The Gender Debate

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

It tells me that a lot of people are scared to admit what they think, because they value their membership and ability to post here. 

 

It's not as easy as it was to shut down discussion on this topic with "shut up bigot/transphobe" and nor should it be. 

 

As I said before - if you define transphobia as saying that you don't believe that a declared gender should supercede the sex of the person in many situations, that's most average people's opinion.

 

If you ask vague survey questions about supporting trans rights, yeah you'll get lots of people thinking sure, that sounds nice and progressive. 

 

If you spell out though, that you're not talking about self ID for a tiny minority of transsexuals with a medical diagnosis, but for anyone who will sign a sworn declaration - the results take a marked drop. 

 

Sure there are rabid homophobic nutballs who are using this whol debate as an excuse to be a dick to trans identifying people as well, that's true. However that's surely no excuse to not examine carefully the intended and unintended consequences of these changes to the way society functions. 

 

Posters are on at me for more evidence all the time. You accept that there *are* cases where this is a problem, but then dismiss it as hardly ever happening, or oh it's only in prison etc. To me the stakes are high enough that we shouldn't be ignoring potential risks to anyone. That's not good law making.

 

These are the cases occurring before self ID law is in place - do you think it would become less of a problem with the 'bits of paper' on the go? Why? Won't people be even more reluctant to point out any risky situation they observe?

 

make it make sense!?

 

 

 

Cloak your “beliefs” in whatever you wish, and attempt to deflect from the reality of your hateful stance to your hearts content. I just hope that somewhere in the peasized heart you maintain you realize the world has, and will continue too, change…and that the hateful assault you continue to launch starts to bother you.

[f_c_dundee]

3 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

Agreed, the gender critters don't have a voice or a platform, for fear of being shunned. Kathleen Stock was only in all the papers 5 days of last week. Graham Linehan has been on the BBC, GB News and the Times within the last 6 weeks. Folks are being deplatformed left and right. Imagine not having the right to be transphobic on a Scottish football forum!

Which is a legitimate fear - after all, there were a whole 195 of them in Ireland last year - https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2022/07/08/number-of-gender-recognition-certs-issued-hits-highest-level-in-2021/

'Trans identifying' is a slur, as you well know. It's not the first time you've used it either. 

 

Judging an entire group of people on the actions of a tiny minority...there's a word for that...

Currently about 5,000 trans people in the UK hold a GRC out of a population circa half a million. It doesn't make the other 495,000 not trans. Relevant to your last question - Katy Montgomerie holds a GRC. It doesn't seem to put loads of people off replying to her with 'you're a bloke', posting pictures of her pre-transition and deadnaming her any time she posts on Twitter. To wit

If one's starting position is nonsense, that's going to be difficult. 

 

Show me where I said GC people don't have a voice. Or was that yet another straw man? Yup.

 

I said people on this forum may not be confident to say what they think, for fear of a ban. 

 

I'm sorry if you don't like 'trans -identifying' but clear language which identifies the sex of the people being discussed is vital, in many situations. If someone has ignored all the discussion the last umpteen years, they might be a member of the public who thinks that trans women are women who identify as men, or vice versa. That's still a common misconception. 

 

How would you prefer that trans people be referred to , in order to make their sex clear when it matters? I'm not talking about shouting on Twitter to deliberately insult people here - political discussion and legislation. I don't think we'd have got to where we are in this form of heated discussion, if debate was encouraged from the start. Rather than claiming that discussion was "debating trans people's existance" so not allowed.

 

I know how many GRC there are vs trans people, you may have noticed from when it's already been discussed and I quoted the numbers myself. 

 

It's not a "trans people are a higher risk to women and children" thing, it's MEN. There is no data whatsoever to show the risk of offending for trans women is any different to your average man. None.

 

So why do we have to always pretend that's not true? Why do we no longer need the single sex spaces that we pushed for, but should organise by self identified gender? 

 

Why do many charities working abroad have 'creating single sex facilities for women and girls protection' as one of their highest priorities, but in the US or UK for example, we just bin that and get rid of ours?

 

All I'm asking is why? There is no logic to any of this. Is that why you refuse to discuss what people actually say, rather than invent stuff or twist things completely? 

 

(Or reference a random person on Twitter which has no relevance to the post you're replying to...)

 

 

 

 

[carpetmonster]

18 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Show me where I said GC people don't have a voice. Or was that yet another straw man? Yup.

18 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

I said people on this forum may not be confident to say what they think, for fear of a ban. 

Yes, which is implying denial of voice, so no straw man. 

