Transgenderism

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

Transgenderism is just one of those topics the silent majority steers clear of. No point getting in to trouble talking about it. 

I dont talk about it to be honest in real life as its hard not to say something without offending someone on the subject 

 

[VILLAMARV]

8 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I'm sure you're aware of endless numbers of gay people who didn't fully come to terms with their sexuality until their twenties or later, though? It's a complex thing for people to navigate. I think that alone should give you pause for thought here.

Why would it need to give me pause for thought? Especially if you're sure I'm aware. I don't dispute other people's experiences are other people's experiences. Where have I said what you're telling me I meant? This is strawman territory surely?

Quote

You've also got to consider that not everyone who wants to transition is dispassionately assessing the risks and effect on their lives. Autism is hugely overrepresented in the trans community, with research suggesting up to 25% of trans people are on the spectrum. Puberty is just a difficult time for a lot of people. Lots of teenagers struggle with depression or other mental issues. I remember all sorts of weird kids in sixth form who in retrospect were clearly struggling in various ways. There was one attention-seeking kid who decided he was gay but infamously changed his mind about that five seconds into his first sexual experience with another man. There were plenty of kids who thought it was cool to cut themselves. Lots of people (myself included) did stupid things trying to show off to seem cool.

Should any of those people have been 'saved from themselves'? that's my question. I don't know where you've got the idea that I've not considered these things?

Quote

So if you were a level-headed teenager who had a pretty good sense of yourself then that's great, but you're not really the type of person that these controls are trying to protect.

Well no, I don't want to transition. But why are we focussing on 'protecting' the ones who might change their minds in the future and not 'protect' say the potentially suicidal kids not being given access to medical help?

Quote

Teenagers frequently make terrible, immature decisions and these drugs can have life-changing consequences. There's real consent issues around heavily autistic people too (particularly if they are also minors).

That's why the bit about "I get that kids are sometimes stupid and often don't know what they are talking about."

But I'm interested in learning about the consequences as I've already said. There's mention in the thread of potentially dangerous outcomes and imagine what x or y would do to you. I'm just asking people wiser than I to share what that actually means.

Quote

I'm not sure if I think totally banning hormone therapy for under 18s is necessary, but I do think the drugs need to be tightly restricted.

Cool.

[VILLAMARV]

34 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Actually what was discussed (if you wanted to read the posts) was invasive medical treatment on children. Specifically puberty blockers. Puberty begins in children aged 10-11yo.

You say medical treatment I say medical treatment.

struggling to see the problem sorry.

[Panto_Villan]

50 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Why would it need to give me pause for thought? Especially if you're sure I'm aware. I don't dispute other people's experiences are other people's experiences. Where have I said what you're telling me I meant? This is strawman territory surely?

Should any of those people have been 'saved from themselves'? that's my question. I don't know where you've got the idea that I've not considered these things?

Well no, I don't want to transition. But why are we focussing on 'protecting' the ones who might change their minds in the future and not 'protect' say the potentially suicidal kids not being given access to medical help?s.

Yeah, if any of those people are in danger of causing themselves significant harm then they absolutely should have been saved from themselves. 

That's a well-established principle in our society. It's the law that you have to wear a seatbelt for your own protection. Paracetemol can only be bought two packets at a time to make it harder for people to overdose on it. Student halls frequently have windows that don't open properly on upper windows so people can't easily jump out. Prison bedding and cutlery is designed so prisoners find it harder to kill themselves, and prisoners who are at risk of suicide get put on suicide watch, and so on. You can literally be locked up in a mental institution purely for your own protection if society thinks it is necessary.

I haven't said anything about suicidal kids not being given access to medical help. But medical help comes in more forms than just life-changing drugs, and something like psychological support might well be more valuable if the person is at the point of suicide. I'm simply pointing out that we need to be absolutely sure that it isn't a passing phase or the person isn't suffering from other conditions before they do start taking the drugs, which isn't mutually exclusive from allowing people who don't have those risk factors to transition. The focus here is on the controls mostly because you called it "bizarre gatekeeping" in your original post and said you couldn't understand the motivation of anyone trying to do it.

As for the strawman, no, I don't think it's a strawman at all. But I suggest we stop arguing about that particular point as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

[desensitized43]

6 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah, if any of those people are in danger of causing themselves significant harm then they absolutely should have been saved from themselves. 

That's a well-established principle in our society. It's the law that you have to wear a seatbelt for your own protection. Paracetemol can only be bought two packets at a time to make it harder for people to overdose on it. Student halls frequently have windows that don't open properly on upper windows so people can't easily jump out. Prison bedding and cutlery is designed so prisoners find it harder to kill themselves, and prisoners who are at risk of suicide get put on suicide watch, and so on. You can literally be locked up in a mental institution purely for your own protection if society thinks it is necessary.

