The Gender Debate

[f_c_dundee]

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.

Missed the bit where you showed the concept was clearly archaic. Hmm. Must have been in the post where anyone addressed any of the things I've *actually* said. 

<Checks for the words 'dangerous men' in my most recent posts... Nope. >

I was discussing harm to the trans patients, not what harm the patients would cause. Jings Crivvens.

 

Operations on babies, children or indeed any individuals with DSDs (not all of whom use or like the term intersex, not that you care) are vanishingly rare.  

 

You also know fine that double mastectomies on teenage girls come under the heading of "gender confirmation" surgery.  It's not all about genital surgery. 

 

Hormones and blockers are medical treatment as well and they're not harmless and reversible. 

Harmful medical treatment should surely be a last resort, not a first line solution? 

 

Yes I'm aware that x% of 10000 will be bigger than x% of 500. Simple maths indeed. But the oft quoted low "less than 2%" or whatever it is this week, of transition regret" figures are looking less and less likely to be accurate - while surgery is advertised to and performed on more young people. These low figures are often from follow up with patients within a few months of a procedure. Very little long term follow up has been bothered with, and any existing studies seem to have very low numbers and are of poor quality so far.

 

(As an example, lurkers may wish to Google the thoroughly unpleasant Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher, who liked to post pictures of young female patients after surgery with the cute hashtag 'yeet the teets'. Plus advertising to them on social media with chatty wee videos. How nice.  )

 

Definitely no money in it though, here's a lovely market projection for the sector from a few years back: projected to grow by billions! Nice! 

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market

Lots of nice figures there about the biggest players in the market and demographics (going up - surgery on girls!) . Hope that helps. 

 

 

[Wee Bully]

10 hours ago, andyg83 said:

This is disgusting imo. Not right at all. 

Others might not support her right to spout her bigoted views (although I’ve not seen anyone on here suggest that) - I do.  The more these views are ridiculed, the better.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

7 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.

 

What rights do they not have?

 

[Zern]

38 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

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

Hi there.

I doubt what you say is true.

But if you feel my post somehow crosses some threshold, the report button is right there.

Although i think you might struggle to form a coherent complaint.

f_c_Dundee said that cognitive dissonance is present in people arguing against her. She did not provide any examples of what it is or where it might be present. I thought i would provide some examples because i am familiar with the subject.

I also though it was quite funny that her posts are littered with so many examples.

[Zern]

4 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

What rights do they not have?

 

Where in my post does it say that do not have rights?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, andyg83 said:

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

 

1 hour ago, andyg83 said:

dear lord

 

On 21/05/2023 at 21:38, andyg83 said:

This thread is wild:-)

 

11 hours ago, andyg83 said:

This is disgusting imo. Not right at all. 

 

11 hours ago, andyg83 said:

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

 

Go and contribute something instead of this constant tone policing shite.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

19 minutes ago, Zern said:

Where in my post does it say that do not have rights?

 

Ok. You said they now have rights. What rights did they get?

[Zern]

35 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

 

Ok. You said they now have rights. What rights did they get?

Mostly the right to exist in law. To have their legal documents reflect their gender and legal protections against discrimination on the basis of them being transgender.

Are you going anywhere with this?

[TxRover]

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

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.

There is your “dangerous men”

And you continually suggest there is surgery occurring on teens in the U.S….which is absolutely false unless you throw in the 18-19 year-olds. What there is is the use of puberty blockers, in appropriate cases, along with counseling, neither of which causes distress or irreversible results. Your study is based upon a false premise, but you probably already knew that.

As for the behavior of a single individual, slurring a category because of that individuals actions is reprehensible.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

1 hour ago, Zern said:

Mostly the right to exist in law. To have their legal documents reflect their gender and legal protections against discrimination on the basis of them being transgender.

Are you going anywhere with this?

Yes. Away from this thread.

[f_c_dundee]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

There is your “dangerous men”

And you continually suggest there is surgery occurring on teens in the U.S….which is absolutely false unless you throw in the 18-19 year-olds. What there is is the use of puberty blockers, in appropriate cases, along with counseling, neither of which causes distress or irreversible results. Your study is based upon a false premise, but you probably already knew that.

