Peak Trans

Tin Foil Hat

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except being trans is NOT a mental illness.

How can it not be? How can thinking you are something you are not, not be an illness or a disorder?

SEPT 23 1989

Maybe I'm a dinosaur but what sort of parents takes any of the bull**** notions of a 16 year old seriously?

_Dara_

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

The knee-jerk responses really are coming in thick and fast tonight, so excuse me if I miss any of the ones that were... um... too... fast.



I would absolutely want them to be force-fed by whatever means possible. And perhaps, if it came down to it, I would also force my hypothetical child to go through what they insisted was the wrong puberty. Perhaps my decision would ultimately turn out to be 100% correct. Perhaps it would result in them becoming severely depressed and attempting suicide. The point I'm trying (and, it seems, failing hugely, for whatever reason...) to make is that it is not the black & white issue that some here seem to feel it is.

You are being very presumptuous here. My own concerns come from having some knowledge of drug-testing. There is no ethical way to run a trial to test the effects of blocking puberty using medication. Therefore giving these drugs to nascent adolescents is feeling in the dark and hoping things work out okay. There could be lasting damage done and a quick peruse shows that some now adults have experienced significant problems by having their puberty stopped. The minors being medicated like this are being treated like guinea pigs. In the past, that was unfortunately how many drugs were tested but I thought we had made ethical strides in this area.

Wibbs

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's a dose of ignorance and fear.

Yet you would no doubt agree with others when they say stuff like this?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not an irreversible decision.

A staggeringly unscientific statement, that for some unknown bloody reason an otherwise head well screwed on chap like Joey keeps repeating. And medically daft with it. And any doctor who would claim the same is a mountebank of the first order.

BattleCorp wrote: »

While this isn't exactly a peer review journal extract, it does appear that the drug used to block puberty can have dangerous side effects.

Well colour me gobsmacked indeed BC. In other news: Water is wet. Given kids who have underlying conditions that delay or stop puberty happening in the normal course of things have medical issues. Delayed puberty itself is considered a medical condition in need of treatment.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet you would no doubt agree with others when they say stuff like this?

Yes Wibbs, of course, whatever you say.

Annasopra

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

How can it not be? How can thinking you are something you are not, not be an illness or a disorder?

Its not though. No matter what you think or say its not. We have completely moved away from seeing trans people as mentally ill like we once saw gay people as mentally ill.

The UN, The World Health Organisation, Many many medical practitioners and professional groups now recognise that being transgender is not a mental illness.

Wibbs

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Yes Wibbs, of course, whatever you say.

Well clearly. But that aside, am I wrong in my supposition? You didn't answer that.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Well clearly. But that aside, am I wrong in my supposition? You didn't answer that.

Well you seem to have it all figured it out
Yet you would no doubt agree with others when they say stuff like this?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Caitlyn is stunning and brave.

Any who disagree are bigots



Buckle up buckaroos!


Mod-banned and disgusting picture redacted.

Bambi wrote: »

Are you sure she's not suicidal as a result of being mental?



Mod: Banned

Seriously, usually your a much better poster.

Wibbs

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Well you seem to have it all figured it out
Yet you would no doubt agree with others when they say stuff like this?

Nice deflection Winny, with a side order of unfounded accusations and implied affiliations that don't exist. The "Seriously, usually your[sic] a much better poster" a nice touch and appeal to ego, but none of the above have I said or even intimated. Nor by the by would I agree with it. So as they say in the Eurovision; nil pointe.

Maybe try responding to the question I actually asked: Would you agree with the premise that hormone blockers pre or during puberty are a reversible decision?

sabat

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not though. No matter what you think or say its not. We have completely moved away from seeing trans people as mentally ill like we once saw gay people as mentally ill.

The UN, The World Health Organisation, Many many medical practitioners and professional groups now recognise that being transgender is not a mental illness.

Let's take the case of the Wachowskis for example. Given that transsexualism is such a rare condition, what are the odds that two non-twin brothers would both have been born with it? Billions to one probably. What are the odds that it was in actuality a mental disorder that was brought on by familial or social factors? Overwhelmingly likely to be the truth. A quick glance at their wiki page reveals a clue:

"Raised by a "hardcore atheist" father and an "ex-Catholic turned Shamanist" mother."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis

Yer Da sells Avon

_Dara_ wrote: »

You are being very presumptuous here.

Not really. I share your concerns, but I was responding to posters (one two of whom have since been banned for posting transphobic crap) who didn't bother their holes to read my post and assumed that I was totally cool with the idea of stopping puberty. I'm not ok with it (because, as you say, they're guinea pigs), but given the statistics surrounding self harm and suicide attempts among trans teens, I'm not overly comfortable with the alternative either.

JRant

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet you would no doubt agree with others when they say stuff like this?



A staggeringly unscientific statement, that for some unknown bloody reason an otherwise head well screwed on chap like Joey keeps repeating. And medically daft with it. And any doctor who would claim the same is a mountebank of the first order.

Well colour me gobsmacked indeed BC. In other news: Water is wet. Given kids who have underlying conditions that delay or stop puberty happening in the normal course of things have medical issues. Delayed puberty itself is considered a medical condition in need of treatment.

