Jessica Yaniv refused service at gynaecologist's office

suicide_circus

i suppose the "leaning into it" treatment for gender dysphoria and the legal element is the first medical treatment i've encountered which makes people stop in their tracks and say "eh...sorry, what?!"

it boils down to the externalisation of the condition: not only does the subject have the condition but the treatment is that everyone else has to validate the subject's internal feelings and whims on pain of legal censure. its a perposterous and frankly intolerable imposition.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

i suppose the "leaning into it" treatment for gender dysphoria and the legal element is the first medical treatment i've encountered which makes people stop in their tracks and say "eh...sorry, what?!"

it boils down to the externalisation of the condition: not only does the subject have the condition but the treatment is that everyone else has to validate the subject's internal feelings and whims on pain of legal censure. its a prepositions and frankly intolerable imposition.

From what you’ve written I’m not sure you’re aware of how homosexuality was “treated” in Western society, and still is to some extent “treated” in Middle Eastern societies, because they’re so “progressive” -


Transgender rights in Iran

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

my difficult comes from me being legal required to lie.

Nobody is under any legal obligation to lie? I’m thinking you’re likely referring to the fact that you could be found guilty of discrimination if you’re in a position to treat someone less favourably on the basis of one or other of the nine grounds of discrimination recognised in Irish law.

But generally speaking otherwise you still have the same rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression as everyone else in Irish society enjoys.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All joking aside, there are numerous, and I mean, numerous examples of people who were considered mentally ill at the time who are responsible for some of the social, technological, medical and scientific advances many people in society take for granted today as though they always existed, much like people who are transgender have always existed in societies and cultures across the world throughout history.

Not quite. Transgender seems to cover a lot of territory these days as the discussions continue. There have always been a minority of people who would be Hermaphodite, or those who have the desire to cross dress, or those men who would be closer to being female in personality... Transgender, on the other hand, has a greater meaning today because of the possibility for hormonal treatments or surgery to alter their physical appearance. Such techniques weren't available or possible throughout history.

Absolutely! And I would go further and say that for every successful medical treatment, there have been countless failures and unethical practices which have been considered part and parcel of conventional medical practices. It’s one of the reasons why I object to hormone and surgery as a means to treat what I consider to be a developmental and psychological condition.

To be fair, Medicine typically has stayed pretty firm on this whole area. It's the growth in influence of psychology in society and governments, that has pushed for far more reach on this whole area. Mainstream psychology which remains a very questionable area for proving it's research, has become the go-to for all such decisions. Medicine, by itself, is highly unlikely to encourage transgender procedures, whereas Psychology is playing around with the whole thing.

Truth is that medical professionals are typically responsible for what they involve themselves in, morally, financially and legally. Psychologists, far less so...

Die Linke wrote:

Then men and women will fight back. We will not let a minority of mentally ill men change society.

Except, it is far more than just people directly involved with Gender dysphoria, or those who have become transgender, who are pushing for these changes to society and it's laws. The world has moved to the point where "causes" are adopted by organisations, who desire to implement change. The issue of Gender dysphoria is a perfect example of such a "cause" being adopted. If it had been only a minority of mentally ill men (and to a lesser extent, women) then, it wouldn't have gained as much attention and support.

Mules

Your impression of psychology is incorrect. At any rate psychiatrists and endocrinologists are the specialists who diagnose and treat gender dysphoria. Psychologists do not.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite. Transgender seems to cover a lot of territory these days as the discussions continue. There have always been a minority of people who would be Hermaphodite, or those who have the desire to cross dress, or those men who would be closer to being female in personality... Transgender, on the other hand, has a greater meaning today because of the possibility for hormonal treatments or surgery to alter their physical appearance. Such techniques weren't available or possible throughout history.



To be fair, Medicine typically has stayed pretty firm on this whole area. It's the growth in influence of psychology in society and governments, that has pushed for far more reach on this whole area. Mainstream psychology which remains a very questionable area for proving it's research, has become the go-to for all such decisions. Medicine, by itself, is highly unlikely to encourage transgender procedures, whereas Psychology is playing around with the whole thing.