I haven't said anything about suicidal kids not being given access to medical help. But medical help comes in more forms than just life-changing drugs, and something like psychological support might well be more valuable if the person is at the point of suicide. I'm simply pointing out that we need to be absolutely sure that it isn't a passing phase or the person isn't suffering from other conditions before they do start taking the drugs, which isn't mutually exclusive from allowing people who don't have those risk factors to transition. The focus here is on the controls mostly because you called it "bizarre gatekeeping" in your original post and said you couldn't understand the motivation of anyone trying to do it.

As for the strawman, no, I don't think it's a strawman at all. But I suggest we stop arguing about that particular point as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

This is really where I am on this too. I think these young people need to be given help but we have to remember that they’re still minors. You really can’t go around prescribing life changing drugs that will do things to their bodies that cannot be undone. The help has to be  in the form of talking therapies to help them understand what’s happening and support their emotional state. The counter argument that I’ve seen of “well if you don’t let them have the drugs then some of them will inevitably take their own lives” feels a bit like blackmail to me.

[mjmooney]

This one is going to cause a kerfuffle. 

Quote

man has admitted abducting a primary school girl while dressed as a woman before sexually assaulting her at his home in the Scottish Borders.

Andrew Miller, who is also known as Amy George, offered to give the girl a lift home in February of this year.

The 53-year-old instead drove her to his own house, locked her in a bedroom and refused to let her leave.

He then subjected her to a series of sexual assaults over the course of the next 27 hours

BBC

[StefanAVFC]

What does being dressed as a woman got to do with the crimes though?

He/her is an absolute stain, regardless of their gender.

[mjmooney]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

What does being dressed as a woman got to do with the crimes though?

He/her is an absolute stain, regardless of their gender.

Quite. But you just know the Fail/Excess and their readers are going to lap it up. 

Child abusers are understandably vilified, but then the skewed stereotyping comes into play: 

Abuser is trans? Proves than trans people are all evil perverts. 

Abuser is Muslim? Proves that all Muslims are evil perverts. 

Abuser is white/British/'Christian'? Proves that... oh, wait. 

[sharkyvilla]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

What does being dressed as a woman got to do with the crimes though?

He/her is an absolute stain, regardless of their gender.

In this instance, maybe a child would be more inclined to go with a woman than a man?  I remember back in the day we had those lessons on not to talk to strangers and it was always creepy men used.  The girl showed incredible bravery and intelligence to escape like that.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

In this instance, maybe a child would be more inclined to go with a woman than a man?  I remember back in the day we had those lessons on not to talk to strangers and it was always creepy men used.  The girl showed incredible bravery and intelligence to escape like that.

Maybe. I do think it feeds a narrative though.

[AVFC_Hitz]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Quite. But you just know the Fail/Excess and their readers are going to lap it up. 

Child abusers are understandably vilified, but then the skewed stereotyping comes into play: 

Abuser is trans? Proves than trans people are all evil perverts. 

Abuser is Muslim? Proves that all Muslims are evil perverts. 

Abuser is white/British/'Christian'? Proves that... they have a mental health problem which needs to be addressed.

 

[Chindie]

You've had a good run, trans people, but 'the government in waiting' sees more votes in TERFs than you, so jog on.

 

[Davkaus]

Here's the full article without the ragebait.

I'm very open to the view that their approach doesn't go fair enough, but read the first few paragraphs, then re-read that Tweet, and that's probably enough for me to write off "LeftieStats".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories?CMP=share_btn_tw

Quote

Not the economy. Not the NHS. Not any of Rishi Sunak’s five increasingly dubious pledges. No, according to the Conservative party deputy chairman, Lee Anderson, the Tory election campaign should be built around demonising vulnerable LGBT+ people.

It’s a sad reflection on just how little in the way of positive vision the government now has to offer the British people. Even the word “debate” is a misnomer; a hint of the calculating cynicism the Tories now bring to such issues.

I won’t beat around the bush – the reason for Anderson’s interest is the opportunity to stoke division. Arguments about the boundaries between sex and gender-based rights now rank among the fiercest in politics. Both sides argue – rightly – that they advocate for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This should encourage a degree of care from responsible politicians. Responsible politicians would understand that this isn’t a debate to exploit, it’s people’s lives. Who they are and who, all too frequently, they suffer violence for being. Responsible politicians would put that well beyond electoral opportunism. But this is a different and desperate Tory party.