Not only is it unscientific but it flies in the face of what we witnessed in the 70/80's with the East German athletes. Look at the long term effects of giving testosterone to young girls had. It's not pretty and bloody well shouldn't be allowed happen again.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Nice deflection Winny, with a side order of unfounded accusations and implied affiliations that don't exist. The "Seriously, usually your[sic] a much better poster" a nice touch and appeal to ego, but none of the above have I said or even intimated. Nor by the by would I agree with it. So as they say in the Eurovision; nil pointe.

Maybe try responding to the question I actually asked: Would you agree with the premise that hormone blockers pre or during puberty are a reversible decision?

You have attributed my post to three random posts..

'with a side order of unfounded accusations and implied affiliations '

Are you actually reading what your writing?. I have no interest in talking to you after your first post.

Wibbs

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You have attributed my post to three random posts..

'with a side order of unfounded accusations and implied affiliations '

Are you actually reading what your writing?.

Why yes I am, and anyone else reading the thread will read it too. Those "random posts?"

You. Previously. wrote:

Yet you would no doubt agree with others when they say stuff like this?

(followed by the worst picture you think you could paint of me and my argument). You posted those "random posts" in an effort to conflate my position with theirs, so you're acting quite deliberately dishonestly with it.

I have no interest in talking to you after your first post.

And yet you did. The "I'm out!" is the all too banal bleat of those whose argument falls at the first hurdle and in the face of that the only retort they can muster is to storm off, because actually trying to answer the simple question posed would unravel their position. One does appreciate the classics when they inevitably and predictably present themselves. It makes for a certain comfort for the reader.

Wibbs

Oh and my "first post" that you have "no interest in talking to" me was this:

Wibbs wrote: »

Ehhh... what the hell? That's an utter bloody nonsense and obviously so.

You take someone born male and give them hormone blockers - basically stop testosterone - and their bodies don't go through the changes that testosterone makes for in adolescent males. Development of muscle and bone, more masculine faces, deeper voice, secondary sexual characteristics and so forth. Now if you also go and prescribe female hormones this is a double whammy and bodily changes occur like growth of breast tissue and so forth. Take someone born female and block those hormones and dose them up with male levels of testosterone and you get the opposite effect, more muscle mass, denser bones, facial hair, larger jaws etc.

This is why they do this for Christ's sake; to block the more obvious signs of male or femaleness so the person can grow as the preferred gender and "pass" more easily as an adult. If this was reversible as you claim then they wouldn't have to do any of that, they could wait until adulthood and simply block/increase hormone profiles then and, voila change someone from one gender to someone with adult male or female characteristics. Oh wait, it doesn't work like that.

If this is an example of what you(and others) think is "science" and some doctors in the field are claiming this then... well, it's very bad "science", it's well dodgy medicine and it's straying into the territory of utter bollocks.

I stand by every word and more, I can back every word with actual science and logic. The best of luck with what passes for your position while you try to do similarly.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Why yes I am, and anyone else reading the thread will read it too. Those "random posts?"

(followed by the worst picture you think you could paint of me and my argument). You posted those "random posts" in an effort to conflate my position with theirs, so you're acting quite deliberately dishonestly with it.

And yet you did. The "I'm out!" is the all too banal bleat of those whose argument falls at the first hurdle and in the face of that the only retort they can muster is to storm off, because actually trying to answer the simple question posed would unravel their position. One does appreciate the classics when they inevitably and predictably present themselves. It makes for a certain comfort for the reader.

Okay 'W' , whatever you say. I just same as you. Emulation I think its called. Anyway your looking for a fight or something...I'm not giving you it.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and my "first post" that you have "no interest in talking to" me was this:



I stand by every word and more, I can back every word with actual science and logic. The best of luck with what passes for your position while you try to do similarly.

I

Jesus...I wasn't talking about your 'first post' on the thread??

Get with the times

uck51js9zml2yt

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

1000%.

In time people will learn that just because someone has a face like Brian Blessed and are packing 8 inches of glory between their legs doesn't mean that they are any less a woman than our own mother or sister.

I hope you're joking!

Wibbs

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Okay 'W' , whatever you say. I just same as you. Emulation I think its called.

Projection maybe?

Anyway your looking for a fight or something...I'm not giving you it.

I'm looking for an answer to a simple question. God forbid.

P_1

Calhoun wrote: »

Had to look up Swerf and Terf (I don't know), are all men rapists? depends on where you go in society today but probably a good chance that parts of our society think like this, same side as the folks who want young children to be able to decide on medical treatsment's.

Did the sky fall in with marriage equality or the 8th? no it didnt but the difference was both of these issues were to do with issues around adults. Why so many people are vocal on this on is because it has a link to children.

Every movement does have its extremist sure but right now for such an apparent small minority the LGBT group has a fairly powerful voice, and as seen in other jurisdictions has enacted laws that could see children removed from parents.

Ok that's fair enough and apologies if I came across somewhat arseish.

I guess seeing such apparent latent transphobia was a bit of a red rag to a bull moment for me. Context, a few close friends of mine are transitioning and quite often go through some dark times and they attribute their poor mental health towards not being able to transition sooner so seeing people trivialise it as a fad crosses a line for me.

