Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

Can you give me examples of the foul things being said about all trans people?

I second that.

B0jangles

Whats Up? wrote: »

I feel bad too because they have profound mental health issues. Letting them mutilate themselves into taking on the crude appearance of a woman is not going to change that.

That's one to start with, from this very page.

One from a while ago - more of an equal opportunities hater, this guy:

James1888 wrote: »

In what way do you mean prepare to suspend reality, the madness in the whole LGBT agenda on minors? Or the scientific fact that your brain isn't fully developed until 25. This sickness is being brought in to primary schools starting in September, it part of the "inclusive ciriculam" of the new sex ed program. Its sickening to think the whole way through that crap rte ****show that was just on and all the questioning they done about why this was happening. 2 mins of research and you have your answer. Brainwashed by idiot so called liberal documentarys on youtube plus poor diets and health Inc mental health no exercise and underdeveloped brains = testosterone and estrogen levels all over the place and causing feminine men and masculine women. Eat some bloody steaks people

Zorya

B0jangles wrote: »

That's one to start with, from this very page.

That is someone who just signed up to say that. Every thread on boards as far as I can make out has people who do that to lash out with an out-there type of remark. To be honest I did not register it as my eyes glaze over such remarks as opening gambits from new members.

Annasopra

Whats Up? wrote: »

Why? Because it goes your 'muh feels' argument?

I can darken my skin and surgically alter my appearance to take on the appearance of a black man but I'm not black.

Just a hateful bigot

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law is not untested? It applies to everyone equally, regardless of their gender. The victim was clearly misled as to the nature of the act if the person they assumed was a woman, turns out that the person does not agree that they are a woman. The Gender Recognition Act doesn’t apply here as it only applies in how a person is recognised in law. Even if they were legally a woman, it wouldn’t matter to a person who does not consider them to be a woman, and considers that they were misled by the nature of the act, thereby vitiating consent.

The law is very much untested. I'm not aware of any cases in Ireland, are you? I suspect you either don't know what testing a law means or you are talking about the wider laws of consent, which are obviously regularly tested. But these two specific clauses surrounding awareness of identity and nature of the acts are most definitely untested.


Again, your musings on the gender recognition act are just that, musings. You have no idea how self id would impact consent laws because it is UNTESTED. Until you can show case law where your interpretation has been supported then you are just guessing.

Your red herrings about national identity aren’t relevant to what we’re discussing here which is gender identity, but you feel free to argue that in front of a jury too. I’ve heard worse arguments.

Its not a red herring. Its just one interpretation of the word identity, just as yours is. The law does not mention gender identity, so if you believe that your interpretation with no case law to support it must be valid, then why cant my interpretation that identity could apply to sexual preference or national identity apply just as much?


It seems the answer is because you say so and you are the exclusive and final judge of the interpretation of law.

They’re irrelevant to you perhaps, but they aren’t irrelevant to me, and they aren’t irrelevant to anyone I’ve ever met who works in the legal profession. The feelings of the victim aren’t irrelevant to a jury either, and can often sway a case one way or the other. And it is the feelings of a person who has been sexually assaulted or raped, and your attempts to downplay the severity of the impact that being sexually assaulted or raped can have on a person are noted.

They are irrelevant to whether a charge will be made and a trial brought to jury.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Its not a red herring. Its just one interpretation of the word identity, just as yours is. The law does not mention gender identity, so if you believe that your interpretation with no case law to support it must be valid, then why cant my interpretation that identity could apply to sexual preference or national identity apply just as much?

It seems the answer is because you say so and you are the exclusive and final judge of the interpretation of law.

I never argued that it couldn’t apply.

I’m just not interested in whether it could or couldn’t apply. I said you’re free to argue that it refers to national identity if you like. I certainly won’t attempt to stop you, but it would be a different context to the context we’re talking about here.

I’m talking specifically about a person’s gender identity, given the context of the thread. Your argument about national identity would be relevant to this discussion if we were talking about national identity.

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

I linked to this before, it was dismissed because the rapist wasn’t a transsexual.

