The Gender Debate

[vikingTON]

Can you take your (fictional) 'little break' and make it longer? 7-10 years seems ideal, as you have contributed absolutely nothing to this site since your moronic entry.

Loving the idea that concern and safeguarding against harm is the priority of a movement that is quite happy to have autistic children and pubescent girls present for an apparently innate identity at a rate multiple times higher than the rest of the population. No possible issues that might lead to harm there!

[Theroadlesstravelled]

There were violent protests from parents and locals outside a North Hollywood Elementary School yesterday after the school had planned a reading of an LGBTQ book to children.

 

We’re now at the stage where someone will be violent if you object to your child being exposed to literature about sexual attraction.

Thanks Biden. You melted face p***k.

[f_c_dundee]

5 hours ago, TxRover said:

Jesus H. Christ, I take a little break and come back, and you’re still rabbiting on with this inane argument…and, incidentally, encouraging more VT visits, something that isn’t good for anyone’s mental well-being.

No, we don’t “need a word for”.  Privacy and dignity, eh? So, you believe it is best to increase the risk to individuals compelled to use a restroom opposite their gender identity (studies currently showing a 50% increase in sexual assault risk in areas with such laws, meanwhile there is no study showing any increased threat in areas without such laws. Meanwhile, explain how your privacy is invaded by John who identifies as Jane versus Jane who identifies as Jane in the, I’ll assume locker room, since you talked about undress. There’s a very good chance you’ll have absolutely no idea…if they whip out a phone and snap a picture, that’s already covered by rule…if they are looking lecherously at you, don’t we then need to have rules about no lesbians in the straight ladies area, and no non-binary in…oh, hell.

You want a “clean” solution…unisex bathrooms show no increase in crimes or risks…let’s go unisex. Keep the changing/getting naked/etc in cubicles, like in the family locker room at a club…but rules about who can use what don’t work to make anyone safer.

Now we get down to the brass tacks…it offends your beliefs. I notice the height of your complaint is single sex services and sport. The single sex services argument is a red herring, and you know it…but keep on pretending it isn’t. As for the sport, tell me, is there a single level of each hormone that is acceptable in sport? Nope, it’s a range or levels, so sport is already inherently flawed based upon your argument. Then you use this line “for a male to be included”…but it isn’t a male that’s being included, it’s a female…or vice versa, no matter how much you wish to twist and shout. During and after transition, competitive sport doesn’t allow the competitor to enter competitions until they meet certain medical standards designed to ensure a level playing field.

Let’s see an example of how this stupid argument played out in Texas a few years ago. A young lady spent several years under medical care before beginning hormone treatments to block puberty and then testosterone treatments that would eventually allow a medical transition after reaching 18. He identified at school as male with no issues until reaching High School in a year where the Texas legislature suddenly decided this was a problem. He tried to join the boys wrestling team, and the school was happy to allow it…but the State competition board demanded he wrestle as a girl. He won the State title three years in a row, as a girl…how fair was that?

If you are doing your fun tun in the park, a runner with a beard and a deeper voice than Barry White beats you like a rented mule, and is then given the woman’s record, how would you feel then? So, there’s a reality.

Here’s another reality, it is!

Calm down. You sound a bit hysterical there. It's worrying.

 

Must be posting all the things that have already been shown to be total bobbins on this very thread.

 

Maybe have a wee sherry and a lie down. 

 

PS Mack Beggins shouldn't have been allowed to wrestle as a female due to the testosterone doping. Nor as a male in case of injury. I'd have thought that was obvious if you weren't apoplectic at the time. 

 

Men in female sport is, as I'm sure you know but pretend not to, wrong mainly due to the effect of hormones during puberty, not a spot check before a race. Every level set so far for testosterone is way above average female levels *anyway*.

Women have historically not had a problem with lesbians in their spaces, because they're women.  I actually can't believe you're clueless enough to wheel out the "oh noes what about the dangerous lecherous lesbians" nonsense, fksake. 

That's it. Even women identifying as men don't suddenly grow from 5ft 4 to 6ft. They're not a disproportionate risk to women, if asked  women don't care in general. Yes anyone who looks extremely masculine might get a double take, but if anything this has been made worse by the push for self id as more people are aware that men think they are entitled to access.

 

Men should stay out. No matter how they identify. Women are not a human shield for transwomen. I've actually seen zero actual evidence of transwomen being hassled or harmed in male facilities. Even if they are, then that's a man problem. Men should accept gender non conforming men more readily.

