[News] A woman is a woman.

[BadFish]

Deep breaths mate, you’re getting a bit inflammatory and we’re just having a sensible discussion here. I haven’t seen anyone mention religion in relation to this adult discussion we’re having

Follow the clues in the first sentence of the first line of the post you quoted.

I apologise for the aside, I didn't intend to be inflamatory, it was just an observation. Sorry to offend.

 

[Curious Orange]

From the stuff I posted earlier, it seems like if you firmly believe that a person can't change their gender, then you may be okay. What I am not sure of is if your beliefs require the backup of an imaginary sky fairy and a book of mythical stories written 2000 years ago.

Deep breaths mate, you’re getting a bit inflammatory and we’re just having a sensible discussion here. I haven’t seen anyone mention religion in relation to this adult discussion we’re having

I'll admit it, I found the @BadFish comment rather amusing.

Let's not forget that religion is also a protected characteristic... so someone deliberately insisting someone they know is religious uses specific non-conforming pronouns when they know it goes against their faith could potentially be in trouble.

I guess this further reinforces the point that, as the law stands, everyone with a protected characteristic still has the same general protections (apart from those made explicit within the Act).

 

[jcdenton08]

I think it reinforces, as with the death threats and vandalism above from some in the trans lobby, that there is a very malicious streak in some campaigners. As with JSO, it’s a strange way to try and win hearts and minds.

 

[DJ NOBO]

This is the trope.

Is there any evidence of any actual people admitting their regret later?

The case you mentioned, well, gender reassignment won't cure a mental health problem but the person may still have been appropriately gender reassigned.

I am getting a knee replacement tomorrow and I have a bad back.
I am not expecting my new knee to fix my back problem.
But I hope it may.
If it doesn't I am not sure it would be appropriate to regret the knee replacement.
That would be silly

I watched a programme once of an American young man’s swift journey from questioning himself to chemical castration.
In a video diary at the end he said , with the saddest look in his eye, “I kind of miss them “.
I’m not making a political point here it was just memorably awful to watch

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I watched a programme a few years or so back which covered this very thing. I’m sure it was the BBC. The programme incuded a number of mainly young women that had questioned their gender and quite rapidly gone down the route of taking hormone therapy and having breasts removed. It might have been around the time of some controversial stuff going on about the organisation Mermaids. Don’t quote me on that as memory a little vague. What I can say is that listening to one young woman tell her story about her regret, was pretty heartbreaking stuff.

A simple google has brought up these …

Going back: The people reversing their gender transition

How do I got back to the Debbie I was

NHS gender clinic 'should have challenged me more' over transition

Sad.

I would add follow up questions:
how common was this (actual numbers)
can this happen now?
How 'bad' is it for a person if the transition is delayed till after puberty?

I ask not because I am reluctant to change my stance.
I am interested in risk/benefit.
And it is possible that movements like 'mermaid' (which I have never heard of) may have queered the pitch.

By analogy, consider assisted death.
I have always been against it (for many reasons including equivalent to objections to early transitioning - no chance of fixing regrets).
And yet I have been touched by the numerous testimonials and dreadful stories of suffering reported widely by people forced to suffer life.
Meanwhile we have sick people online who encourage young people to kill themselves.
There is almost a cult of suicide, manipulated by bad actors.
But the risk of legitimizing or facilitating this is no reason to ban assisted suicide.

So the presence of, for example, sick people brainwashing kids into transitioning my not be sufficient reason to block all pre-pubertal realignment.
However....right now I feel I'd need strong persuasion to support pre-pubertal transitioning, on balance.
I suspect I'd need to get the views of a dozen or so TG women to form a settled opinion.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This sounds like something from the Chinese Communist Party

Hate speech and re-education until we get to the correct outcome...

Nonsense.

It is simply being considerate.
If you are unclear about the impact of thoughtless epithets, have a chat with someone coloured.
Or a poof, mong or spastic.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And the SC judgement changes nothing in this regard. People with a protected characteristic of gender reassignment are still protected.

But it is now perfectly fine (well, legal) to refer to a TG woman as 'he'.
She is biologically male so plenty of people will insist on 'he ' and 'him'.
Especially if they have an axe to grind.