But there are huge parallels that can’t be ignored in the context of this discussion.

She was found guilty twice by 2 different jury’s so it’s cut and dried.

“The jury was told the “real issue” of the case boiled down to consent: did the complainant really know she was having sex with her friend, or did she honestly think her sexual partner was a man she had met on the internet?

In the end the jury decided the complainant had no idea that her lover was Gayle Newland and so could not have consented.”

This summary of the case points to clear differences between what we are discussing and this case.


The issue as summarised there is that she did not know she was having sex with her friend. It could equally apply to a male friend of hers who set up a fake internet persona, insisted she was blindfolded when they met, and had sex with her.


There is nothing in that summary to say that the issue was the accused's gender identity (anyway she was not trans as I have pointed out).

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never argued that it couldn’t apply.

I’m just not interested in whether it could or couldn’t apply. I said you’re free to argue that it refers to national identity if you like. I certainly won’t attempt to stop you, but it would be a different context to the context we’re talking about here.

I’m talking specifically about a person’s gender identity, given the context of the thread. Your argument about national identity would be relevant to this discussion if we were talking about national identity.

And we all know that nobody is going to court for giving a fake first name or for not correcting someone who assumes they are a different nationality anytime soon. And I doubt anyone would view them as a victim of rape.


I have the same attitudes to your certainty about people who sleep with a trans person. They have not been raped until it has been shown that the law applies to that particular situation. And that is going to require actual cases to show that your interpretation holds any weight.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

And we all know that nobody is going to court for giving a fake first name or for not correcting someone who assumes they are a different nationality anytime soon. And I doubt anyone would view them as a victim of rape.

Speak for yourself, I wouldn’t be as certain of that as you are.

I have the same attitudes to your certainty about people who sleep with a trans person. They have not been raped until it has been shown that the law applies to that particular situation. And that is going to require actual cases to show that your interpretation holds any weight.

You really do have it arseways. A person in that situation could be found guilty of rape or sexual assault assault. I never said I was certain that they would be.

As I said, their gender is irrelevant. It is the deception is the key factor which vitiates consent, as it did in this particular case -

Man posed as stranger ‘to trick’ stepdaughter into having sex

And as for your idea that the feelings of the victim are not taken into consideration -

Mr Justice Michael White described the deception as callous and ruthless and said this breach of trust was a serious aggravating factor.

Dante7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Just a hateful bigot

You'll have to do better than that. Calling someone a bigot, racist, Nazi or fascist no longer works as a way to shut down debate. Could you please address the topic at hand with reasoned discussion.

klaaaz

B0jangles wrote: »

I feel very badly for any remaining trans boards members, (if there even are any at this point, given the way things have been let go here). It must be soul-destroying to have your personal choice to live in a way that makes life bearable, maybe even wonderful, endlessly treated as a delusion and a threat.

Yep, it's a small hostile place on the internet for transgender people. This place has quite a combination of radicals of different persuasions coming together with extreme often outdated views on people who are different to them, thankfully the hostiles are a small number and do not reflect the most people's views in Irish society.

Gravelly

B0jangles wrote: »

You don't understand me correctly, have a reread and a little think and maybe it'll become clearer

my point is that gender and sexuality are a lot more complex and variable than the MEN ARE MEN, WOMEN ARE WOMEN END OF DISCUSSION crowd would have us believe.

So, again if I'm reading you correctly, you have no actual answer to the point made?

Thought not.

Sittingpretty

klaaaz wrote: »

Yep, it's a small hostile place on the internet for transgender people. This place has quite a combination of radicals of different persuasions coming together with extreme often outdated views on people who are different to them, thankfully the hostiles are a small number and do not reflect the most people's views in Irish society.

Please explain how it is radical to believe that a trans woman/man does not and never will equate to a biological woman/man?

Gravelly

klaaaz wrote: »

Yep, it's a small hostile place on the internet for transgender people. This place has quite a combination of radicals of different persuasions coming together with extreme often outdated views on people who are different to them, thankfully the hostiles are a small number and do not reflect the most people's views in Irish society.