18 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

I'm sorry if you don't like 'trans -identifying' but clear language which identifies the sex of the people being discussed is vital, in many situations. If someone has ignored all the discussion the last umpteen years, they might be a member of the public who thinks that trans women are women who identify as men, or vice versa. That's still a common misconception. 

 

How would you prefer that trans people be referred to , in order to make their sex clear when it matters? I'm not talking about shouting on Twitter to deliberately insult people here - political discussion and legislation. I don't think we'd have got to where we are in this form of heated discussion, if debate was encouraged from the start. Rather than claiming that discussion was "debating trans people's existance" so not allowed.

It's a slur. And you're very aware of that, because you're very steeped in GC terminology. The wee winky emote after the 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' a few posts ago, for example. Trans-identified is a belittlement and is implying trans people are not who they say they are, or that transgenderism isn't really a thing. In a different context, if someone asks you where you're from and you say 'I'm Scottish' - they return with 'oh no, you have a British passport, you're just Scots-identified'. I bet there's a fair few folks would get the hump with that. 

Refer to them as trans women and trans men. That describes who they are without any need for '-identifying'. 

18 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

I know how many GRC there are vs trans people, you may have noticed from when it's already been discussed and I quoted the numbers myself. 

 

It's not a "trans people are a higher risk to women and children" thing, it's MEN. There is no data whatsoever to show the risk of offending for trans women is any different to your average man. None.

https://medium.com/@notCursedE/do-trans-women-retain-male-pattern-violence-df67954373fd

18 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

So why do we have to always pretend that's not true? Why do we no longer need the single sex spaces that we pushed for, but should organise by self identified gender? 

 

Why do many charities working abroad have 'creating single sex facilities for women and girls protection' as one of their highest priorities, but in the US or UK for example, we just bin that and get rid of ours?

 

All I'm asking is why? There is no logic to any of this. Is that why you refuse to discuss what people actually say, rather than invent stuff or twist things completely? 

 

(Or reference a random person on Twitter which has no relevance to the post you're replying to...)

You said 'people will be afraid to call out dodgy situations due to GRA' which is utter pish. You're fairly aware Katy isn't a random person, she's a relatively high-profile trans woman. Folks have no issues calling her every name under the sun simply for existing. 

ETA - you may also have seen this video knocking around at the weekend where a cisgender woman is accused of being male and removed from a woman's bathroom by Florida police. Trans people who 'pass' will be able to skirt legislation to 'keep men out of women's spaces' where those who don't, and most likely gender non-conforming individuals of either sex, will find public life increasingly hazardous. I'd wager they already do due to the currrent trans panic. 

18 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

 

 

 

Well, yeah. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by carpetmonster

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Dude, you follow some complete wrong’uns on Twitter.

Twitter is toxic enough without going looking for these bams. I can’t imagine what reading their shite all day must do to one’s psyche. 

[andyg83]

f_c_dundee is really taking a few of you to the cleaners here with such coherent clear points of view.  

 

[Wee Bully]

1 minute ago, andyg83 said:

f_c_dundee is really taking a few of you to the cleaners here with such coherent clear points of view.  

 

[carpetmonster]

5 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Dude, you follow some complete wrong’uns on Twitter.

Twitter is toxic enough without going looking for these bams. I can’t imagine what reading their shite all day must do to one’s psyche. 

No, I followed Katy a couple of years back because I was interested in why transphobia had become the new cause celebre of the right wing and the stuff she was writing on Medium was interesting and useful. It seems the algorithm is now determined to give you your own specific flavor of arsehole as Elmo goes for ‘free speech’ so because I follow her, Graham Linehan et al pop up in my ‘For You’ tab with depressing regularity. I’m sure if I followed the Anti-Nazi League it’d give me some sort of ‘Patriot front’ group in an attempt at both-sidesing. 

[f_c_dundee]

36 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

f_c_dundee is really taking a few of you to the cleaners here with such coherent clear points of view.  

 

Doesn't really matter though eh, automatically dismissed as a bigot.   

 

Seen it all the last few years. 

 

Good statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls today though:

 

https://t.co/ViNl8vGrPT

 

Supporting the right to discuss these things properly.

 

<Waits for post about why either the UN is bad or stuff Reem Alsalem has said that was wrong (or both?), but no discussion of the content of the statement or why it might be necessary.>

 

Goodnight

 

 

 

[Wee Bully]

6 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Doesn't really matter though eh, automatically dismissed as a bigot.   

 

Seen it all the last few years. 

 

Good statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls today though:

 

https://t.co/ViNl8vGrPT

 

Supporting the right to discuss these things properly.