 

The data actually shows that the risk of voyeurism and covert recording is greatly increased in unisex facilities. See the wheens of men arrested at swimming pools and leisure centres and store fitting rooms with phone footage. 

 

You can keep repeating lies if it makes you feel better. But fewer and fewer people are falling for it. Fewer and fewer are scared of being told off.

 

It's not at all about offending my beliefs or the purity of the language. It's just a fact that men are a higher risk as a population and that irreversible medical treatment on children, teenagers and even young adults has no good science whatsoever to support it as a first line treatment. Even on adults surgery is highly risky. 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by f_c_dundee
Fkin random extra word

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

Can you take your (fictional) 'little break' and make it longer? 7-10 years seems ideal, as you have contributed absolutely nothing to this site since your moronic entry.

Loving the idea that concern and safeguarding against harm is the priority of a movement that is quite happy to have autistic children and pubescent girls present for an apparently innate identity at a rate multiple times higher than the rest of the population. No possible issues that might lead to harm there!

As if you have contributed f**k all except snide comments, sneering posts, and an insufferable attitude that no doubt masks crippling social anxiety. As for your “concerns” here, the position I’ve consistently taken is that supported by the medical community, rather than the rabid hysteria you vomit forth across this discussion, so (in your words) try again.

7 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Calm down. You sound a bit hysterical there. It's worrying.

 

Must be posting all the things that have already been shown to be total bobbins on this very thread.

 

Maybe have a wee sherry and a lie down. 

 

PS Mack Beggins shouldn't have been allowed to wrestle as a female due to the testosterone doping. Nor as a male in case of injury. I'd have thought that was obvious if you weren't apoplectic at the time. 

 

Men in female sport is, as I'm sure you know but pretend not to, wrong mainly due to the effect of hormones during puberty, not a spot check before a race. Every level set so far for testosterone is way above average female levels *anyway*.

Women have historically not had a problem with lesbians in their spaces, because they're women.  I actually can't believe you're clueless enough to wheel out the "oh noes what about the dangerous lecherous lesbians" nonsense, fksake. 

That's it. Even women identifying as men don't suddenly grow from 5ft 4 to 6ft. They're not a disproportionate risk to women, if asked  women don't care in general. Yes anyone who looks extremely masculine might get a double take, but if anything this has been made worse by the push for self id as more people are aware that men think they are entitled to access.

 

Men should stay out. No matter how they identify. Women are not a human shield for transwomen. I've actually seen zero actual evidence of transwomen being hassled or harmed in male facilities. Even if they are, then that's a man problem. Men should accept gender non conforming men more readily.

 

The data actually shows that the risk of voyeurism and covert recording is greatly increased in unisex facilities. See the wheens of men arrested at swimming pools and leisure centres and store fitting rooms with phone footage. 

 

You can keep repeating lies if it makes you feel better. But fewer and fewer people are falling for it. Fewer and fewer are scared of being told off.

 

It's not at all about offending my beliefs or the purity of the language. It's just a fact that men are a higher risk as a population and that irreversible medical treatment on children, teenagers and even young adults has no good science whatsoever to support it as a first line treatment. Even on adults surgery is highly risky. 

 

And away you go, ignoring the points and highlighting your “position”. The number of threatened women is something not even studied, because you can barely define any outside the pearl-clutchers around here. So your answer, like always, is to exclude rather than include…you would have fit in perfectly in the Jim Crow era. You always resort to men are a higher risk…then fail to provide any hard data oh exactly what you mean, and refuse to acknowledge that study after study shows “men” (in your context) are more of a risk to transitioning females than those same transitioning females are to “women”. In fact, there is literally no data showing the issue you claim to fear.

Its not hysterical to figuratively throw one’s hands up at the obtuse and ignorant arguments you make, it’s simply frustration at your entrenched, myopic worldview.

[f_c_dundee]

Scottish data, UK data, even go to European data. 99% of all sex crime carried out by male perpetrators, 80% at least of the victims are female. 

 

What's hard to comprehend about that?

 

Call me a pearl clutcher all you like, zero fucks given for your women specific insults.

 

You can't shout everyone down with bigot and transphobe anymore, didn't you notice? Maybe try facts not "shut up men are totally women cos I say so".

 

I responded to every single one of your points you absolute turnip.

(aka rutabaga if that helps). 

 

You are the one saying nothing.

 

[itzdrk]

How'd you spend your weekend?

Howling into the void on a football forum about trans folk, as always. 

[picklish]

tbh I read it all for some reason and I don't /think/ I'm the void

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

As if you have contributed f**k all except snide comments, sneering posts, and an insufferable attitude that no doubt masks crippling social anxiety.