God, this preciousness - "somebody said something I disagree with, oh the violence" is vomit-inducing.

If you find the opinions of others too difficult to handle, blame your parents for not saying no often enough to you.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Speak for yourself, I wouldn’t be as certain of that as you are.

I'm 99.999999% certain. I'd say you're 98% certain. Anyway I await the rape case of the woman who slept with what she thought was a spanish man and had a great time, only later to find out that he was actually Portuguese :eek:. It must be coming any day now.

You really do have it arseways. A person in that situation could be found guilty of rape or sexual assault assault. I never said I was certain that they would be.

It really depends what you mean by could. You seem to think its a serious possibility. I mean I COULD win the euromillions. Not realistic though.

As I said, their gender is irrelevant. It is the deception is the key factor which vitiates consent, as it did in this particular case -

Man posed as stranger ‘to trick’ stepdaughter into having sex

And as for your idea that the feelings of the victim are not taken into consideration -

Deception re identity. Not deception re GENDER identity. They are not the same thing.


Your quote mentions breach of trust, not how the victim felt about it.....

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm 99.999999% certain. I'd say you're 98% certain.

...

It really depends what you mean by could.

...

Deception re identity. Not deception re GENDER identity. They are not the same thing.

...

Your quote mentions breach of trust, not how the victim felt about it.....

And you claim you’re not just playing with words :pac:

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And you claim you’re not just playing with words :pac:

Its not playing with words when the interpretation of those words is crucial.


Like I said, if all you are saying by "X could be prosecuted" is that there is a miniscule chance that the DPP and a judge would take a case under an extreme fringe interpretation fo the law then I don't really have a problem with what you are saying. That is a possibility.


If you mean there is a decent or strong chance it could happen then my previous arguments still apply.

And if you want to pretend a breach of trust means the same thing as a victims feelings then its you who are playing with words.

klaaaz

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Please explain how it is radical to believe that a trans woman/man does not and never will equate to a biological woman/man?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/

HSE, the medical professionals wrote:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

Sittingpretty

klaaaz wrote: »

https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/

If I was you in response to your links I’d link you to the dictionary definition of the word dysphoria.

I wonder if you can answer this one without resorting to a link. In your opinion is it acceptable for a trans woman to engage in a sexual encounter with a heterosexual man without, at first, declaring that they were in fact born a man?

And then, do you equate trans people with the biological men/women?

klaaaz

Sittingpretty wrote: »

If I was you in response to your links I’d link you to the dictionary definition of the word dysphoria.

I wonder if you can answer this one without resorting to a link. In your opinion is it acceptable for a trans woman to engage in a sexual encounter with a heterosexual man without, at first, declaring that they were in fact born a man?

And then, do you equate trans people with the biological men/women?

The opinion of medical professionals on medical stuff supercedes any ordinary person who has not had the qualifications. It's the reason we have hospitals, doctors, surgeons, nurses etc. As you disagree with this, there is always alternative medicine, perhaps traditional Chinese medicine the next time you have an ailment?

In answer to your question, the person was born a baby not a man. And no, it's not acceptable, disclosure up front is good for all. Also if a man gets violent, he should be locked up away from the dating scene to protect all women, do you agree?

Yes, I equate transgender people who have medically transitioned with biological men/women. That's the HSE guidance also as stated.

Gravelly

klaaaz wrote: »

The opinion of medical professionals on medical stuff supercedes any ordinary person who has not had the qualifications. It's the reason we have hospitals, doctors, surgeons, nurses etc.

And medical perceived wisdom is never wrong.

Lobotomies.
Bloodletting.
Electroconvulsive Therapy.
Mercury Treatment.
Tonsillectomy.
Symphysiotomies.
Insulin Shock Therapy.

klaaaz

Gravelly wrote: »

And medical perceived wisdom is never wrong.