Luckily where I work, people typically have their pronouns as part of their email signature.
Most of them are cis pronouns, but we have a few 'they' and 'thems' (for people of biological male and female sex).

Gosh, using the language correctly is incredibly easy with a trivial amount of practice.
Who knew?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Both slightly rude and the opposite end of the scale legality? (the use of that word wasn’t an attempt to catch you out btw).

So someone who - according to the legal system - refers to someone with the established pronoun for a human emphatically born as a particular sex, should be ostracised by everyone?
You talk about respect - what about the respect for someone who believes pronouns start and stop with the sex you are born with?
Correct me if I’m wrong but i wonder if you think anyone who refers to a trans woman as he could only be vindictive.
Im not sure your view of how things should be done will fly.

That's absurd.
The law defines biological sex.
It does not define gender or pronouns.
It isn't your right to impose pronouns on other people.
Wouldn't you feel a bit guilty insisting on referring to someone with a pronoun they reject?
Would you carry on doing it even if they became distressed?
If you referred to a mate of mine's son as 'she' (as he was born) your feet wouldn't be planted on terra firma for long.

 

[Curious Orange]

I would add follow up questions:
how common was this (actual numbers)
can this happen now?
How 'bad' is it for a person if the transition is delayed till after puberty?

You probably want to look up the Dutch transgender studies, as this is where the use of puberty blockers originated.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My cousin lived with me for 2 months after feeling her Uni flat mates were some kind of phobic (honestly can't remember which) and moving out suddenly. They were sexually fluid or something (also at one point asexual in the 2 months, but that seemed to change) and asked to be called They etc. No probs, I tried my best but jeez they blew their top when I slipped up. Took it as if I was being deliberately offensive when it's just very habitual to say he/she and, as we all know, habits are a slow tanker to turn around. In the end, I had to pause a lot in most conversations (which became a bit vegan-y or everything seemed often linked to her gender. And like vegans I'm very much do/be as you choose, no worries..... but don't go on and on about it all the bleeding time). Sadly, I was quite glad when she moved out. I'm very much live and let live but it was a bit much.

I sympathize.

There is a difference between wanting to be accepted for who they are, and weaponizing it.
That said, I don't have too much difficulty with this.
Maybe its because we have a couple of 'they/them' colleagues with whom I regularly interact.

It is probably like learning to ride a bicycle.
It can take time to learn, and sadly some people can't do with without falling off no matter how much they practice.
I suppose one could use stabilizers

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

Sad.

I would add follow up questions:
how common was this (actual numbers)
can this happen now?
How 'bad' is it for a person if the transition is delayed till after puberty?

I ask not because I am reluctant to change my stance.
I am interested in risk/benefit.
And it is possible that movements like 'mermaid' (which I have never heard of) may have queered the pitch.

By analogy, consider assisted death.
I have always been against it (for many reasons including equivalent to objections to early transitioning - no chance of fixing regrets).
And yet I have been touched by the numerous testimonials and dreadful stories of suffering reported widely by people forced to suffer life.
Meanwhile we have sick people online who encourage young people to kill themselves.
There is almost a cult of suicide, manipulated by bad actors.
But the risk of legitimizing or facilitating this is no reason to ban assisted suicide.

So the presence of, for example, sick people brainwashing kids into transitioning my not be sufficient reason to block all pre-pubertal realignment.
However....right now I feel I'd need strong persuasion to support pre-pubertal transitioning, on balance.
I suspect I'd need to get the views of a dozen or so TG women to form a settled opinion.

It is sad.

I have no idea on actual numbers - they certainly covered a number in the programme I watched. But I was responding to your comment 'Is there any evidence of any actual people admitting their regret later?' - and you gave a slightly odd example/comparison re your knee replacement possibly helping with your back problem and that if it didn't, it would be silly to have regret. I honestly don't see how you can compare that to a young woman suffering with mental issues and confused re their gender ultimately having their breasts removed - which they later regret when the realise at some point that a change of gender isn't what they wanted.

As for Mermaids - they are a charity supporting young transgender people.
Some info here re previous controversy around use of chest binders for very young girls without parents knowledge. The Charity Commission launched a 2 year investigation following 62 public complaints. Mermaids also had to change information about the use of puberty blockers which they had previously incorrectly claimed was reversible. And they appointed a trustee who had attended a conference organised by a group advocating for the rights of pedophiles. Hopefully, following the outcome of the investigation, they have improved their governance to give young people the support they need.

