The 'Trans' Issue.

[Chie]

4 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

There's a good article in - surprisingly - The Guardian today by David Bell who was a consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock Clinic and was one of the early clinicians to speak about what was going on in GIDS but was ignored.  He's looking at the Cass Report

"...Those who say a child has been 'born in the wrong body', and who have sidelined child safeguarding, bear a very heavy responsibility..."

"... It has been suggested that the Cass report sought to 'appease' various interests, with the implication that those who have promoted these potentially damaging treatments have been sidelined. But in reality, it is those of us who have raised these concerns who have been silenced by trans rights activists who have had considerable success in closing down debate, including preventing conferences going ahead. Doctors and scientists have said that they have been deterred from conducting studies in this area by a climate of fear, and faced great personal costs for speaking out, ranging from harassment to professional risks and even, as Cass has experienced, safety concerns in public.

The pendulum is already swinging towards a reassertion of rationality. Cass’s achievement is to give that pendulum a hugely increased momentum. In years to come we will look back at the damage done to children with incredulity and horror"

The Cass review of gender identity services marks a return to reason and evidence – it must be defended | David Bell | The Guardian

 

Anyone interested in reading some history of what went on in GIDS at the Tavistock should read "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes, the former(?) Newsnight journalist.

Time to Think (book) - Wikipedia

Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children: Amazon.co.uk: Barnes, Hannah: 9781800751132: Books

 

Tavistock did have issues. Hence my original celebration many months ago as it seemed getting regional centres was going to help matters and give trans people better access to healthcare.

As for the Cass report. Whatever that article claims. It still doesn't change the fact that the case report ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary of what the report claims.  And demands unreasonable conditions, in order to accept that evidence.

Edited April 27 by Chie
Woeful error

[Chie]

2 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

OK.  (By the way, what do you mean by the rather disrespectful comment "people like you"?  That's not very kind...)

1.  Taking hormones does still leave a male advantage if that person has gone through male puberty.  It's obvious.

Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage - PMC (nih.gov)

Transgender Women Competing In Sports: LGBT Doctor Analyzes The Scientific Truth (youtube.com)

To take just one example, height is an advantage in many sports.  A trans-woman doesn't suddenly shrink because they're taking hormones to suppress testosterone production.  That's literally bollocks.

 

2.  I'm not particularly into boxing, but who are you talking about?  Is it Patricio Manuel?

Obviously not all men are better than all women in "athletic" ability.  Some women who are very talented will be better than some men - possibly even most men.  I'm not at all surprised that a biological woman boxer could knock out a man.  (Although if you are referring to Manuel they've never knocked anyone out according to Wikipedia so I don't really know what you are saying.  If it isn't Manuel who is it?)

I used to play mixed hockey and I got a concussion from a girl much smaller than me.  It happens.

If you are talking about Manuel I note that they fight at super featherweight which has a maximum weight of 59 kg.  I can easily imagine that an athletic and well put together biological woman who has been taking testosterone could defeat a 9 stone man who I would consider underdeveloped.  (I remember when Johnny Owen died many boxing experts suggested that it had been a mismatch because anybody weighing as little as he did from the UK must have been underdeveloped and malnourisdhed compared to his similar weight opponent from a developing country.  He boxed at an even lighter weight than Manuel - 54kg? - but the point remains the same)

I suspect any trans-man boxing at middleweight or above against a reasonably developed man  would get slaughtered.

 

3.  In any case, what a trans-man can achieve in a sporting activity against men is irrelevant when it comes to considering the inherent advantages that a trans-woman who has undergone male puberty carries over when competing against women.

 

4.  It's also irrelevant that Lia (isn't that the correct spelling?) Taylor only won one event.  (I don't know if that's true or not, but let's assume it is). 

As I've already pointed out above, some women will always out-compete some men.  Nobody who argues that trans-women should be excluded from women only sports are doing so because trans-women will always win.  They do so because trans-women have an inherent advantage over all the women they beat or displace from the sport.  That is the issue.  (Laurel Hubbard is a case in point.  By selecting her for the 2020 Olympics NZ unfairly denied a woman competitor from the Oceania region from participating in the Games.  And again it's irrelevant that Hubbard actually bombed out.  Makes it even worse actually).

This is also one of the reasons why men are excluded from women's only events.  It's not because they will always win, it's because they will always have unfairly beaten any women behind them in the rankings.

It's also clear that Taylor must have had an unfair advantage over women as they had a pretty mediocre record as a male but soared through the rankings in "women only" events.    A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying Advantages of Lia Thomas (swimmingworldmagazine.com)

 

5.  What's with ending sentences with "No?"?   Are you a moody teenager?

 

Basically everything you've written "Regarding sport..." makes me think that you have no understanding at all of what sport and fair competition is about.  You haven't got a clue.