Lobotomies.
Bloodletting.
Electroconvulsive Therapy.
Mercury Treatment.
Tonsillectomy.
Symphysiotomies.
Insulin Shock Therapy.

Alot of that was in the past decades ago. I'm talking about modern medicine, do you agree we should do away with the medical profession as they don't agree with you on transgender issues?

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

The opinion of medical professionals on medical stuff supercedes any ordinary person who has not had the qualifications.

Indeed, except on the thankfully rare occasions when some in the medical field have a collective brainfart and come out with nonsense. Stating that medical intervention can cause permanent gender change is a nonsense. A provable one.

In answer to your question, the person was born a baby not a man.

Except for rare cases of genetic faults or congenital conditions, babies are born male, or female. This is a biological fact.

Yes, I equate transgender people who have medically transitioned with biological men/women. That's the HSE guidance also as stated.

One may personally equate the two and good luck to you if you do BTW, but this does not mean science and biology agrees with you. It doesn't by the way. And so what if the HSE states this falsehood? Ten years ago the same HSE and likely the same people at the top would have said Transgender was a mental illness. They're 100% on the ball now, but were 100% not on the ball then?

klaaaz wrote: »

Alot of that was in the past decades ago. I'm talking about modern medicine, do you agree we should do away with the medical profession as they don't agree with you on transgender issues?

That's an idiotic "argument".

To be honest I am getting a major pain in my arse with this increasing nonsense of self identifiers. It's bad enough when some groups come out with it, when some college kid decides he or she's a two spirit gender fluid or whatever(whatever gets you through the night I say), but when otherwise respected authorities do and when it all too often comes across as pandering and a current fashion that has the great potential to truly screw up people's lives that's a step too bloody far.

Sittingpretty

klaaaz wrote: »

The opinion of medical professionals on medical stuff supercedes any ordinary person who has not had the qualifications. It's the reason we have hospitals, doctors, surgeons, nurses etc. As you disagree with this, there is always alternative medicine, perhaps traditional Chinese medicine the next time you have an ailment?

In answer to your question, the person was born a baby not a man. And no, it's not acceptable, disclosure up front is good for all. Also if a man gets violent, he should be locked up away from the dating scene to protect all women, do you agree?

Yes, I equate transgender people who have medically transitioned with biological men/women. That's the HSE guidance also as stated.

You make many many assumptions. You have no idea of my background or expertise. Yes, I fully agree and endorse a heavy reliance on medical professionals. I’d much rather hear the peel of an abulance siren coming to my aid, than say, panpipes so your slight towards alternative medicine is lost on me I’m afraid.

The person was born a male baby. If you want to make this about semantics I’ll play ball.

Absolutely agreed, violence should always be punished.

The HSE is a cluster****, your prerogative to put your faith in them, more power to you. I fundamentally disagree with you with regard to trans people being equivalent to their biological counterparts.

That being said, thanks for answering my questions.

Will I Am Not

klaaaz wrote: »

Alot of that was in the past decades ago. I'm talking about modern medicine, do you agree we should do away with the medical profession as they don't agree with you on transgender issues?

It was modern medicine back then...

The Bishop Basher

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes, I equate transgender people who have medically transitioned with biological men/women. That's the HSE guidance also as stated.

See comments like this, and people with views such as yours, actually do more harm then good to the cause you claim to support.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes, I equate transgender people who have medically transitioned with biological men/women. That's the HSE guidance also as stated.

Ok so if the HSE truly believe that people can change sex, do they offer cervical smear tests to trans women and prostate exams to trans men? Do they pretend that a trans man experiencing abdominal pain does not probably or possibly have female reproductive organs that may have various conditions that could be responsible for the pain? Pretty sure they don't because that would be a- a waste of time and money and b- medically negligent.

That's just a couple of examples of how biology is actually relevant when it comes to medicine. People who have transitioned do not equate exactly to their biologically born counterparts, but what's wrong or offensive about that? It's reality

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

Alot of that was in the past decades ago. I'm talking about modern medicine, do you agree we should do away with the medical profession as they don't agree with you on transgender issues?

