tobacco use didn't cause cancer. There are also scientists that write that global warming isn't true.

But that DOESN'T mean that it was transparent, used scientific methodology or provided correct conclusions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Still waiting for your links.

 

[Elaedith]

Yes, they did. So did the American Tobacco Institute when they had Universities create reports that said tobacco use didn't cause cancer. There are also scientists that write that global warming isn't true.

But that DOESN'T mean that it was transparent, used scientific methodology or provided correct conclusions.

Please feel free to enlighten us as to what was wrong with the methodology of the systematic reviews conducted by the University of York (and all the others conducted in Sweden, Finland, New Zealand that have shown the same thing), and why you think the methodology of studies supporting GAC for minors is sound despite all these findings, with links to examples and analysis.

 

[Hercules56]

Yes it has.


It has been tested. And mental wellness is desired and beneficial.

By that logic, we should allow children to cut off their arms, legs, ears, tongue. Gouge out an eye. If they feel it will be emotionally beneficial.

 

[acbytesla]

Please feel free to enlighten us as to what was wrong with the methodology of the systematic reviews conducted by the University of York (and all the others conducted in Sweden, Finland, New Zealand that have shown the same thing), and why you think the methodology of studies supporting GAC for minors is sound despite all these findings, with links to examples and analysis.

I did in a post yesterday.

 

[acbytesla]

By that logic, we should allow children to cut off their arms, legs, ears, tongue. Gouge out an eye. If they feel it will be emotionally beneficial.

Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy. Very good. LOL

 

[d4m10n]

If a politician decides to self-identify as the opposite sex, are they then entitled to vote on matters that you say only affect their newly-changed sex?

Right now they all think themselves entitled to vote on matters effecting both sexes, cross-sex i.d. wouldn't change anything.

It doesn’t only affect one sex. It affects both sexes, just asymmetrically. As a male, am I allowed to enter the women’s locker room? That affects me.

As a male, you should stay out of that room and out of decisions regarding that room; it's not for people like us.

Some of those males are fathers who have a responsibility for the safety and dignity of their female children...

Female children who happen to work in the Capitol Building? Nepotism & patriarchy together like PB+J.

 

[Elaedith]

I did in a post yesterday.

No you didn't. You posted a massive junk of text from the so-called 'Yale Critique', a non peer-reviewed hit piece from the Yale Integrity Project prepared for use in litigation and co-authored by individuals with a strong vested interest in maintaining current practice, including those whose own research was rated low quality in the Cass Review. The paper contains nothing which undermines any conclusions of the review. There is zero evidence that you have any ability to understand or evaluate the research yourself. You are simply uncritically accept anything that supports your pre-determined conclusion.
The errors and misrepresentations in the Yale piece have been covered in this peer-reviewed paper which you won't bother to read.

 

[Ziggurat]

As a male, you should stay out of that room and out of decisions regarding that room

You are contradicting yourself. You are simultaneously making a decision about who can enter the room (I can't) and saying that we males shouldn't make any decisions about who can enter the room. You can't have it both ways. Nor have you even addressed the fact that the decision still affects me.

Female children who happen to work in the Capitol Building? Nepotism & patriarchy together like PB+J.

Are you under the impression that children never visit the Capitol building?

 

[d4m10n]

You are simultaneously making a decision about who can enter the room (I can't) and saying that we males shouldn't make any decisions about who can enter the room.

I'm not making the decision, I'm in no position to vote on it. If I were, though, I would choose to let the women decide for themselves how to dispose of their own spaces. You would evidently prefer to have males decide for them.

Are you under the impression that children never visit the Capitol building?

I'm not under the impression that they visit so often as to drive site policy.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not making the decision

You made a decision when you concluded I should stay out of the women's bathroom. Or were you appealing to the decision made by men that men should stay out of the women's bathrooms in Congress? Because you're also claiming that's not a valid decision because it wasn't made by the right people.

Your position is incoherent.

 

[d4m10n]

You made a decision when you concluded I should stay out of the women's bathroom.

I had an opinion on Brexit as well, but didn't think I should get a vote.

Or were you appealing to the decision made by men that men should stay out of the women's bathrooms in Congress?

Congressmen made that decision despite the fact that Congresswomen would have decided the other way.

That's distilled essence of patriarchy: men protecting women from making their own decisions about their own resources.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you think you can eliminate some biological males from feeling they are deep inside actually female?

I think that effective therapy to bring their feelings/beliefs into alignment with reality could help with that.

But that's pretty much beside the point. I don't care how strongly a male feels that they're a female deep, deep inside - they aren't. The strength of their feelings doesn't magically change reality, and in reality they are male.