One final point, Ireland is finally getting towards Connolly's vision of a republic, as a people we have a latent sense of what's the right thing to do. I highly doubt that we'd see some of the more extremes emerge (such as children being removed from their parents) here. However, based on both what I've seen people close to me go through and the recommendations of those who deal with the fallout of it, 16 is the right age to be allowed to make that choice for yourself. Remember that one must live full time as the opposite gender for 3 years before they can commence transitioning if that is what they need to do.

One eyed Jack

P_1 wrote: »

Ok that's fair enough and apologies if I came across somewhat arseish.

I guess seeing such apparent latent transphobia was a bit of a red rag to a bull moment for me. Context, a few close friends of mine are transitioning and quite often go through some dark times and they attribute their poor mental health towards not being able to transition sooner so seeing people trivialise it as a fad crosses a line for me.

One final point, Ireland is finally getting towards Connolly's vision of a republic, as a people we have a latent sense of what's the right thing to do. I highly doubt that we'd see some of the more extremes emerge (such as children being removed from their parents) here. However, based on both what I've seen people close to me go through and the recommendations of those who deal with the fallout of it, 16 is the right age to be allowed to make that choice for yourself. Remember that one must live full time as the opposite gender for 3 years before they can commence transitioning if that is what they need to do.

I don't share your confidence in the unlikelyhood that we will see the extremes emerge such as children being removed from their parents, particularly when we have laws which already allow for the removal of children from their parents if it is considered in the best interests of the children to do so. Just in relation to that point, there are a couple of things I would like to draw your attention to which are outlined in S.12 of the Gender Recognition Act:


The Minister may only consider an application for a gender recognition certificate under section 8 or 11 or for revocation of a gender recognition certificate under section 15, made on behalf of a child who has attained the age of 16 but not 18 years, if furnished with an order of the court under this section.

...

The court may make an order dispensing with the requirement of the consent of a person referred to in subsection (4)(a) to the making of an order under this section where satisfied that the consent cannot be obtained because the person cannot be identified or found or is failing or neglecting to respond to a request for consent or should not be obtained because the nature of the relationship between the child concerned and the person shows that it would not be in the interest of the safety or welfare of the child to contact the person.


In short, if the Courts determine that it is in the best interests of the child to allow them to begin their transition, they don't require parental consent, and if it is determined that the best interests of the child are served by removing them from the family home and placing the child in the care of the State, the Courts already have the power to do that too under Article 42a of the Irish Constitution.


So what are the criteria for determining a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in a child? Well, according to the HSE's A-Z of conditions:

Criteria for children

To be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a child should experience the following for at least 6 months:

1. Want to be the same sex

Repeatedly insist they want to be the opposite sex, or they are the opposite sex, and behave as the opposite sex. This must not be just because they want the supposed advantages of being the opposite sex.

2. Dislike of certain clothes

Dislike or refuse to wear clothes typically worn by their sex and insist on wearing clothes typically worn by the opposite sex. Or show dislike or unhappiness with their genitalia and insist that it will change into that of the opposite sex. For example, refusing to pass urine as members of their sex usually do.

3. Puberty

Have not yet reached puberty.


And the treatment of gender dysphoria in children? Well, it depends upon whether or not they've reached puberty yet -


Children before puberty

If your child is diagnosed with gender dysphoria before they reach puberty (when a child progresses into a sexually developed adult), they will not receive endocrine treatment. Endocrine treatment is treatment with hormones (powerful chemicals). It is the first step to developing the physical signs of your preferred gender.

Guidelines from the Endocrine Society in the UK do not recommend endocrine treatment for young children because a diagnosis of transsexualism cannot be made before a child has reached puberty. Transsexualism is a life-long and extreme form of gender dysphoria, when someone seeks to change their sex.

The Endocrine Society found that 75-80% of children who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria before they reached puberty did not have the condition after puberty. Therefore, endocrine treatment is not recommended until after puberty, when a diagnosis of gender dysphoria can be confirmed.


The part I underlined in bold there is important as it relates to your friends complaint that they attribute their current difficulties with their mental health to not being permitted to transition sooner in their lives. There are good reasons for that. They may consider it unfair, and many adults who are transgender share the same sentiments, which is why there is a greater influence among advocates for rights for people who are transgender to allow children to start their transition as early as possible.

Your friends however have the benefit of far greater hindsight than as children they had foresight, which is why permitting children to transition as early as possible is generally frowned upon, as they lack the requisite knowledge to have the capacity to understand the potential long term consequences of their decisions. Consequences and potential risks which even adult scientists and the medical community who have dedicated their lives to the study of endocrinology don't fully understand the long-term effects of yet -


Will I always have to take hormones?

Yes, you will need to take hormones for the rest of your life if you want to maintain the feminising effects of oestrogen or the masculinising effects of testosterone. If, at any stage, you decide to have your testes (trans women) or your ovaries (trans men) removed by surgery:

- your dose of hormones will usually be reduced but it should still be enough to produce the effects that you need and to keep you well, and to protect you against osteoporosis (thinning of the bones) as you get older, and

- if you are still on hormone blockers, you will stop taking them altogether.

What are the risks of hormone treatment?