This forum was doing perfectly fine without the biggest village idiot in all Texas providing crap pop psychology. Thanks for playing anyway. 

Quote

As for your “concerns” here, the position I’ve consistently taken is that supported by the medical community, rather than the rabid hysteria you vomit forth across this discussion, so (in your words) try again.

That makes zero sense, as the 'medical community' provides no actual explanation as to why girls around the age of puberty and children on the autistic spectrum are multiple times more likely to require gender reassignment than their peers. Which was the outcome at the now closed down Tavistock clinic. 

[TxRover]

55 minutes ago, virginton said:

This forum was doing perfectly fine without the biggest village idiot in all Texas providing crap pop psychology. Thanks for playing anyway. 

That makes zero sense, as the 'medical community' provides no actual explanation as to why girls around the age of puberty and children on the autistic spectrum are multiple times more likely to require gender reassignment than their peers. Which was the outcome at the now closed down Tavistock clinic. 

As opposed to your continuing smug assertions and chose an insult from column A and B commentary?

Just to be clear, since you cannot be, and instead constantly try to reframe things in a manner more favorable to your idiotic responses, gender reassignment for “girls” was no part of my answer. Careful evaluation and hormone adjustments are well within the medical standards for treatment of those under 18 while allowing reversibility. Now, you run along and go play in some other traffic. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

I like VT contributions.

He also chased off most of the tedious bores and we all should be thankful for that.

[f_c_dundee]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

As opposed to your continuing smug assertions and chose an insult from column A and B commentary?

Just to be clear, since you cannot be, and instead constantly try to reframe things in a manner more favorable to your idiotic responses, gender reassignment for “girls” was no part of my answer. Careful evaluation and hormone adjustments are well within the medical standards for treatment of those under 18 while allowing reversibility. Now, you run along and go play in some other traffic. 

Even the NHS quietly removed claims of reversibility over a year ago. Why lie?

 

We have no idea of the effect on brain development of interfering with puberty in this way and we do know that bone density is affected leaving some young people with early osteoporosis. 

 

In children with early/precocious puberty, they're on the drug for as short a time as possible. They still suffer side effects and consideration is given to the balance of harm involved. The idea is that they still go through puberty as normally as possible though. 

 

Completely blocking puberty at a young age is not the same thing! Having no development of sexual organs or function might possibly affect you in future, I would think?

 

In the Tavistock data very few children stopped and allowed puberty to continue. They went straight on to cross sex hormones either in children or adult services. 

 

You know fine well it's girls predominantly affected at the moment - a 5000% increase was seen compared to earlier years when numbers shot up. No this isn't explained by them being free to express themselves either. 

Careful medical standards my arse - there's no good quality data for benefits and zero long term data to show outcomes on brain development either.

(Precocious puberty studies not the same thing, before you try that again. )

 

How can you be just parroting this stuff repeatedly without checking into it?

 

Even social transition has been shown not to be a neutral act, as it can solidify the dysphoric feelings and children can find it hard to tell people of they don't feel that way any more. (See Cass report). 

 

Like I said, fewer and fewer people are now prepared to go along with this without question, so hopefully the harm will not continue at this level.

 

 

[DiscoStu]

6 hours ago, itzdrk said:

How'd you spend your weekend?

Howling into the void on a football forum about trans folk, as always. 

People making points opposing what has become a religious ideology to many, doesn't equate to 'howling about trans folk'. 

I'd be very surprised if it took up anyone's whole weekend either.

Anything but debate the points at hand in a rational manner though, eh?

[Moomintroll]

The virgin calling someone else the village idiot, deary mucking fe.

[Gringo]

I’ve not participated in this debate but by reading the contributions I think I’ve learnt quite a lot.

All we need now is the other US based nutter, the carpet man to come on and it’ll be ‘game on’ once again.

[f_c_dundee]

58 minutes ago, Gringo said:

I’ve not participated in this debate but by reading the contributions I think I’ve learnt quite a lot.

All we need now is the other US based nutter, the carpet man to come on and it’ll be ‘game on’ once again.

I don't really want game on though.

 

I just found it hard to see the untruths repeated on here when I blundered into this thread.  All the things constantly being posted, have been responded to - but no real consideration seems to be given.

 

The response options seem to be:

Dismissed because 'bigots'.

Post random tweet from 'GC mob' to divert discussion. Additionally assume that if I agree with 1 thing a person has said, I therefore agree with everything, so share some dumb thing they said as well for discrediting purposes.