And just to be clear, neither I nor anybody else wants to exclude trans-women from participating in sport.  What they can't do is participate in the protected category of women-only events. 

If it's the principle of just competing that counts, they can compete in the men's or open categories as whether or not they win or do well won't matter to them.  (Although I suspect if they have no chance of winning or doing well they suddenly won't be so bothered about "just being able to compete and take part..."

People like you meaning people like you. Idk how else to say that.

1. That study is done by Emma Hilton, a member of "Sex Matters", a highly transphobic hate group, who have pumped out all kinds of nonsense about trans people. It's can't be taken seriously and into account as the researcher is biased to one particular extreme view point. As for the YouTube video, im struggling to find any existence of him as a doctor outside of his social media platform. To me, that's a video on YouTube, pinch of salt etc. If you want a reasonable study, read the one done by the American Military a few years back. It shows a small advantage and disadvantage in the people it tested, acknowledged the reduction in muscle, strength etc etc and if I remember correctly, didn't call for a ban, but an extension of the time someone is on HRT before they are allowed to compete as there was a clear on going decline etc. Don't quote me on that last bit, it's been a long time since I read it.

2. I made a mistake. I thought it was by knockout. He still won though, whether featherweight or not. It was only not so long ago that the claim was "a cis woman could never beat a trans woman" and "a trans man could never beat a cis man". Iv heard that said to me in person by numerous idiots over here. Yet that has been proven wrong in that instance. You mention heavier weight classes, you can suspect, but if it was proven incorrect at this level, it could very well be proven wrong at higher levels.

3. Of course it matters. You can't just ignore it. It's literally the opposite of what the anti trans peeps claim. It's like the bathroom issue. They don't want to acknowledge trans men in that debate as, forcing trans men back into women's bathrooms, would literally force masculine male looking trans men, that you can't tell apart from cis men, into the same space as cis women. Not that I think the trans men would do anything to them, not at all. I just think it's kinda funny that in theory, it opens the door to the exact same thing that they are accusing trans women of doing, that they currently aren't. Aka actually cis pervy guy claiming "I'm a trans man I belong in here". I don't genuinely think that btw, I just think the irony is amusing.

4. They still aren't always winning, they still aren't always placing first. The majority of medals and records are still being set by cis women and trans women are not dominating in the way the anti trans lot claim. Whenever I ask anyone to give examples they always come up with the same 3/4 names. That's out of the thousands of trans competitors all over the world, who are not managing to outperform their cis counterparts. Genetics and genetic susceptibility will always play a huge role in sport. And outliers will always exist. Take me, as iv said before, im trans. I did the ancestry DNA test that included the traits aspect about two years ago. I discovered from that, that I have something called the sprinter gene and also a genetic trait that allows my body to be able to handle higher than average levels of oxygen in the lungs. In theory, if I got off my ass more, I could probably train myself to quite a high standard and become a pretty decent sprinter. Would my success be because of what I was born as, or as a result of hitting the genetic lottery? How would you tell? There are plenty of cis women out there who have these traits also who DO actually dominate their respective sports. Is that fair on other women who don't have those traits? Should we start testing the genetics of all competitors to see if they are able to compete against their peers fairly?

5. Yes.

My idea of fairness in sport would be what I wrote just above "testing the genetics of all competitors" and then placing people into categories that align with others on their genetic and physical level.

You say: "If it's the principle of just competing that counts, they can compete in the men's or open categories". It's not though, every sports person wants to do their best and score as highly as they can. Thats the whole idea behind "competitive sport". You can't force trans women into the mens category as 1. They aren't men. And 2. They would be at a significant disadvantage due to the effects of HRT on the body. THAT is what wouldn't be fair.

[Chie]

5 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

How can a typo convert "boomers were 58% more likely to watch transgender porn than younger folks" into something with a completely different meaning - "Apparently 58% of you [boomers presumably] regularly search it up"?

In any case, that "research" doesn't tell you anything about boomers - it only tells you something about the viewing habits of people who watch porn online - who I'd suggest are from from representative of the population, whether boomers or "younger folks"

1. Heat of the moment. Idk what to tell you. It happens.

2. That's still your suggestion though. Data shows 58% of boomers who watch porn online are into trans porn.

And 58% is still 58% tho.

I charge for photos, just so you know. Good rates though.

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, Chie said:

 

2. Data shows 58% of boomers who watch porn online are into trans porn.

 

You’ve still not got it right .

The article says older people ( boomers) are 58% more likely to watch trans porn than younger people.

Not the same at all. 

[HeliX]

The Cass Report is a good exercise in how to build a "review" to suit a pre-determined outcome.