 

<Waits for post about why either the UN is bad or stuff Reem Alsalem has said that was wrong (or both?), but no discussion of the content of the statement or why it might be necessary.>

 

Goodnight

 

 

 

No-one is stopping you discussing it.

It’s a bit like letting Nick Griffin speak on Question Time.  The more people see how repugnant your views are, the better.

[f_c_dundee]

I just see massive levels of cognitive dissonance to hold all that stuff in your head and believe it's fine. 

 

I don't see anyone giving a reasoned argument to dispute what I'm saying. 

 

Repugnant, bigot, transphobe is just name calling. Makes it look like there's nothing coherent to say to me.

 

No comments on the statement linked above? 

 

Crack on and ask everyone you meet if "think about what all this means in real life" is akin to the BNP, go ahead. 

 

No one is advocating treating trans people poorly or removing current protections in law. The wholesale adoption of self ID is not a neutral act though. 

The medical treatment of minors across the world for something which is also not a medical condition (?) has no research into long term outcomes. None.

The numbers in distress after this treatment doesn't help them are now clearly increasing - how people can justify that risk is beyond me. The majority of clinics have high rates of "lost to follow up" patients and apparently zero fucks given to monitor those outcomes. 

 

Making plenty in the USA for doctors and surgeons though I guess. 

 

There are indeed Christian groups (in the USA especially) and frothing bigots making hay with shouting about this situation. No one has yet explained to me though,  why they think a bunch of mainly left leaning women of all ages have got together with some people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to try to force discussion.  Did we collectively lose our minds overnight? Or do you have a better explanation than the fact we all have real concerns?

 

I ken just talking about Dundee having no manager and a team of 3 men and maybe a dog is depressing, but really - why would I be doing this to myself? Do you reckon I love being sneered at regularly? 

 

 

[carpetmonster]

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

I just see massive levels of cognitive dissonance to hold all that stuff in your head and believe it's fine. 

 

I don't see anyone giving a reasoned argument to dispute what I'm saying. 

 

Repugnant, bigot, transphobe is just name calling. Makes it look like there's nothing coherent to say to me.

 

No comments on the statement linked above? 

On the UN observer's statement? That's her point of view. Any comment on the other UN observer Victor Madrigal-Borloz's statement from last week? - https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136567

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Crack on and ask everyone you meet if "think about what all this means in real life" is akin to the BNP, go ahead. 

 

No one is advocating treating trans people poorly or removing current protections in law. The wholesale adoption of self ID is not a neutral act though. 

Yes they are - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/ehrc-equality-act-trans-rights-sex-definition-legal-biological/

You'll see an article in tomorrow's Daily Mail about how the head of the EHRC is being subjected to a 'TRA conspiracy' when if you read closer it's more that her own staff are horrified by her proposals. 

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

The medical treatment of minors across the world for something which is also not a medical condition (?) has no research into long term outcomes. None.

Carefully worded, but the medical treatment of gender dysphoria has been proven to have beneficial outcomes; 'minor' is doing some heavy lifting here, and even then it's an '-ish' 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36149983/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A Gender-affirming surgery is,without any reported patient regret.

 

 

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

The numbers in distress after this treatment doesn't help them are now clearly increasing - how people can justify that risk is beyond me. The majority of clinics have high rates of "lost to follow up" patients and apparently zero fucks given to monitor those outcomes. 

The regret rate for gender affirming surgery - actual surgery, and not just care via counseling/hormone therapy - is around 1% - https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b

By contrast the regret rate for knee replacement surgery is between 20 and 33% - https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/knee-replacement-surgery-regret.html 

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Making plenty in the USA for doctors and surgeons though I guess. 

Good luck getting US insurance companies to pay up for gender affirming care; in the cases they'll do so, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required first. I'm currently fighting a claim where the insurance company has deemed a pregnancy scan 'excessive' and won't pay for it, despite it being recommended by my wife's midwife to the tune of $400. 

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

There are indeed Christian groups (in the USA especially) and frothing bigots making hay with shouting about this situation. No one has yet explained to me though,  why they think a bunch of mainly left leaning women of all ages have got together with some people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to try to force discussion.  Did we collectively lose our minds overnight? Or do you have a better explanation than the fact we all have real concerns?

Who's left leaning? Kellie-Jay Keen who had/has a profile pic of a Barbie in a Nazi uniform? Helen Joyce, who prior to becoming a full time activist worked as the Brazil editor of The Economist? Maya Forstater - she of the 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' but takes coin off the UK outpost of Alliance Defending Freedom?