Poor governance at Mermaids amounted to mismanagement, inquiry reveals

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You probably want to look up the Dutch transgender studies, as this is where the use of puberty blockers originated.

Right. Peer reviewed recent publication:

The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2023, Pages 398–409, https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdac029
Published: 26 January 2023

OK, looks like benefit outweighs risk to me.
Still feel uncomfortable about it, though.
Probably because the idea of jettisoning my own meat and two veg appalls me, and 'a mistake' seems particularly tragic.
But I don't trust my instincts - like with risk assessment humans always calculate based on their prejudices,
(flying = dangerous; smoking = OK in moderation, etc.)

Abstract​

Background
Twenty years ago, the Dutch Protocol—consisting of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) to halt puberty and subsequent gender-affirming hormones (GAHs)—was implemented to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.
Aim
To study trends in trajectories in children and adolescents who were referred for evaluation of gender dysphoria and/or treated following the Dutch Protocol.
Methods
The current study is based on a retrospective cohort of 1766 children and adolescents in the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria.
Results
A steep increase in referrals was observed over the years. A change in the AMAB:AFAB ratio (assigned male at birth to assigned female at birth) was seen over time, tipping the balance toward AFAB. Age at intake and at start of GnRHa has increased over time. Of possibly eligible adolescents who had their first visit before age 10 years, nearly half started GnRHa vs around two-thirds who had their first visit at or after age 10 years. The proportion starting GnRHa rose only for those first visiting before age 10. Puberty stage at start of GnRHa fluctuated over time. Absence of gender dysphoria diagnosis was the main reason for not starting GnRHa. Very few stopped GnRHa (1.4%), mostly because of remission of gender dysphoria. Age at start of GAH has increased mainly in the most recent years. When a change in law was made in July 2014 no longer requiring gonadectomy to change legal sex, percentages of people undergoing gonadectomy decreased in AMAB and AFAB.
Clinical Implications
A substantial number of adolescents did not start medical treatment. In the ones who did, risk for retransitioning was very low, providing ongoing support for medical interventions in comprehensively assessed gender diverse adolescents.
Strengths and Limitations
Important topics on transgender health care for children and adolescents were studied in a large cohort over an unprecedented time span, limited by the retrospective design.
Conclusion
Trajectories in diagnostic evaluation and medical treatment in children and adolescents referred for gender dysphoria are diverse. Initiating medical treatment and need for surgical procedures depends on not only personal characteristics but societal and legal factors as well.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is sad.

I have no idea on actual numbers - they certainly covered a number in the programme I watched. But I was responding to your comment 'Is there any evidence of any actual people admitting their regret later?' - and you gave a slightly odd example/comparison re your knee replacement possibly helping with your back problem and that if it didn't, it would be silly to have regret. I honestly don't see how you can compare that to a young woman suffering with mental issues and confused re their gender ultimately having their breasts removed - which they later regret when the realise at some point that a change of gender isn't what they wanted.

As for Mermaids - they are a charity supporting young transgender people.
Some info here re previous controversy around use of chest binders for very young girls without parents knowledge. The Charity Commission launched a 2 year investigation following 62 public complaints. Mermaids also had to change information about the use of puberty blockers which they had previously incorrectly claimed was reversible. And they appointed a trustee who had attended a conference organised by a group advocating for the rights of pedophiles. Hopefully, following the outcome of the investigation, they have improved their governance to give young people the support they need.

Poor governance at Mermaids amounted to mismanagement, inquiry reveals

No worries. I scope around for understanding by invoking analogies. They don't usually 'fit' properly.
Then I go back and have another think, and this seems to help getting to a measured position (which may or may not be correct).
There are indeed so many nuances associated with all this.

Back to the main thread, I just hope that TG people can be properly protected in law,
and not forced to do things that distress them (e.g., the toilet thing),
or be subject to distressing pronoun abuse by people insisting on their 'rights to call a spade a spade' or whatever.

 

[DJ NOBO]

That's absurd.
The law defines biological sex.
It does not define gender or pronouns.
It isn't your right to impose pronouns on other people.
Wouldn't you feel a bit guilty insisting on referring to someone with a pronoun they reject?
Would you carry on doing it even if they became distressed?
If you referred to a mate of mine's son as 'she' (as he was born) your feet wouldn't be planted on terra firma for long.