As for the behavior of a single individual, slurring a category because of that individuals actions is reprehensible.

The post you quoted wasn't mentioning dangerous men, you were just trying to divert and make me look OTT I guess by trawling back a page or 2. 

 

I specifically mentioned the name of a surgeon who has a cavalier attitude to this surgery. There are many who do operate on teenagers. Breast removal counts.

Even in the UK 16 year olds can be referred to have their breasts amputated at age 17.  Yes that is 100% still a child. 50 girls were referred down to England for this in one year in Scotland. 

 

 

[carpetmonster]

1 hour ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Even in the UK 16 year olds can be referred to have their breasts amputated at age 17.  Yes that is 100% still a child. 

 

 

Gillick competency in the UK is applicable to under 16s, not under 18s. So in the eyes of the law related to medicine, 17 is an adult who can make their own decisions. 

[f_c_dundee]

11 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Gillick competency in the UK is applicable to under 16s, not under 18s. So in the eyes of the law related to medicine, 17 is an adult who can make their own decisions. 

Holy f**k this is not about the legality or otherwise. 

 

How the f**k are we justifying amputating the healthy breasts of teenage girls, with no good evidence that this will help at all long term?

 

Mucking around calling it 'top surgery' or 'chest masculinisation surgery' is hiding this from view. 

 

These are children, who are nowhere near their full brain development, making an irreversible decision, enabled by adults. It's wrong.

 

There are already young women who gone on to have babies (some after detransition) and the fact they'd done this and had no breasts to feed their infant was devastating to them.  I don't care if it's 10 or 100 girls who feel like that, it's just brutal and I can't believe you go "but meh, Gillick competence". 

 

Taking testosterone long term is likely to make young women sterile and can cause painful atrophy of the uterus and even the vagina. No fucker wants to hear this, but it's happening all the time and we're pretending it's fine? 

 

Perhaps in extreme distress medical treatment is warranted, almost everyone I have talked to accepts that. But to casually do this to children is just awful and so many are to scared to talk about it.

 

Here's one reason why - politicians who freak out at a simple question. I don't care who asked them the question, before you have a diversion on that:

https://twitter.com/OkayBiology/status/1661009993712402434?t=0z7_PY3IuXDlcpT0M3X8mA&s=09

 

Include also Kier '99.9% of women' Starmer, also perching on the coward fence. 

 

When discussion with clear language is stifled, I don't think it benefits anyone. 

[carpetmonster]

4 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Holy f**k this is not about the legality or otherwise. 

Ok, so it's trying to provoke outrage in a way that 'adult makes own medical decision' doesn't'?

4 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

How the f**k are we justifying amputating the healthy breasts of teenage girls, with no good evidence that this will help at all long term?

As repeatedly quoted, the regret rate for gender-care related surgery is around 1%, vs 20-33% for knee replacement, by way of example. You keep saying there's no good evidence, however that flies in the face of the medical opinion - https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/sph-blog/benefits-gender-affirming-care

4 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Mucking around calling it 'top surgery' or 'chest masculinisation surgery' is hiding this from view. 

 

These are children, who are nowhere near their full brain development, making an irreversible decision, enabled by adults. It's wrong.

 

There are already young women who gone on to have babies (some after detransition) and the fact they'd done this and had no breasts to feed their infant was devastating to them.  I don't care if it's 10 or 100 girls who feel like that, it's just brutal and I can't believe you go "but meh, Gillick competence". 

I didn't say 'meh, Gillick competence' at all. While regret rates for *anything* should be minimised, the 99% should be sacrificed for the 1?

4 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Taking testosterone long term is likely to make young women sterile and can cause painful atrophy of the uterus and even the vagina. No fucker wants to hear this, but it's happening all the time and we're pretending it's fine? 

 

Perhaps in extreme distress medical treatment is warranted, almost everyone I have talked to accepts that. But to casually do this to children is just awful and so many are to scared to talk about it.