But let's discuss current medicine. Medical researchers are increasingly concerned about bad science sneaking into drug trials and other therapies for example. This has been highlighted by The Lancet over the last few years. The symbiotic relationship between pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and the medical field is also under scrutiny. I'm not talking anti vaccination "big Pharma" idiots who are asking these questions either. Medicine evolves on a near weekly basis. Sometimes these moves forward aren't always forward. It's the nature of science and medicine.

Gravelly

klaaaz wrote: »

Alot of that was in the past decades ago. I'm talking about modern medicine, do you agree we should do away with the medical profession as they don't agree with you on transgender issues?

As usual you fail to address the point.

Several of those treatments were being carried out very recently - I’m not an old man, and some of them were being carried out when I was in college!

In years to come, I believe our children will look back at transgender surgery in the same way we look back at lobotomies now.

ceadaoin.

Gravelly wrote: »

And medical perceived wisdom is never wrong.

Lobotomies.
Bloodletting.
Electroconvulsive Therapy.
Mercury Treatment.
Tonsillectomy.
Symphysiotomies.
Insulin Shock Therapy.

Ok, off topic, but are tonsillectomies not a thing now? I had mine out as a kid, is something terrible going to happen to me?!

Zorya

Men who receive blood transfusions from a woman who has ever been pregnant have a significantly higher risk of death. This kind of awkward biological reality won't go away, and will be problematic if donors register as their adopted sex.

The NHS will not call FtM transmen who are registered at their GPs as male for cervical smears or breast screening. This is the sort of incoherent response being shown by medical professionals.

Gravelly

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok, off topic, but are tonsillectomies not a thing now? I had mine out as a kid, is something terrible going to happen to me?!

They are seen nowadays as an unnecessary make-work surgery, akin to modern day bloodletting.

rgodard80a

klaaaz wrote: »

The opinion of medical professionals on medical stuff supercedes any ordinary person who has not had the qualifications. It's the reason we have hospitals, doctors, surgeons, nurses etc.

Okay, let's ask doctors and nurses in a maternity hospital if they consider any transwoman to be equal to one of their patients.

Psychiatry is a lot more fuzzy, based on interpretation and statistics, studies etc than a lot of other testable and quantifiable science.

As I said before and it was ignored, this "equality" you seek is like religious equality. Go ahead, believe what you want and publicly people may be forced legally to play along but privately you can never expect a piece of legislation force someone to truly believe it is fact.

klaaaz

Seems the objectors here should take the issue up with the top HSE endocrinologist in the country who deals with transgender people, he and a member of his team was on the Primetime program. It looks like that his medical professional qualifications are inferior to a bunch of boards posters here!

One eyed Jack

rgodard80a wrote: »

Okay, let's ask doctors and nurses in a maternity hospital if they consider any transwoman to be equal to one of their patients.

That wouldn’t yield the results one would imagine it should given their qualifications. They’re aware that their ongoing employment is predicated upon them giving the right-on opinions as opposed to a medical opinion. Just look what was written on the HSE website earlier which is supposed to inform people about transgender health and welfare - they’re publishing information which they know is misleading, and at the same time wondering why people don’t trust them :rolleyes:

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Seems the objectors here should take the issue up with the top HSE endocrinologist in the country who deals with transgender people, he and a member of his team was on the Primetime program. It looks like that his medical professional qualifications are inferior to a bunch of boards posters here!

Can you address the issues posted regarding instances where biological sex is relevant and whether the HSE truly does believe it is possible to change sex based on their treatment of those issues? I'd be very surprised if they were asking transwomen to do pregnancy tests before surgery for example but according to you they should be because their stance is you can literally change sex.

Zorya wrote: »

Men who receive blood transfusions from a woman who has ever been pregnant have a significantly higher risk of death. This kind of awkward biological reality won't go away, and will be problematic if donors register as their adopted sex.