Accuse poster of random unrelated belief because we are all crazy right wingers.

Personal insults about why I care or why I am spending time on this. (plus weeks of being accused of being a troll who just signed up, despite evidence to the contrary).

Deny repeatedly that surgery is ever performed on minors, despite evidence to the contrary.  (Also conflate with other cosmetic surgery, as if I would think that was a fine idea. )

 

I believe it's important to challenge these untruths, as so many years have been spent spreading misinformation and poorly researched ideas. Also suppressing both the discussion and further research, to actually help provide evidence based care for distressed people.

I don't want to 'win', the people being harmed deserve proper consideration in my opinion.

 

[andyg83]

On 02/06/2023 at 14:29, Theroadlesstravelled said:

The world’s richest man shares a gender critical film -

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1664609193230204929?s=20

I watched half of this last night for my sins.

Matt Walsh is an ***** but he is able to make some good points by simply asking obvious questions to a variety of interviewees. The best one being a College Professor who couldn't answer the question "what is a woman".

The usual suspects on here will no doubt start a character assassination of Walsh and who he works for but his film is interesting and quite well put together like a Louis Theroux type documentary.

I will try and watch the rest later this week and report back

 

 

 

[carpetmonster]

3 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

I don't really want game on though.

 

I just found it hard to see the untruths repeated on here when I blundered into this thread.  All the things constantly being posted, have been responded to - but no real consideration seems to be given.

 

The response options seem to be:

Dismissed because 'bigots'.

Post random tweet from 'GC mob' to divert discussion. Additionally assume that if I agree with 1 thing a person has said, I therefore agree with everything, so share some dumb thing they said as well for discrediting purposes.

Accuse poster of random unrelated belief because we are all crazy right wingers.

Personal insults about why I care or why I am spending time on this. (plus weeks of being accused of being a troll who just signed up, despite evidence to the contrary).

Deny repeatedly that surgery is ever performed on minors, despite evidence to the contrary.  (Also conflate with other cosmetic surgery, as if I would think that was a fine idea. )

 

I believe it's important to challenge these untruths, as so many years have been spent spreading misinformation and poorly researched ideas. Also suppressing both the discussion and further research, to actually help provide evidence based care for distressed people.

I don't want to 'win', the people being harmed deserve proper consideration in my opinion.

 

What untruths do you see? The one point you never address is that the regret rate for gender affirming surgery is right around 1%. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/

The evidence is that gender affirming care works for the overwhelming majority of trans people and most detransitioners - whose voices do need to be heard - remain supportive of trans people, with the vast majority saying their detransition was due to external factors such as familial or societal pressure. I’m sure they’d welcome additional research but that shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss what is proven to work at this stage. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/

 

Some people are trans. Some people need to feel better about themselves by punching down. Gringo is Dawson Park Boy. None of that will change. So yes, very much howling into a void that there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of reason to howl into, other than that lots of money can be made from right wingers. 

[f_c_dundee]

1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:

What untruths do you see? The one point you never address is that the regret rate for gender affirming surgery is right around 1%. 

I am fairly sure I have tried to address it, I will try again.

 

The 1% figure is from retrospective reviews, of data going back years, yes?  Literally back to the 80s at least.  I am pretty sure it includes some of 'The Dutch Study' which had very specific selection criteria - the teenagers involved all had dysphoria from a young age which remained or intensified at puberty and they had to have no other pre-existing mental health difficulties.

 

So not really representative of todays transgender population - back then it was a relatively rare thing to be dysphoric about your sex and predominantly affected boys who had been suffering these feelings since early childhood. Unlike the predominant group now of girls and young women, who in some cases had no history of dysphoria at all until entering puberty. 

Clearly providers are also not taking comorbidities into consideration, preferring to assume that they are caused by the distress of being trans, even if the young person had these difficulties before questioning their gender/sex.

In some of the studies included,  the participants who had medical or surgical transition were also given psychotherapy or some other intervention, with no way to differentiate what any improvement was attributable to.

 

Lastly, so many patients have been lost to follow up that longer term data is unavailable or very limited.  There has been no willingness to do a quality study on this, perhaps because like in the Tavistock study, the researchers admitted that they thought they would struggle for participants if they had a chance to be in a 'no intervention' control group.  Plus the fact that who was in the control group would become physically obvious to all over time.

 

It's impossible to use a few retrospective data reviews to keep repeating the 1% figure, when we can see that the picture is changing all the time. Regret rates were much lower in the past when there was much more 'gatekeeping' (or careful assessment) of who would be offered such treatment.