There’s something about a law that defies what can be said about a biological reality that makes me uneasy .

On consideration that’s more of a comment about my personal instinctive broader reservations about state control though.

I certainly wish no ill on trans people, and it probably wouldn’t take much to persuade me that that particular law is there for good reason.

And to be clear My own real life way of referring to trans people I meet probably doesn’t differ from yours.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There’s something about a law that defies what can be said about a biological reality that makes me uneasy .

On consideration that’s more of a comment about my personal instinctive broader reservations about state control though.

I certainly wish no ill on trans people, and it probably wouldn’t take much to persuade me that that particular law is there for good reason.

And My own real life way of referring to trans people I meet probably doesn’t differ from yours.

There’s something about a law that defies what can be said about a biological reality that makes me uneasy .

On consideration that’s more of a comment about my personal instinctive broader reservations about state control though.

I certainly wish no ill on trans people, and it probably wouldn’t take much to persuade me that that particular law is there for good reason.

Also My own real life way of referring to trans people I meet probably doesn’t differ from yours.

Apologies for my titsy response.
I understand the point about being told what to say.
When I was younger my instant reaction would be to do the opposite.
But I have a very poor ability to predict when my behaviour is going to come across as offensive.
Over the years I have caused my needless distress.
When I realize what I have done it is quite upsetting.
So I am inclined personally to try to respect what others prefer over issues that are in essence irrelevant to me.

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

No worries. I scope around for understanding by invoking analogies. They don't usually 'fit' properly.
Then I go back and have another think, and this seems to help getting to a measured position (which may or may not be correct).
There are indeed so many nuances associated with all this.

Back to the main thread, I just hope that TG people can be properly protected in law,
and not forced to do things that distress them (e.g., the toilet thing),
or be subject to distressing pronoun abuse by people insisting on their 'rights to call a spade a spade' or whatever.

Absolutely agree with all of this.

 

[Curious Orange]

Right. Peer reviewed recent publication:

The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2023, Pages 398–409, https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdac029
Published: 26 January 2023

OK, looks like benefit outweighs risk to me.
Still feel uncomfortable about it, though.
Probably because the idea of jettisoning my own meat and two veg appalls me, and 'a mistake' seems particularly tragic.
But I don't trust my instincts - like with risk assessment humans always calculate based on their prejudices,
(flying = dangerous; smoking = OK in moderation, etc.)

There is a lot written about the Dutch studies, and a lot of that with an agenda one way or another. I certainly don't pretend to understand all the science behind it, but I do feel that experimenting on minors as they did was ethically dubious at best. Clearly there is going to be a cost/benefit over the lifetime of an individual of providing (ongoing) physical treatment for a mental health issue, particularly when the effects of those treatments can be extreme (depending on the treatment(s) chosen), so should probably be reserved for extreme cases.

I'm pretty sure reading up and disentangling the various works on this topic that cite other work and checking what those citations actually are (and what they themselves cite) is a huge task in and of itself. Anyway, my advice is not to make your mind up one way or the other too quickly, the Cass Review found that the evidence on outcomes was thin, which was why it recommended not using puberty blockers unless someone had already started to do so, or outside of clinical trials.

Anyway, more reading (I have skim-read, so have no informed opinion on their value):

https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238

Edit. Apologies, I realise this is most definitely off topic in terms of the legal case.

 

[The Clamp]

Some of the pro trans groups and individuals are very nasty.

They deliberately set out to burn people’s lives.

Strange, unpleasant people who exist in a murky world.

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

Some of the pro trans groups and individuals are very nasty.

They deliberately set out to burn people’s lives.

Strange, unpleasant people who exist in a murky world.

And that’s the problem with those on the extremes in lots of areas. I can imagine there are a lot of trans men and woman - going about their lives - that are thinking ‘not in my name’ with some of what we see and hear coming from such groups.

 

[Triggaaar]

Let's not forget that religion is also a protected characteristic... so someone deliberately insisting someone they know is religious uses specific non-conforming pronouns when they know it goes against their faith could potentially be in trouble.

I don't think any religion says what pronouns we should or shouldn't use