I don't think that the rest of society should be obligated to take part in their false belief. I definitely don't think that female humans should be expected or forced to relinquish our boundaries, our right to withhold consent, and our reasonable safeguards in order to affirm a male's false perception.

Look - Some people* truly feel that they are actually infants deep inside. They feel a deep compulsion to dress in infants clothing, wear diapers, etc. Let's say that you accept that their feelings, their perception of their inner self, are 100% genuine. Okay, now what? Do you think that entitles objectively adult people to go to daycare centers and demand that the caretakers treat them as if they are a perfectly normal infant, indistinguishable from the other infants in their care? Do you think that the caretakers should be obligated to change their diapers and clean their dirty asses? Do you think it's reasonable and appropriate to affirm that individuals false perceptions despite the impact this would have on 1) the other infants and 2) the caretakers?

Do you think that granting such special entitlements on the basis of an unverifiable and subjective belief, for which you have only the individual's testimony about how they feel might possible create a loophole that could be exploited by unscrupulous predators?


*People who seem to be almost exclusively male for some reason

 

[Ziggurat]

Congressmen made that decision despite the fact that Congresswomen would have decided the other way.

That's distilled essence of patriarchy: men protecting women from making their own decisions about their own resources.

You are presuming that it's their resource to begin with. Why?

Because you actually agree with sex segregation in the context of bathrooms, and you think those spaces should be given to women. How very patriarchal of you.

As for why Congressmen are making the decision, well, men got voted into office.. Women make up the majority of voters. If women didn't want men representing them, they wouldn't. But it turns out, when women vote for politicians, they don't really prioritize those politicians being women. Why would they?

And lastly, Congresswomen are not the only women using those bathrooms, so again, why do you think they should be the ones deciding this? Hell, Congresswomen have their own bathrooms, it's primarily staffers and guests who have to use the public ones. And I think there's a pretty large class split on the issue. Your preference for the opinions of upper class women who aren't strongly affected by the results over working class women who are isn't really any better than preferring that everyone gets a vote on the issue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's a difference from caring about our lived ones and being able to present solutions. Implementing laws that making it illegal for a trans person from using the toilet in a women's restroom is unlikely to will safeguard your daughter or granddaughter.

On the other hand... implementing laws that grant special entitlements to anyone who claims to be trans to have unfettered access to female single-sex toilets and showers opens up a gigantic loophole that can easily be exploited, and increases the risk to all females.

I'm perpetually baffled by this one-sides view that keeps getting presented. Seriously, there is literally no way at all to determine whether the person who says they're trans is actually trans in any meaningful way. It's entirely subjective, and it cannot be verified. All you have is their say-so. And on the basis of their say-so, you are quite content to remove any barriers and grant that person access to areas that they would not otherwise be permitted. I can't think of any other area of life where moderately rational humans would be willing to suspend all safeguards solely on the basis of words without verification.

You wouldn't give people access to bank accounts on nothing more than their claim that they're the accountholder, would you? Of course not - without verification of their identity as the actual account holder, without some sort of validation that they are who they claim to be... all you would be doing is making it easier for thieves to steal money.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Where did you come up with those stats? My bet is some transphobic person made them up and they have been cited and repeated tons of times. But that doesn't mean they are true. 95 percent of the crap being repeated about transpeople are made up. But in all fairness, the vast majority of info about anything that is found on the internet is repeated nonsense.

Stop betting and start paying attention. The actual stats, from ACTUAL PRISONS AND CRIMINAL TRACKING have been presented over and over again.

What you're doing is willfully closing your mind and rejecting things simply because you don't like them. You're equivalent to a flat earther who rejects verifiable measurements of the earth's curvature by simply saying that the measurements are made up by round-earth conspiracy nuts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My knee jerk reaction is to ask for evidence. And that doesn't qualify as a proper citation.

At some point we get awfully tired of presenting the actual ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ evidence over and over when demanded, because people ignore it, don't respond, go away for a month or two, then come back and demand the evidence again because they're willfully pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tell me when that happens.

Wi Spa
Evergreen Community College
Several prisons

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why wouldn't it happen? Because people are almost always trying to fit into their environment. They're not trying to cause issues. Wild hypotheticals or outliers doesn't necessarily require new laws that are hateful.

You say this as if sexual predators don't exist.

Nobody every preys on minors on the internet, because people aren't trying to cause problems. Therefore we shouldn't have any laws that hatefully try to protect minors from adults trying to con them into hooking up to have sex. What the ◊◊◊◊ planet are you from?

 

[d4m10n]

You are presuming that it's their resource to begin with. Why?

Because of the sign on the door and why it was put there.