 

Check it out, I didn't even try and slander or discredit the people involved in the papers you cited. Mad eh!

 

And oh my word I missed any and all of your Dawson Park Boy drama, amazingly I don't depend on getting excited about who said what. Plus wtf there's no money being made by the gender clinics?

Edited June 4, 2023 by f_c_dundee
missed a bit

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

I don't really want game on though.

 

I just found it hard to see the untruths repeated on here when I blundered into this thread.  All the things constantly being posted, have been responded to - but no real consideration seems to be given.

 

The response options seem to be:

Dismissed because 'bigots'.

Post random tweet from 'GC mob' to divert discussion. Additionally assume that if I agree with 1 thing a person has said, I therefore agree with everything, so share some dumb thing they said as well for discrediting purposes.

Accuse poster of random unrelated belief because we are all crazy right wingers.

Personal insults about why I care or why I am spending time on this. (plus weeks of being accused of being a troll who just signed up, despite evidence to the contrary).

Deny repeatedly that surgery is ever performed on minors, despite evidence to the contrary.  (Also conflate with other cosmetic surgery, as if I would think that was a fine idea. )

 

I believe it's important to challenge these untruths, as so many years have been spent spreading misinformation and poorly researched ideas. Also suppressing both the discussion and further research, to actually help provide evidence based care for distressed people.

I don't want to 'win', the people being harmed deserve proper consideration in my opinion.

 

You have built your own perfect echo chamber by carefully curating the facts you accept versus those you reject as propaganda.

1) You state that only “a woman” is “a woman”, period, and then hyperventilate when it is shown that this is not true because there have been changes in the world. You can stand on you doorstep and yell at the kids to get off your lawn, it doesn’t make you right. Meanwhile…

2) “Bigot - a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”

3) Madam, you meet those criteria, sorry if that bothers you, but your unreasoning and narrow-minded insistence upon these matters clearly places you in that definition.

4) The wingedness of any poster is irrelevant, nice try.

5) The use of loaded phrases harkens back to the good old Colonial days, where the dismissal of the various oppressed was made easy by throwaway lines along the way of “XXX mobs” and such.

6) Your persistence on these matters, particularly given your constant reference back to a couple of events and one or two “reports” because they “support” your wild claims.

7) I don’t think anyone has denied surgery on minors occurred, and in a small number of cases was performed in a shockingly inappropriate manner. However, an occurrence of wrongdoing is just that, nothing more and nothing less. However, when you then conflate currently performed operations on minor intersex individuals and discretionary gender reassignment surgery performed solely on consenting adults (along with the tossing in of cancer mitigation mastectomies, yep, some of the sources and reports you love to yell about do that to improve the numbers/stoke the outrage), your argument isn’t enhanced, it’s shown to be a whole cloth fabrication.

You then proceed to say you are only “challenging untruths”, when you are, in fact, propagating and amplifying radical, hysterical propaganda against a small group of individuals in order to drum up fear and hate. You may not realize that’s what you are doing (one hopes), but your demands for those in the transgender community are quite similar to the demands made of various populations in 1930’s Germany. You insist that a person identifying, living and dressed as a woman use a men’s bathroom, which is little more than demanding they wear a yellow star or pink triangle, and has proven to increase the risk to that individual by roughly 50%. On the other hand, there is zero evidence of any issue with that individual using the women’s bathroom.

We are already seeing cases of police being called and demanding to see ID from people simply trying to use the bathroom, even with friends, because they “look” different. This is, in fact, the sort of dystopian world your argument wishes to portray as incipient in order to forment more hatred and anger to generate power for your “side”. I suggest you carefully look around at your “allies”, and ask yourself, “how did I get here?”.

 

[strichener]

20 minutes ago, TxRover said:

You have built your own perfect echo chamber by carefully curating the facts you accept versus those you reject as propaganda.

1) You state that only “a woman” is “a woman”, period, and then hyperventilate when it is shown that this is not true because there have been changes in the world. You can stand on you doorstep and yell at the kids to get off your lawn, it doesn’t make you right. Meanwhile…

2) “Bigot - a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”

 

Incredible lack of self-awareness here.

You take the opposite stance to the poster by stating that a woman doesn't have to be a woman (forgive my use of potentially inappropriate wording here, I haven't checked the dictionary definitions this week!).  You also meet your own posted definition of a bigot on the basis that you are prejudiced against the group who hold different opinions as your own on the subject of gender.

exemplified by this total nonsense -

Quote

 but your demands for those in the transgender community are quite similar to the demands made of various populations in 1930’s Germany.

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by strichener