The NHS will not call FtM transmen who are registered at their GPs as male for cervical smears or breast screening. This is the sort of incoherent response being shown by medical professionals.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok so if the HSE truly believe that people can change sex, do they offer cervical smear tests to trans women and prostate exams to trans men? Do they pretend that a trans man experiencing abdominal pain does not probably or possibly have female reproductive organs that may have various conditions that could be responsible for the pain? Pretty sure they don't because that would be a- a waste of time and money and b- medically negligent.

That's just a couple of examples of how biology is actually relevant when it comes to medicine. People who have transitioned do not equate exactly to their biologically born counterparts, but what's wrong or offensive about that? It's reality

rgodard80a

klaaaz wrote: »

Seems the objectors here should take the issue up with the top HSE endocrinologist in the country who deals with transgender people!

Dealing with them probably boils down to injecting them with hormones and monitoring bloods.

What's your point?

If I got injected with massive doses of steroids it wouldn't make me a "natural athlete" and give me the right the stand beside other athletes as an equal.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, except on the thankfully rare occasions when some in the medical field have a collective brainfart and come out with nonsense. Stating that medical intervention can cause permanent gender change is a nonsense. A provable one.

Except for rare cases of genetic faults or congenital conditions, babies are born male, or female. This is a biological fact.

One may personally equate the two and good luck to you if you do BTW, but this does not mean science and biology agrees with you. It doesn't by the way. And so what if the HSE states this falsehood? Ten years ago the same HSE and likely the same people at the top would have said Transgender was a mental illness. They're 100% on the ball now, but were 100% not on the ball then?

That's an idiotic "argument".

To be honest I am getting a major pain in my arse with this increasing nonsense of self identifiers. It's bad enough when some groups come out with it, when some college kid decides he or she's a two spirit gender fluid or whatever(whatever gets you through the night I say), but when otherwise respected authorities do and when it all too often comes across as pandering and a current fashion that has the great potential to truly screw up people's lives that's a step too bloody far.

Tbh W if someone wants to do that and it makes them happy, all at the same time not causing you any negative impact shouldn't live and let live apply?

Zorya

P_1 wrote: »

Tbh W if someone wants to do that and it makes them happy, all at the same time not causing you any negative impact shouldn't live and let live apply?

That would be fine if they didn't peddle lies about biology.

ceadaoin.

Zorya wrote: »

That would be fine if they didn't peddle lies about biology.

And police how others are allowed to refer to themselves. We can't be women anymore, but "cis" women. If talking about periods we can't be women then either but "menstruators" or even worse, "bleeders". Not pregnant women or mothers but "pregnant people". Even the dictionary definition of "woman" is offensive now.

Seems like they really just have a problem with the word "woman" and the people of that class being able to define themselves and speak about issues that effect them and only them.

Oh and by they I'm referring to the extremely vocal minority of extreme transactivists, not all trans people

P_1

Zorya wrote: »

That would be fine if they didn't peddle lies about biology.

I'm a big believer in letting people make their own minds up about something. Shouting one side of the argument at the other side just isn't going to do anyone any good bar people who sell headache tablets

Creol1

klaaaz wrote: »

Seems the objectors here should take the issue up with the top HSE endocrinologist in the country who deals with transgender people, he and a member of his team was on the Primetime program. It looks like that his medical professional qualifications are inferior to a bunch of boards posters here!

I don't see anyone disputing the authority of an endocrinologist to comment on his area of expertise, i.e., endocrinology. There are many other aspects to the issue, such as the psychological issue of believing one is a man in a woman's body, the sociology of gender, and the legal framework governing this.

If we were to restrict people's right to have an opinion on the subject to those who are appropriately qualified, you would have to find someone who is a consultant doctor, psychologist, lawyer and sociologist all at the same time.

Zorya

P_1 wrote: »

I'm a big believer in letting people make their own minds up about something. Shouting one side of the argument at the other side just isn't going to do anyone any good bar people who sell headache tablets

Tell that to the ideologues in Mermaids being consulted regarding primary school curriculums in the UK

P_1

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And police how others are allowed to refer to themselves. We can't be women anymore, but "cis" women. If talking about periods we can't be women then either but "menstruators" or even worse, "bleeders". Not pregnant women or mothers but "pregnant people". Even the dictionary definition of "woman" is offensive now.