Because you actually agree with sex segregation in the context of bathrooms, and you think those spaces should be given to women.

No, because it already was given to women.

Sexual dimorphism is literally why they built two separate spaces in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not afraid of gay or transgender people. I'm also not willing to discriminate angainst an individual because of hypotheticals or outliers of others that are similar.

But somehow you're perfectly content to discriminate against females in order to affirm the unverifiable innermost feelings of a fellow male.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try lobbying other males to be more accepting of males that prefer to present in traditional female garb? Why don't you make an effort to make those transgender identifying males feel safe and accepted in male single-sex spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even if MtF transgender individuals show the same degree of violent tendencies as CIS men.

"Even if males who prefer to present as females show the same degree of offending against females that male in traditional male garb do... who gives a ◊◊◊◊ about the increased risk and danger to females? Females have no call to get upset at facing increased risk, they should just suck it up so these males get what they want."

That's how I read this. Your complete disregard for females is quite apparent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Or as my father use to say. "While figures don't lie. Liars figure."

I have been perusing articles on Google Scholar for the last couple of hours about violence and transgendered individuals. What is clear is the judicial system is extremely harsh on transgendered individuals. Higher rates of incarceration across the board.. So let's say your information is somewhat correct. Is the reason that they are actually more violent? Or that they are simply incarcerated more often for the same offenses? Or a combination of both. Also, there seems to be a dearth of data.

You're not going to like this, but I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about your feelings. I'm not here to make you feel good and to prop up your baseless beliefs.

The reason is that an extremely high proportion of males who currently identify as transgender are autogynephilic. Autogynephilia is a behavioral disorder (a subtype of transvestic disorder) where the male gets sexual arousal from imagining themselves as female, from being treated the way they believe females should be treated, or from forcing females to tolerate and affirm their presentation. It's a paraphilia.

Even more, it's a paraphilia that is clustered with a set of other paraphilias that are meaningfully correlated with sexual offending, as well as with narcissistic behavioral profiles. Sexual sadism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and transvestitism are all precursor paraphilias that frequently escalate to violent sexual offenses - almost always against females.

Not all transgender identified males are autogynephilic... but under the current, modern description of transgender that we're being force-fed, they are a massive majority. That's why they have a higher rate of incarceration - because they have a higher rate of offending. Because they have a paraphilia that has long been documented with a correlation to sex crimes.

 

[ahhell]

Youth transition is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ complicated and hard thing to figure out.
A. Our brains aren't fully adult until the mid 20s, that's pretty clear from various MRI type studies. The "Its a phase" thing is real with a lot of kids.
B. Once you've gone through puberty, its a lot harder to pass as the other sex.
C. I'm not sure of this one but I've have read and heard that not allowing folks to go through puberty as their biological gender makes the bottom surgery significantly more difficult because there is typically less tissue to work with.

All that being said, we need to be able to reliable identify folks that will continue to have gender disphoria as adults when they are children in order to justify youth transitions(other than social). I'm not convinced we can do that yet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is far from clear that the justice system is harsh, never mind extremely harsh, on trans-identifying individuals in the UK.

I am unclear why you keep talking about violent offences when the figures you challenged and the ones provided to you pertain to sex offences.

Given the vast number of males who have commited sex offenses, and then essentially gotten a slap on the wrist because they said they identified as trans... I would argue that they are NOT treated harshly.

Honestly, UK seems to have a catch-and-release program for transgender sex offenders and pedophiles.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes you do. The more I read, the more I see trans-identifying MtF individuals being treated harshly by the judicial and penal systems. Of far more violence committed against such individuals than by such individuals against society.

From what I have read in article after article today, assaults on such individuals is magnitudes more. They are assaulted, murdered and resort to suicide far higher than the general population.

10 worldwide in the last four years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender#2020s

In contrast... the safest country for females appears to be Singapore, which only had a femicide rate of 0.3 per year per 100,000 females in the populace.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/femicide-rates-by-country

 

[theprestige]

Why wouldn't it happen? Because people are almost always trying to fit into their environment. They're not trying to cause issues. Wild hypotheticals or outliers doesn't necessarily require new laws that are hateful.

We have already seen cases where legalized fiat self-ID removes for some sex pests the compunction to fit into their environment. We have seen cases where men have gone into women's spaces to dominate them, to cause issues for the women in them, openly. We have seen that legalized fiat self-ID gives them confidence to cause issues, knowing that the women they're harassing will face substantial social and legal problems if they object.

We have seen, cited, and discussed such cases. And similar incidents continue to roll in. Which you would know, if you were actually interested in addressing the problems of fiat self-ID in public policy.