Ideally, medical treatment should be based on scientific evidence, but there is little research about the use of cross-sex hormones. Guidance is therefore provided, which may be used flexibly, taking account of your particular needs and keeping the risk to your health as low as possible.


I don't expect a child has that level of comprehension to fully appreciate the consequences of their decisions, even when they do reach the age of 16, let alone before then, and this is borne out by a survey conducted by the HSE into the issue of healthcare for people who are transgender in Ireland -


Transgender Healthcare Survey Findings 2012 (n = 793).

1.  41% indicated that they have a poor level of knowledge or know nothing about transgender health issues. Only 18% indicated that they have a good level of knowledge and just 1% of respondents indicated that they have an expert level (9 people): “This is becoming a more pertinent issue, which does require frontline staff to be better informed.”

2.  The key finding from this question – and from the entire survey - is that 90% of people who completed the survey stated that they have not had any training in this area. This result illustrates the need for provision of training.

3.  74% of respondents would like to have training in this area.


If adults who are healthcare professionals have a poor understanding of healthcare for people who are transgender, I don't expect children who are not healthcare professionals to have sufficient capacity to be able to understand their own condition, let alone the potential consequences of their decisions they make for themselves as children.

Graces7

This is the youtube I mentioned..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3M2kd_VmeM

A mention of a 7 year old threatening to jump from a window?
A 7 year old "diagnosed" with suicidal depression?

The child has male sexual organs.

Malayalam

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Not being 100% sure whether it's absolutely ethical to force a child to go through puberty against their will?

This was the question you posed that I was too tired to consider properly. It strays into difficult territory, that would take a very long essay to address, but in an effort to avoid that I will just put some salient points, as long as you know I can only hit the ground in spots...


1) ''100% sure...absolutely ethical''

There are very few ethical dilemmas where we can be 100 % sure. Ethics is a modern and very limited version of deeper metaphysics which we have left behind as a civilisation, it is our shorthand way of trying to be principled. Ethical considerations will have arguments from both sides, and what we do is use our reason to determine which arguments have the most weight. We often forget in doing so that the human reasoning faculty can be conditioned to believe absurdities (as history has proven innumerable times) and so to avoid ideological influence we should have recourse to ALL or as much as possible of the provable and empirical facts around an ethical debate. That means looking deeply at all the science, not just that which supports our preference. In the case of childhood gender dysphoria treatment the science is throwing up a growing body of evidence of harm from medical intervention. This is where reason must consider the balance of harm. This body of science is often countered with the suicide prevention argument. I will return to that argument briefly later.

2) '' to force a child to go through puberty''

I can't remember when the word ''force'' came into this thread, whether it was you using it, or you framing a question using someone elses word. But it is an interesting word in this context and inappropriately used, I believe. The parent cannot by the laws of nature ''force'' a child to go through puberty. Puberty will evolve regardless of the parents intention or desire. Force means a physical action to compel a result or to bring about a result by unusual effort. If one accepts this then it is the chemical and surgical intervention in a child's body that actually involves force. And yet this is not mentioned in balance as being problematic. I presume you may say that you intended this as psychological or emotional force occasioned by the parents preventing access to medical intervention. As it stands it seems many parents do access medical advice, and it is the advisors who recommend actions that inherently imply force. There is a body of research and a growing number of medical personnel that advocates the hands off , watch and wait approach - that would correspond to the instinctive approach of the parent to not intervene, to not use force, to allow nature take its course.

3) ''against their will''
This is perhaps the most difficult part of your proposition because modern society has been attempting to attribute a balance of agency to children and adults which I believe is misguided. Certainly a society can intervene to prevent harm to a child in the family situation where the adult is perverse or violent. But we have to acknowledge that a hierarchical situation has evolved throughout human development whereby the young have less agency that the elders during a particular formative period of their lives. Be that in the family structure or in the tribe. This is so that the child can be shaped by the experience of the parents or elders, for education purposes, for protection purposes. If a child is given equal agency this fundamentally undermines the hierarchical structure of a family - in effect the family is atomised into individuals all with equal free will. This might sound groovy but given that children are undeveloped cognitively, hormonally, physically, emotionally and that they lack life experience (etc etc) this is a recipe long term for utter chaos.The balance of harm in the long term from the disintegration of the family structure should be kept in mind when considering any primacy of a child's will. And on the fundamental point of the weight of a child's will - the pre-frontal cortexes do not fully develop until mid 20s, a child's will is very undeveloped and uninformed. It would not be ethical to be guided heavily by such a marker.

The suicide question is sometimes regarded as an appeal to the emotional factors. It is claimed that there is a high statistic for suicide attempt among transgender youth, somewhere in the 40% region. This statistic however was gained from a very small number of studies eg as admitted by Dr. Nuno Nodin in the RaRE study, which covered 27 self selecting trans kids. In the 2017 Stonewall study significant percentages of non trans kids reported suicidal ideation and attempts . Ideation is not confined to trans kids and seems no more significant than in the general teen population. Especially given that gender dysphoria in childhood is often presenting with mental health co-morbidities such as depression, and anxiety so one would expect higher rates of ideation and attempts. Autism too - 10 -25% at least. Even the Tavistock Institute agrees that rates are not higher in transgender children than in children presenting with other mental health issues; in fact GIDS has said suicide is extremely rare among gender dysphoric children. http://gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base

Anyways I'll stop there as this is already too long.