 

Here's one reason why - politicians who freak out at a simple question. I don't care who asked them the question, before you have a diversion on that:

https://twitter.com/OkayBiology/status/1661009993712402434?t=0z7_PY3IuXDlcpT0M3X8mA&s=09

Ed Davey doesn't seem like he's freaking out at all there. He seems a bit annoyed at being asked the cheap gotcha question but essentially what he's saying is he considers trans women to be women, when you don't. An alternate take:

4 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Include also Kier '99.9% of women' Starmer, also perching on the coward fence. 

 

When discussion with clear language is stifled, I don't think it benefits anyone. 

Yeah, but your definition of 'clear language' includes slurs that you then try and justify as being part of that 'clear language'. You do realise that if we're throwing Gillick competency under the bus then that'll mean cheerio to teenagers being able to access abortion and nae luck if you're 14 and need a blood transfusion but that goes against your parents' religion?

[f_c_dundee]

9 hours ago, Zern said:

Hi there.

I doubt what you say is true.

But if you feel my post somehow crosses some threshold, the report button is right there.

Although i think you might struggle to form a coherent complaint.

f_c_Dundee said that cognitive dissonance is present in people arguing against her. She did not provide any examples of what it is or where it might be present. I thought I would provide some examples because i am familiar with the subject.

I also though it was quite funny that her posts are littered with so many examples.

Which examples, out of interest?

I just find it all very incurious.  No engagement with what is being said on a genuine level.

I was talking about the phenomenon of feeling the cognitive dissonance when your strongly held belief is questioned, but you are just shutting it down.  I don't know if that explains it well.

I expect discussions to involve a bit of "no I believe this not that because reasons".  Not just  what feels like "you are bigoted and cannot possibly be saying anything true so I will just reply with random stuff". And then repeat.

[Mr Waldo]

This is all getting confusing.

A woman can have a penis.  A trans woman is a woman.  Is this a trans woman is the same as a woman, or a type of woman? 

And what does 'woman' mean ? So, we cannot say a woman is a female?

 

[Zern]

24 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

This is all getting confusing.

A woman can have a penis.  A trans woman is a woman.  Is this a trans woman is the same as a woman, or a type of woman? 

And what does 'woman' mean ? So, we cannot say a woman is a female?

 

My mom had a penis.

She kept it in the wardrobe.

[carpetmonster]

58 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

This is all getting confusing.

A woman can have a penis.  A trans woman is a woman.  Is this a trans woman is the same as a woman, or a type of woman? 

And what does 'woman' mean ? So, we cannot say a woman is a female?

 

The latter, and that’s the rationale - trans is a descriptive characteristic, like ‘tall’ or ‘Scottish’. It’s also why the two words are separate. 
 

Per the Cambridge dictionary which recently updated to include trans women  into their definitions (they did the same with men), absolutely you can - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woman?q=Woman

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/man

[f_c_dundee]

1 hour ago, Mr Waldo said:

This is all getting confusing.

A woman can have a penis.  A trans woman is a woman.  Is this a trans woman is the same as a woman, or a type of woman? 

And what does 'woman' mean ? So, we cannot say a woman is a female?

 

You could say that.  But then many trans woman also claim to be female.  Words are not always allowed to have their previous distinct meanings now, for that would not be inclusive.

We do not have a word which we are allowed to use to group all the adult human females previously known as woman, while excluding the male-bodied people who now say they are women.   We are asked to use 'cis-women' thus grouping ourselves as only a subset of women. Cis is meaningless twaddle unless you believe yourself to have a gender identity. 

Clearly a trans woman is born male, or they wouldn't be trans.  As a woman, I can't be a trans woman, but I could be a trans man. 

 

Can you see why I have to use the 'slurs' that I use such as trans identifying man/woman or female/male-bodied?  

 

The statement that transwomen are a type of woman, just like tall women or black women is also bullshit - tall women and black women are women - not men who identify as such.

 

We could go round all day, but the language used is so important, such that everyone is clear what they are saying.

[f_c_dundee]

3 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

The latter, and that’s the rationale - trans is a descriptive characteristic, like ‘tall’ or ‘Scottish’. It’s also why the two words are separate. 
 

Per the Cambridge dictionary which recently updated to include trans women  into their definitions (they did the same with men), absolutely you can - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woman?q=Woman

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/man

see what I mean @Mr Waldo