[The Voice of Reason]

Let’s hope the Cass Report heralds the beginning of a return to common sense.

[HeliX]

5 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Let’s hope the Cass Report heralds the beginning of a return to common sense.

They had a proponent of conversion therapy selecting which studies were to be included or not. Does that sound like common sense?

[Ghost Ship]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

They had a proponent of conversion therapy selecting which studies were to be included or not. Does that sound like common sense?

Who was that?

[HeliX]

7 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

Who was that?

Tilly Langton.

[Ghost Ship]

On 4/29/2024 at 12:34 PM, HeliX said:

The Cass Report is a good exercise in how to build a "review" to suit a pre-determined outcome.

Are you suggesting that the author of the Cass Review* - a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - would put her name to some sort of "bogus" review of the evidence that had a pre-determined outcome?

That sounds as if you are saying she acted in bad faith and unprofessionally, and not in the best interests of children.

It seems like a very bold claim and I'd have thought it was potentially defamatory(?) unless you have reliable evidence with which to back it up.  So far as I'm aware many people and bodies who initially questioned the independence and good faith of the Review are now backtracking rather rapidly.

Even Dawn Butler - I understand - had the good grace to acknowledge and to apologise to the House of Commons that she might have misled them by making claims about the Review that were not accurate, and which she only understood were unfounded after she had spoken with Dr Cass herself.

Labour's Dawn Butler 'inadvertently misled' House on Cass report (thepinknews.com)

Presumably you might not have had a similar opportunity to clarify your obvious concerns with the Review's author...?

 

*It is an Independent Review, not a "Report".  Commissioned by NHS England and and NHS Improvenment, neither of which are "transphobic" bodies and neither of which would want a pre-determined outcome.  They would want an evidence-based outcome rather than one based on some unsubstantiated and unscientific belief or point of view.

Edited April 30 by Ghost Ship

[Ghost Ship]

23 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Tilly Langton.

Who is she?  I'm not familiar with the name.

Can you help me find her?  I've just quickly searched the final review PDF for "Langton" and there are only 9 hits and they all seem(?) to be references to articles.

Can you point me to where it says that she had a hand in selecting which studies could or could not be considered?

Thanks

[HeliX]

17 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

Who is she?  I'm not familiar with the name.

Can you help me find her?  I've just quickly searched the final review PDF for "Langton" and there are only 9 hits and they all seem(?) to be references to articles.

Can you point me to where it says that she had a hand in selecting which studies could or could not be considered?

Thanks

She's one of the authors of the study protocol.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Study-Protocol-Final-Ethics-Application-Nov-2021.pdf

[HeliX]

18 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

Are you suggesting that the author of the Cass Review* - a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - would put her name to some sort of "bogus" review of the evidence that had a pre-determined outcome?

That sounds as if you are saying she acted in bad faith and unprofessionally, and not in the best interests of children.

It seems like a very bold claim and I'd have thought it was potentially defamatory(?) unless you have reliable evidence with which to back it up.  So far as I'm aware many people and bodies who initially questioned the independence and good faith of the Review are now backtracking rather rapidly.

Even Dawn Butler - I understand - had the good grace to acknowledge and to apologise to the House of Commons that she might have misled them by making claims about the Review that were not accurate, and which she only understood were unfounded after she had spoken with Dr Cass herself.

Labour's Dawn Butler 'inadvertently misled' House on Cass report (thepinknews.com)

Presumably you might not have had a similar opportunity to clarify your obvious concerns with the Review's author...?

 

*It is an Independent Review, not a "Report".  Commissioned by NHS England and and NHS Improvenment, neither of which are "transphobic" bodies and neither of which would want a pre-determined outcome.  They would want an evidence-based outcome rather than one based on some unsubstantiated and unscientific belief or point of view.

There's a couple of articles that do a better job of articulating some of the issues than I'm going to manage at quarter past one in the morning:

https://transsafety.network/posts/tsn-statement-on-cass-final-report/

https://transsafety.network/posts/whats-the-harm-in-the-cass-recommendations/

They're well worth reading.

This is pretty good, too: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249

[Ghost Ship]

9 minutes ago, HeliX said:

She's one of the authors of the study protocol.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Study-Protocol-Final-Ethics-Application-Nov-2021.pdf

Where does she advocate conversion therapy?

[Ghost Ship]

10 minutes ago, HeliX said:

There's a couple of articles that do a better job of articulating some of the issues than I'm going to manage at quarter past one in the morning:

https://transsafety.network/posts/tsn-statement-on-cass-final-report/

https://transsafety.network/posts/whats-the-harm-in-the-cass-recommendations/

They're well worth reading.

This is pretty good, too: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249

OK.  I'll look.