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I share your concerns, [people] assumed that I was totally cool with the idea of stopping puberty. I'm not ok with it (because, as you say, they're guinea pigs), but given the statistics surrounding self harm and suicide attempts among trans teens, I'm not overly comfortable with the alternative either.

Glad to hear you have valid concerns.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Projection maybe? I'm looking for an answer to a simple question. God forbid.

My posts went over your head. I'm fine with that.

_Kaiser_

Really the entire thing can be summed up as follows...

- As a self-aware legal adult who fully understands the consequences involved... do whatever you want, however accept that it is YOUR choice and not everyone will (or must) agree with, validate, or celebrate it with you and they are perfectly entitled to feel that way - so long as they are respectful and tolerant. That's what true freedom of expression is.

- Anything involving children or minors however is very different. By all means be supportive as they figure out who they are, but encouraging any sort of surgery, hormones, blockers or so on for (young) children ranges from irresponsible to outright idiotic and dangerous and is really more about the "responsible" parent's/adult's views on the subject than the child themselves. Such "adults" should be let nowhere near children IMO. Those are the "parents" who should have vulnerable children taken from them.

But regardless of which side you come down on, the reality is still that virtue-signalling, feelings, and ideology do not trump biology/genetics or scientific/medical facts.

ohnonotgmail

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

How can it not be? How can thinking you are something you are not, not be an illness or a disorder?

The part in bold is where you are showing your ignorance.

PlaneSpeeking

Sweet Jesus - can the "achingly progressive" crowd get a grip here ???

I can only speak for myself. I am a woman (no, I will not say a cis-woman - I'm a woman, end of story).

From about age 4 or 5 I was into what would be termed "boys things" - I loved (and still do at age 48) football, cricket, rugby, golf. I hated dresses, wore trousers - practically sulked for days at my First Holy Communion dress. I've never had many female friends, played with boys then - friends with blokes now.

My parents said I was a tomboy, one of the lads - and it was perfectly normal. Quite right too!

I'm a straight female, I always have been - I likely always will be. Nowadays with different parents I'd likely have the girls bandaged down and be injected with testosterone before I could spell it.

I am a staunch ally of the LGBT community, I walk the walk for them, they know I have their back. This is not an LGBT issue in my opinion but rather than in the rush to be "woke" (is that the right word ?) we are forgetting one very important fact.

We've forgotten that sometimes kids and adults like what they like, they are who are they are - the stereotypes are wrong. Forcing kids to have medication to make them something they may not be is wrong.

And the medication is IRREVERSIBLE (yes, please stop saying it's not) - one of the scariest PROVED side effects is bone demineralisation. We are going to have post of trans adults who were treated as kids with arthritis and other bone illnesses in their 30s.

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except being trans is NOT a mental illness.

Honest and genuine question..

What is it ?

And why do people lump it in with homosexuality ?

Is there a link ?

PlaneSpeeking

Rennaws wrote: »

Honest and genuine question..

What is it ?

And why do people lump it in with homosexuality ?

Is there a link ?

Back in the olden days when we had sense - there is an illness called Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder.

They are technically (slightly) mental illnesses. However, it must be pointed out that not all mental illnesses are bad - I have GAD for example.

The condition is still in the DSM-V but there is a campaign to have it declassified. I think it would be a mistake as is it helping the GENUINE people going through this and helping them avail of treatment, surgery etc.

Sadly the modern day thinking (c.f. New York and it's idiotic 31 genders - http://trove42.com/new-york-city-recognizes-31-gender-identities/) does not like this. Will it take a rape on a female changing room before this "self identifying" nonsense is gone ???

Oh and to the person who asked the question about film and stage roles ?

No how it works is that trans/black/gay/Latino etc roles - they can only be played by a trans/gay/blacl/Latino actor.

Whereas "white" roles can be played by anyone. It's called "Gender and colour blind casting" - and yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds. I saw David Harewood (24, Homeland) play Laertes is Hamlet on stage. He was brilliant.

Yet why would a white actor playing Othello not be allowed ? I can think of a few actors who could do the role justice.

suicide_circus

will56

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sweet Jesus - can the "achingly progressive" crowd get a grip here ???

From about age 4 or 5 I was into what would be termed "boys things" - I loved (and still do at age 48) football, cricket, rugby, golf. I hated dresses, wore trousers - practically sulked for days at my First Holy Communion dress. I've never had many female friends, played with boys then - friends with blokes now.

My parents said I was a tomboy, one of the lads - and it was perfectly normal. Quite right too!

I'm a straight female, I always have been - I likely always will be. Nowadays with different parents I'd likely have the girls bandaged down and be injected with testosterone before I could spell it.

I am a staunch ally of the LGBT community, I walk the walk for them, they know I have their back. This is not an LGBT issue in my opinion but rather than in the rush to be "woke" (is that the right word ?) we are forgetting one very important fact.

We've forgotten that sometimes kids and adults like what they like, they are who are they are - the stereotypes are wrong. Forcing kids to have medication to make them something they may not be is wrong.