The tragedy is that transgender rights do need reform and leadership. When the last Labour government passed the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Equality Act, we broke new political ground. The former enabled trans people to legally change their gender for the first time. Meanwhile, the latter protected them – and millions of people covered by one of nine protected characteristics – from discrimination and harassment. Taken together, they are one of Labour’s crowning achievements, not just of the last period of government, of any period.

But now, in 2023, we have a much better understanding of the barriers trans people face. That is why Labour has committed to modernising the Gender Recognition Act. Changing gender is not a decision anyone makes lightly. The process is intrusive, outdated and humiliating. So we will modernise, simplify and reform the gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove invasive bureaucracy and simplify the process.

However, the law must also protect legitimate applications. Last year, the Scottish National party’s cavalier approach to reforming gender recognition laws seemed to be more about picking a fight with Westminster than bringing about meaningful change. The safeguards that were proposed to protect women and girls from predators who might abuse the system were simply not up to scratch. As a result, the Scottish government is still picking up the pieces, with trans rights no further forward.

We will not make the same mistakes. The requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria remains an important part of accessing a gender recognition certificate. That’s especially the case now that gender dysphoria is no longer classified – and stigmatised – as a psychiatric disorder. It can help refer trans people into the NHS for support services – nearly a quarter of trans people don’t know how to access transition-related healthcare. Requiring a diagnosis upholds legitimacy of applications and confidence in the system.

The current process also requires a panel of anonymous doctors to decide something of momentous significance, based on reams of intrusive medical paperwork and evidence of any surgery. This is demeaning for trans people and meaningless in practice. A diagnosis provided by one doctor, with a registrar instead of a panel, should be enough.

No doubt for the likes of Mr Anderson, even this will prove too much. Like so many in his party, he now seems keen to attack Labour’s commitment to women. Well, we take no lectures from him, or any Conservatives. Certainly not when rape charges and prosecutions are so appallingly low and the gender pay gap is widening.

Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it. We will protect and uphold it in government, including both its protected characteristics and its provision for single-sex exemptions.

We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

These policies will not please everyone. They will be attacked from all sides, in good faith and bad. But responsible politics is not about doing what is easy, it’s about doing what is right. And about refusing to descend into the gutter where the Conservatives wish to take us. Everyone deserves to be accepted, without exception and treated with respect and dignity in society.

So, Mr Anderson, you can keep your culture wars. Labour’s commitment to trans people and women is not up for debate.

 

 

[Rodders]

Yeah that fuller argument seems fine, the question as ever is around what constitutes 'reasonable' but the spirit of that piece would seem to be very supportive?

 

Also, as this thread has come up and I've just listened to this podcast episode, I thought I'd link it here, it's an interview with Jordan Gray a trans performer, discussing his experiences and issues around language. Comes across very well and I'd recommend it to those in this thread. 

How Do You Cope? …with Elis and John - S4 Jordan Gray: ‘I wasn't bitten by a radioactive woman’ - BBC Sounds 

[CVByrne]

Is the argument, people who self identify as the opposite gender should be allowed use whichever bathroom fits with the gender they identify with?

As Gender identity is determined by the individual, there is no way for other people to determine another persons gender identity other than by asking them.

So is there a situation where a biological male goes into the womens changing rooms, complies with the etiquette, and can be removed if they say they identify as a woman? 

If so can someone give me an example of a situation and how it's determined. Essentially what safeguards is the proposal in this situation.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by CVByrne

[bobzy]

9 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Is the argument, people who self identify as the opposite gender should be allowed use whichever bathroom fits with the gender they identify with?

As Gender identity is determined by the individual, there is no way for other people to determine another persons gender identity other than by asking them.

So is there a situation where a biological male goes into the womens changing rooms, complies with the etiquette, and can be removed if they say they identify as a woman? 

If so can someone give me an example of a situation and how it's determined. Essentially what safeguards is the proposal in this situation.

Why are people always so concerned with the **** toilets?  

(Edit:  In fairness, you also say changing rooms.  But still )

Edited July 24, 2023 by bobzy

[Chindie]

The toilet stuff has always been absurd.

[Rodders]

toilets stuff is weird, I mean,  as long as public toilet facilities have at least one single occupancy toilet, then what's the fuss? Makes no sense. 

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Why are people always so concerned with the **** toilets?  

(Edit:  In fairness, you also say changing rooms.  But still )

We as a society need to come up with something here that balances the rights of trans people with the safety of gender segregated spaces like say changing rooms. 

It's a complicated one to square so I'm interested in where those who want to solve problems would think we should draw the line if we were to create guidance on it. 

What guidance can someone propose.

[chrisp65]

It’s just another example of how time moves on and things sort of even themselves out.

AI is making script writers redundant right at the same time we need more toilet police.

Truly the lord moves in mysterious ways.