Seems like they really just have a problem with the word "woman" and the people of that class being able to define themselves and speak about issues that effect them and only them.

Oh and by they I'm referring to the extremely vocal minority of extreme transactivists, not all trans people

Is anyone really policing what people can refer to themselves as though bar a loud minority? Call yourself whatever you want to call yourself and let others call themselves whatever they want to call themselves.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Seems the objectors here should take the issue up with the top HSE endocrinologist in the country who deals with transgender people, he and a member of his team was on the Primetime program. It looks like that his medical professional qualifications are inferior to a bunch of boards posters here!

Are you referring to Professor Donal O’ Shea?

SEX-CHANGE SPECIALIST WARNS OF SURGERY REGRETS AS TWO IRISH PEOPLE REVERSE PROCEDURE

The country’s leading doctor who helps transgender people change their sex is now supporting three patients who regret having surgery.

Professor Donal O’Shea has told Extra.ie that their trauma highlights the need for proper support and resources to prevent post-operative remorse.

This country has a high rate of adults who regret treatment, he said.

Sixty adults have travelled abroad for sex-change operations since 2012, according to the HSE, and we can reveal that 40 Irish teenagers who have questioned their gender identity are getting treatment in the UK — a five-fold increase in four years, according to the British Clinic that treats them.

Meanwhile, two of the three people who Prof O’Shea is helping to deal with post-op regret are going through the ordeal of reversing their sex-change. Prof O’Shea, consultant endocrinologist at St Vincent’s and St Columcille’s Hospitals in Dublin, said that while data is difficult to compile, he believes the level of regret in Ireland is higher than it is internationally.

While some transgender support groups do not wish to highlight the number of people who suffer from post-operative regret, Prof O’Shea believes it is important that people be made aware. He said three transgender people have died by suicide in the past five years, two had surgery and one was on hormone therapy.

P_1

Zorya wrote: »

Tell that to the ideologues in Mermaids being consulted regarding primary school curriculums in the UK

From what I can see Mermaids are a counselling service, not ideologues. Like they were set up by parents of trans children who've been through it and are there for other parents who find themselves in the same boat. Is importing that rediculous tribal rhetoric from the UK going to do anyone any good?

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

Seems the objectors here should take the issue up with the top HSE endocrinologist in the country who deals with transgender people, he and a member of his team was on the Primetime program. It looks like that his medical professional qualifications are inferior to a bunch of boards posters here!

If he and his team medically and scientifically stand behind the statement: Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex then I and any biologist would take great issue with that statement. He and his team are most certainly coming from a position of patient sympathy and care and that's perfectly understandable and welcome on that score alone, however it is not medically, scientifically, or biologically true. Unless he and his team have come up with a monumental scientific breakthrough that changes biology down to the chromosome and tissue level. They haven't. And before the chimera/intersex argument comes along, the vast majority of transgender people are not in that group. The vast majority present as biologically male or female from birth.

Never mind that it's an obvious logic fail too. If surgery(and hormones, they left that part out) permanently alters biological sex, what happens if a person wants to change back? It's rare, but it happens. Would they then say they could change them back to their original biological sex? After all that should be easier as the framework down to the cellular level is present.

Surgery can't change biological sex. This is a fact. And it's not permanent either. If they had said "Some transgender people seek to have surgery to alter to their preferred sex" I would have no objection, but the other statement is quackery not seen since balancing the humours was a thing.

Creol1

B0jangles wrote: »

I feel very badly for any remaining trans boards members, (if there even are any at this point, given the way things have been let go here). It must be soul-destroying to have your personal choice to live in a way that makes life bearable, maybe even wonderful, endlessly treated as a delusion and a threat.

Being trans is a choice then?

Ken.

Mod- Seeing as how this has moved on to the usual horsesh!te and the damn tv programme is done and dusted this is locked.