See this is why I question the current gender fluid movement along with parents forcing/allowing young children to make life changing decisions !

People seem to be so quick to attach a label nowadays

A girl that wants to play with boys toys and dress like a boy is not gender fluid/non binary etc, they just have an interest in those things.
Same for boys looking to play with girl toys etc.

PlaneSpeeking

will56 wrote: »

See this is why I question the current gender fluid movement along with parents forcing/allowing young children to make life changing decisions !

People seem to be so quick to attach a label nowadays

A girl that wants to play with boys toys and dress like a boy is not gender fluid/non binary etc, they just have an interest in those things.
Same for boys looking to play with girl toys etc.

Absolutely! At 8 I wanted a Scalextrix - my auntie bought me a toy hoover and a toy iron. Thank God for the mammy who got me in for my birthday!!!

Though the best was when I used to go to her house to watch Wimbledon - when Martina started winning she didn't want me to watch in case it gave me "ideas".

No idea what she was on about, I still can't play tennis!! ;);)

The Bishop Basher

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Back in the olden days when we had sense - there is an illness called Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder.

They are technically (slightly) mental illnesses. However, it must be pointed out that not all mental illnesses are bad - I have GAD for example.

The condition is still in the DSM-V but there is a campaign to have it declassified. I think it would be a mistake as is it helping the GENUINE people going through this and helping them avail of treatment, surgery etc.

Sadly the modern day thinking (c.f. New York and it's idiotic 31 genders - http://trove42.com/new-york-city-recognizes-31-gender-identities/) does not like this. Will it take a rape on a female changing room before this "self identifying" nonsense is gone ???

This is the bit I don't understand..

I had GAD for 12 years. I get the stigma. I personally never gave a sh1te and was very open with friends, family and work from day 1 but that did open me up to all sorts of reactions so i understand the stigma attached to the term and I can understand people not wanting to be associated with it.

But whether i like it or not, I had a mental illness for 12 years.

As I understand it, the WHO are reclassifying Gender Dysphoria as Gender Incongruence from Jan 2022 but it appears to be for societal reasons as opposed to medical.

They also make the point that the care remains the same regardless of the reclassification so again, it seems to be a far more of an attempt to remove any stigma then any kind of change in how it's viewed medically.

Even those in favour of beginning gender reassignment in children are using terms like health care and treatment.

I also understand the nuance with regard to the disease being the discomfort felt by the individual (depression / anxiety) as opposed to the fact that they feel they're the wrong gender.

But surely that's just ignoring the elephant in the room. ie. the fact that they feel that they are the wrong gender as they likely wouldn't have the other symptoms if they didn't have that to contend with.

So my question is, if it's not a mental illness*, what is it ?

*I'm not saying that it is..

Sal Butamol

The lunatics have taken over the asylum

DEFTLEFTHAND

I always assumed it was along the lines of other dysphorias such as anorexia or Alien Limb Syndrome.

The Bishop Basher

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I always assumed it was along the lines of other dysphorias such as anorexia or Alien Limb Syndrome.

So did I but both of them are considered mental illnesses.

We can call them psychiatric disorders, dysmorphia's, dysphoria's etc etc.

These terms might be a little more palatable but we're just playing semantics.

They amount to the same thing..

Google results also show up an interesting trend..

Go search for gender dysmorphia and then again for body dysmorphia..

Body dysmorphia is clearly classified as a mental illness yet the results for gender dysmorphia dance around the term desperately trying to avoid it.

I get why we need to reduce the stigma associated with these "conditions". I just think we should address them honestly or not at all especially given the reasons outlined by a previous poster regarding access to proper health care.

The statement that it's not a mental illness doesn't make sense on the face of it however i'm genuinely open to being schooled on the topic..

If transgenderism isn't a mental illness, what is it ?

And the other question I have is why is it constantly conflated with peoples sexual orientation ?

Surely they are completely separate topics no ?

Lux23

Rennaws wrote: »

.

If transgenderism isn't a mental illness, what is it ?

A neurological condition.

We used to call homosexuality a mental illness, our scientific understanding of differences change over time and so does our treatment of them.

P_1

Rennaws wrote: »

And the other question I have is why is it constantly conflated with peoples sexual orientation ?

Surely they are completely separate topics no ?

They are.

Your gender identity has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

You can be cis male and into cis women.
You can be cis female and into cis women.
You can be trans male and into cis males
You can be gf and be pan
You can be trans female and be ace
And so on

They're two separate spectrums.

The Bishop Basher

Lux23 wrote: »

We used to call homosexuality a mental illness, our scientific understanding of differences change over time and so does our treatment of them.

I understand and fully accept that but yet again, why are we conflating homosexuality with transgenderism ?

Honestly, people constantly do it on here but no-one seems to be able to explain why

Is there a link and if so what is it ?

Lux23 wrote: »

A neurological condition.

I had GAD for 12 years. It was most definitely a mental illness.

I currently suffer from a neurological condition..

I take drugs for neuropathic pain. Strong anti convulsants with major side effects. I also take opioids as they're the only thing that works. It sucks but i'm lucky. The drugs don't work for everyone. The pain never fully goes away but that's my life and i intend to enjoy it.