42 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

I ken just talking about Dundee having no manager and a team of 3 men and maybe a dog is depressing, but really - why would I be doing this to myself? Do you reckon I love being sneered at regularly? 

 

 

I've no idea, that's a question for you and your motivations. 

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by carpetmonster

[andyg83]

14 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

No-one is stopping you discussing it.

It’s a bit like letting Nick Griffin speak on Question Time.  The more people see how repugnant your views are, the better.

This is disgusting imo. Not right at all. 

[andyg83]

6 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

On the UN observer's statement? That's her point of view. Any comment on the other UN observer Victor Madrigal-Borloz's statement from last week? - https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136567

Yes they are - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/ehrc-equality-act-trans-rights-sex-definition-legal-biological/

You'll see an article in tomorrow's Daily Mail about how the head of the EHRC is being subjected to a 'TRA conspiracy' when if you read closer it's more that her own staff are horrified by her proposals. 

Carefully worded, but the medical treatment of gender dysphoria has been proven to have beneficial outcomes; 'minor' is doing some heavy lifting here, and even then it's an '-ish' 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36149983/#:~:text=Conclusion%3A Gender-affirming surgery is,without any reported patient regret.

 

 

The regret rate for gender affirming surgery - actual surgery, and not just care via counseling/hormone therapy - is around 1% - https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b

By contrast the regret rate for knee replacement surgery is between 20 and 33% - https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/knee-replacement-surgery-regret.html 

Good luck getting US insurance companies to pay up for gender affirming care; in the cases they'll do so, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required first. I'm currently fighting a claim where the insurance company has deemed a pregnancy scan 'excessive' and won't pay for it, despite it being recommended by my wife's midwife to the tune of $400. 

Who's left leaning? Kellie-Jay Keen who had/has a profile pic of a Barbie in a Nazi uniform? Helen Joyce, who prior to becoming a full time activist worked as the Brazil editor of The Economist? Maya Forstater - she of the 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' but takes coin off the UK outpost of Alliance Defending Freedom?

 

 

I've no idea, that's a question for you and your motivations. 

 

This is just a rant. Criticising individuals rather than the points being made. Nuts. 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

Neither FC Dundee, nor her views, seem repugnant to me.

She actually does well to stay calm considering all the abuse, sneering and sarcasm directed toward her.

[Zern]

6 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Neither FC Dundee, nor her views, seem repugnant to me.

She actually does well to stay calm considering all the abuse, sneering and sarcasm directed toward her.

Heh. Not surprising.

Football isn't exactly progressive. It's why even now we still have initiatives and programs to stamp out racism and homophobia.

I still remember the furore and outrage over the cross-dressing in the 80's

Mo Johnston in a Rangers tap

"IT AIN't NATURAL!!!11"

[carpetmonster]

56 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

This is just a rant. Criticising individuals rather than the points being made. Nuts. 

Which individual have I criticised and where? 

[Zern]

10 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

I just see massive levels of cognitive dissonance to hold all that stuff in your head and believe it's fine. 

 

Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating subject and i would recommend "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger which is the origin or the term.

It's not so much that there are two conflicting ideas being held. It is more about how the tension between those ideas gets resolved. How the it manifests itself in order to diminish the dissonance.

For example:

To the transphobe; there is no good reason or evidence for transgender people to receive any recognition.

Fact: In society transgender people are a minority. They do not occupy positions of power or influence. Theirs is a history or being marginalised and discriminated against. They are not part of establishment. Nor do they form any large voting bloc or political party.

And yet..

Transgender people are now recognised UK laws and have rights. Under a Conservative government.

The tension exists between the powerless position of trangender people and the granting of rights within the establishment.

How is it resolved?

One way is to recognise that there are sufficient argument in favour of those rights.

Unacceptable to the transphobe.

So they resolve the tension in another way: negate that they are powerless

That's where you get the conspiracy theory; the trans agenda, the shadowy cabal of doctors, the cultural marxists and the woke mind virus that makes their power level greater than Goku himself.

Similar to how the Q'Conspiracist explains away Trump being President and not locking up Hillary - he did not lie (that is unacceptable), therefore he was thwarted by the conspiratorial 'deep state'.

..and that's when the Nazis turn up; they love shadowy conspiracies and have 'opinions' on their preferred candidate.

Which is why you see such crossover between the groups.