Forgive my cynicism, but given my personal experience of both mental and neuropathic issues and the countless hours of research i've done trying to find answers and cures to both, i'm struggling to see how transgenderism is in any way a neurological condition.

I can certainly see how neurology may provide some of the answers but this all seems like a big word game to me with everyone dancing around the fact that it's fundamentally psychological in nature.

Can you share a link to support the assertion that transgenderism is a neurological condition ?

I'm not being lazy, I did go looking but couldn't find anything and I haven't seen it mentioned in anything else i've read to date on either transgenderism or neurological matters.

_Kaiser_

P_1 wrote: »

They are.

Your gender identity has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

You can be cis male and into cis women.
You can be cis female and into cis women.
You can be trans male and into cis males
You can be gf and be pan
You can be trans female and be ace
And so on

They're two separate spectrums.

I'll agree with the first point. Your gender (of which there are ONLY 2) is not related to your sexual preferences.

However, all this "cis" stuff is Americanised nonsense that has no place outside of their college campuses (and not even there TBF).. or maybe NYC with it's 31 genders! :rolleyes: - it certainly isn't applicable to this country, and shouldn't be given any credence here.

P_1

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'll agree with the first point. Your gender (of which there are ONLY 2) is not related to your sexual preferences.

However, all this "cis" stuff is Americanised nonsense that has no place outside of their college campuses (and not even there TBF).. or maybe NYC with it's 31 genders! :rolleyes: - it certainly isn't applicable to this country, and shouldn't be given any credence here.

At times I wonder if it would be more comfortable to see the world in black and white...

Folks I'm bowing out. Theres just no reasoning with you here without saying something that will cause grief for the mods.

Incredibly disappointed in so many of you. So open minded on many issues but like a slap back to bad old catholic Ireland on this one

_Dara_

P_1 wrote: »

At times I wonder if it would be more comfortable to see the world in black and white...

Folks I'm bowing out. Theres just no reasoning with you here without saying something that will cause grief for the mods.

Incredibly disappointed in so many of you. So open minded on many issues but like a slap back to bad old catholic Ireland on this one

I’m sure people are devastated. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think questioning aspects of transgenderism as it relates to minors and their physical and mental health is very open-minded rather than blindly accepting everything.

The Bishop Basher

Usage of the term “cis” implies we are a subset who should be recognised separately and treated as such..

Classic identity politics..

We aren’t a subset of anything. We are what we are and it doesn’t require a label.. We are men and women. Plain and simple.

Labels are only required when identifying smaller minority subsets of the population..

It’s a clever tool, but it’s based on a fallacy and so won’t last..

As soon as I see it in a post I stop reading tbh

Calhoun

P_1 wrote: »

At times I wonder if it would be more comfortable to see the world in black and white...

Folks I'm bowing out. Theres just no reasoning with you here without saying something that will cause grief for the mods.

Incredibly disappointed in so many of you. So open minded on many issues but like a slap back to bad old catholic Ireland on this one

So we must replace Catholic Ireland with the new religion of left leaning and contradictory views. Just do as we are told no questions asked?

We are talking about welfare of Irish children here, we have seen the abuses that happened when we let other groups do our thinking for us.

Not only that but you also want to redefine us while you got about it all, no longer male or female but now labelled. These labels as seen in the US then used to discredit people's opinions.

P_1

Calhoun wrote: »

So we must replace Catholic Ireland with the new religion of left leaning and contradictory views. Just do as we are told no questions asked?

We are talking about welfare of Irish children here, we have seen the abuses that happened when we let other groups do our thinking for us.

Not only that but you also want to redefine us while you got about it all, no longer male or female but now labelled. These labels as seen in the US then used to discredit people's opinions.

Jesus H Christ, would you do yourself a bloody favour and read over my posts. Find me anywhere where I mentioned the abuse of children.

And yes if we must replace catholic Ireland with a left leaning religion where people are free to be themselves while doing absolutely no harm to others bar making them think outside of the restrictive black and white binary then yes what is the bloody harm. Ask all the questions you want to, there's no such thing as a stupid one, just a stupid answer.

In regards to redefining people, sometimes adjectives are bloody useful, particularly when someone asks a question and it's a tricky one. Nobody is defining anybody, you define yourself and fcuk anyone who tries to paint you into a corner.

Look I get that this can be a confusing issue for people and people often react with fear and anger towards what they don't understand. What is inexcusable however, is the blatant transphobia that has been evident in this thread since the OP. Yes some people are agitating for people as young as preteen to be prescribed puberty blockers, I'm not one of them. Similarly during the troubles some people were agitating for all sorts to be done to the British, was that all of Ireland?

Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to make the decision to be who they are? In my opinion they should be once it has been established that they are of sound mind and that after receiving the appropriate council, they walk into it fully armed with the facts and with eyes wide open.

Calhoun

P_1 wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, would you do yourself a bloody favour and read over my posts. Find me anywhere where I mentioned the abuse of children.

And yes if we must replace catholic Ireland with a left leaning religion where people are free to be themselves while doing absolutely no harm to others bar making them think outside of the restrictive black and white binary then yes what is the bloody harm. Ask all the questions you want to, there's no such thing as a stupid one, just a stupid answer.

In regards to redefining people, sometimes adjectives are bloody useful, particularly when someone asks a question and it's a tricky one. Nobody is defining anybody, you define yourself and fcuk anyone who tries to paint you into a corner.

Look I get that this can be a confusing issue for people and people often react with fear and anger towards what they don't understand. What is inexcusable however, is the blatant transphobia that has been evident in this thread since the OP. Yes some people are agitating for people as young as preteen to be prescribed puberty blockers, I'm not one of them. Similarly during the troubles some people were agitating for all sorts to be done to the British, was that all of Ireland?

Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to make the decision to be who they are? In my opinion they should be once it has been established that they are of sound mind and that after receiving the appropriate council, they walk into it fully armed with the facts and with eyes wide open.

You didn't mention abuse but as I said you want people to follow blindly what is being said from one side That is what happened with the Catholic Church in Ireland , people let men in cloth dictated how they lived their lives and look at the abuse that happened. In this case we are actually talking about children, so hence why folk aren't going to not question something.

Also I think you are confusing free thinking with another group as that has abandoned the left a long time ago, we only need to look at the narrative coming from other jurisdictions. They like to particulaly use those narratives to shut down other folks freedom.

You maybe moderate on your views but just like the transphobia is putting you off some of your peers have been putting people on the other side of the fence off. Sure one of the first rebukes in the post was to label someone a pedo to shut conversation down.

I disagree mainly because I see this being a gateway thing, give an inch on allowing children decide on medical treatment and a mile will be taken.

Sal Butamol

P_1 wrote: »

At times I wonder if it would be more comfortable to see the world in black and white...

Folks I'm bowing out. Theres just no reasoning with you here without saying something that will cause grief for the mods.

Incredibly disappointed in so many of you. So open minded on many issues but like a slap back to bad old catholic Ireland on this one

It has nothing to do with Catholicism.

SEPT 23 1989

P_1 wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, would you do yourself a bloody favour and read over my posts. Find me anywhere where I mentioned the abuse of children.

And yes if we must replace catholic Ireland with a left leaning religion where people are free to be themselves while doing absolutely no harm to others bar making them think outside of the restrictive black and white binary then yes what is the bloody harm. Ask all the questions you want to, there's no such thing as a stupid one, just a stupid answer.

In regards to redefining people, sometimes adjectives are bloody useful, particularly when someone asks a question and it's a tricky one. Nobody is defining anybody, you define yourself and fcuk anyone who tries to paint you into a corner.

Look I get that this can be a confusing issue for people and people often react with fear and anger towards what they don't understand. What is inexcusable however, is the blatant transphobia that has been evident in this thread since the OP. Yes some people are agitating for people as young as preteen to be prescribed puberty blockers, I'm not one of them. Similarly during the troubles some people were agitating for all sorts to be done to the British, was that all of Ireland?

Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to make the decision to be who they are? In my opinion they should be once it has been established that they are of sound mind and that after receiving the appropriate council, they walk into it fully armed with the facts and with eyes wide open.

What age are you?

At 16/17 you know nothing about who you really are

You think you do but you don't in the long run

P_1

Calhoun wrote: »

You didn't mention abuse but as I said you want people to follow blindly what is being said from one side That is what happened with the Catholic Church in Ireland , people let men in cloth dictated how they lived their lives and look at the abuse that happened. In this case we are actually talking about children, so hence why folk aren't going to not question something.

Also I think you are confusing free thinking with another group as that has abandoned the left a long time ago, we only need to look at the narrative coming from other jurisdictions. They like to particulaly use those narratives to shut down other folks freedom.

You maybe moderate on your views but just like the transphobia is putting you off some of your peers have been putting people on the other side of the fence off. Sure one of the first rebukes in the post was to label someone a pedo to shut conversation down.

I disagree mainly because I see this being a gateway thing, give an inch on allowing children decide on medical treatment and a mile will be taken.

Ok that's fair enough and I can see the valid concern there. I guess it's a tragedy of discussion boards that the loudest and more extreme voices get in there first and suddenly heckles are raised on both sides. Personally I don't think I'm following blindly but I'd be moderately on the side of what is being recommended after considering where the advice has come from. Perhaps that didn't come across too well in text and particularly when said text was written with the heckles raised.

I must say that I would have grave reservations about how some of the group I have highlighted in bold above go about things. That's extremely counterproductive in my eyes to be putting it very mildly. As I'm sure you know, daring to question that and sticking your head above the parapet is fraught with danger though, even if you're supposedly on the same side as them. Be yourself, when it's your decision to be that way is my qualified take on that. Like, forcing your child to dress as the opposite gender is fcuked up child abuse. Supporting your child if they express a desire to do so is good parenting in my eyes.

I really hope I've managed to express myself better here. It is an important topic of discussion and it deserves a high standard of debate.

Calhoun

You have expressed yourself very well to be fair. Don't get me wrong either i am not hard and fast set in my ways either.

Generally i would rather live in a live and let live society where we are free to do and be who we want to be, but the reason i am vocal is due to the shift in other places that have changed the way we look at things to an us versus them type of scenario.