 

[TxRover]

On 22/05/2023 at 10:48, f_c_dundee said:

I'm sorry if you don't like 'trans -identifying' but clear language which identifies the sex of the people being discussed is vital, in many situations. If someone has ignored all the discussion the last umpteen years, they might be a member of the public who thinks that trans women are women who identify as men, or vice versa. That's still a common misconception. 

 

How would you prefer that trans people be referred to , in order to make their sex clear when it matters? I'm not talking about shouting on Twitter to deliberately insult people here - political discussion and legislation. I don't think we'd have got to where we are in this form of heated discussion, if debate was encouraged from the start. Rather than claiming that discussion was "debating trans people's existance" so not allowed.

What a load of codswallop, all to justify your zealous adherence to the concept, which we have shown to be archaic, upon which you hang your bigotry.

11 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

The numbers in distress after this treatment doesn't help them are now clearly increasing - how people can justify that risk is beyond me. The majority of clinics have high rates of "lost to follow up" patients and apparently zero fucks given to monitor those outcomes. 

Making plenty in the USA for doctors and surgeons though I guess. 

Christ, here we go again.

1) When more people are seeking treatment, there will always be more unhappy with the treatment…that’s simple math. You allege, and yet offer no data.

2) Then you toss out the USA doctors and surgeons…almost disappointed you didn’t say making the money off children, but that would have been too easy to disprove, since such surgery is illegal except in the case of intersex individuals.

So, let’s run some numbers…about 10,000 gender confirmation surgeries in the U.S. in 2021…at around about $20,000 per…wow, that’s a massive $200,000,000 in surgery, with a profit in the 10-20% range max, that’s $20-40M, that’s it. Sounds like a lot, but that’s shared between the facilities, the doctors and the owners. So a surgeon doing that surgery is making around $1,000-$1,500 in profit per surgery…yep, rolling in it. Of those surgeries, 60% are female to male, BTW…so in the U.S., you’re looking at 4,000 of your “dangerous men” per year…except, wait for it…that INCLUDES the intersex operations, so a goodly number of those “dangerous men” are in the 0-3 year-old range.

[andyg83]

5 hours ago, Zern said:

Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating subject and i would recommend "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger which is the origin or the term.

It's not so much that there are two conflicting ideas being held. It is more about how the tension between those ideas gets resolved. How the it manifests itself in order to diminish the dissonance.

For example:

To the transphobe; there is no good reason or evidence for transgender people to receive any recognition.

Fact: In society transgender people are a minority. They do not occupy positions of power or influence. Theirs is a history or being marginalised and discriminated against. They are not part of establishment. Nor do they form any large voting bloc or political party.

And yet..

Transgender people are now recognised UK laws and have rights. Under a Conservative government.

The tension exists between the powerless position of trangender people and the granting of rights within the establishment.

How is it resolved?

One way is to recognise that there are sufficient argument in favour of those rights.

Unacceptable to the transphobe.

So they resolve the tension in another way: negate that they are powerless

That's where you get the conspiracy theory; the trans agenda, the shadowy cabal of doctors, the cultural marxists and the woke mind virus that makes their power level greater than Goku himself.

Similar to how the Q'Conspiracist explains away Trump being President and not locking up Hillary - he did not lie (that is unacceptable), therefore he was thwarted by the conspiratorial 'deep state'.

..and that's when the Nazis turn up; they love shadowy conspiracies and have 'opinions' on their preferred candidate.

Which is why you see such crossover between the groups.

 

I think we have reached a new low. Even by this thread standards. 

[andyg83]

5 hours ago, TxRover said:

What a load of codswallop, all to justify your zealous adherence to the concept, which we have shown to be archaic, upon which you hang your bigotry.

Christ, here we go again.

1) When more people are seeking treatment, there will always be more unhappy with the treatment…that’s simple math. You allege, and yet offer no data.

2) Then you toss out the USA doctors and surgeons…almost disappointed you didn’t say making the money off children, but that would have been too easy to disprove, since such surgery is illegal except in the case of intersex individuals.

So, let’s run some numbers…about 10,000 gender confirmation surgeries in the U.S. in 2021…at around about $20,000 per…wow, that’s a massive $200,000,000 in surgery, with a profit in the 10-20% range max, that’s $20-40M, that’s it. Sounds like a lot, but that’s shared between the facilities, the doctors and the owners. So a surgeon doing that surgery is making around $1,000-$1,500 in profit per surgery…yep, rolling in it. Of those surgeries, 60% are female to male, BTW…so in the U.S., you’re looking at 4,000 of your “dangerous men” per year…except, wait for it…that INCLUDES the intersex operations, so a goodly number of those “dangerous men” are in the 0-3 year-old range.

dear lord