Truth is that medical professionals are typically responsible for what they involve themselves in, morally, financially and legally. Psychologists, far less so...



Except, it is far more than just people directly involved with Gender dysphoria, or those who have become transgender, who are pushing for these changes to society and it's laws. The world has moved to the point where "causes" are adopted by organisations, who desire to implement change. The issue of Gender dysphoria is a perfect example of such a "cause" being adopted. If it had been only a minority of mentally ill men (and to a lesser extent, women) then, it wouldn't have gained as much attention and support.

Gynoid

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, Medicine typically has stayed pretty firm on this whole area. It's the growth in influence of psychology in society and governments, that has pushed for far more reach on this whole area. Mainstream psychology which remains a very questionable area for proving it's research, has become the go-to for all such decisions. Medicine, by itself, is highly unlikely to encourage transgender procedures, whereas Psychology is playing around with the whole thing. .

I agree with a lot of what you said in that post but this is a bit shaky. Check out Dr Johanna Olson Kennedy who runs the Los Angeles Children's Hospital Gender Clinic. She has referred for radical mastectomies children as young as 13 years old, publicly said if the kids regret them they can always have new ones attached later, and managed to have the age of children participating in CROSS SEX hormone (not puberty blockers!) trials dropped to 8 years old in the US. That is 8 year old girls receiving testosterone.

Olson Kennedy is not some random doctor, she is very influential, runs the largest gender clinic in the US, and has been to the UK recently as visiting professor to Bristol University.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not quite. Transgender seems to cover a lot of territory these days as the discussions continue. There have always been a minority of people who would be Hermaphodite, or those who have the desire to cross dress, or those men who would be closer to being female in personality... Transgender, on the other hand, has a greater meaning today because of the possibility for hormonal treatments or surgery to alter their physical appearance. Such techniques weren't available or possible throughout history.

Aye, the techniques we have now weren’t available to treat transsexualism (still referred to in medicine as transsexualism and not transgenderism), but yeah you’re right to say transgenderism encompasses a whole lot, even more than just gender dysphoria, which is distress caused as a result of gender incongruence. Transgenderism itself though, in all it’s various forms, has existed throughout human history and cultures and societies. The Hijira in India for example have begun to adopt Western concepts of transgenderism in order to gain support for their human rights to be recognised.

Intersex persons who would previously have been referred to as hermaphrodites aren’t transgender though, they’re either of the male or female sex, but due to a developmental disorder they can have any number of issues from being in possession of the anatomical attributes of the opposite sex, to having missing the anatomical attributes of their own sex. To the best of my knowledge there are some people who are intersex who also identify themselves as transgender or non-binary, but because intersex conditions are themselves so rare, people who are intersex who also identify themselves as transgender are almost unheard of in Western society.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gynoid wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you said in that post but this is a bit shaky. Check out Dr Johanna Olson Kennedy who runs the Los Angeles Children's Hospital Gender Clinic. She has referred for radical mastectomies children as young as 13 years old, publicly said if the kids regret them they can always have new ones attached later, and managed to have the age of children participating in CROSS SEX hormone (not puberty blockers!) trials dropped to 8 years old in the US. That is 8 year old girls receiving testosterone.

Olson Kennedy is not some random doctor, she is very influential, runs the largest gender clinic in the US, and has been to the UK recently as visiting professor to Bristol University.

That’s honestly disturbing. That’s along the lines of people telling women who need mastectomies that it’s grand because they’ll get a free boob job out of it. (Yes, some people have had people say that to them) :eek: Breast-removal is a very serious surgery. The idea of it happening on a still-developing body is disturbing.

And entering children into medical trials for that is so unethical.

sondagefaux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is under any legal obligation to lie? I’m thinking you’re likely referring to the fact that you could be found guilty of discrimination if you’re in a position to treat someone less favourably on the basis of one or other of the nine grounds of discrimination recognised in Irish law.

But generally speaking otherwise you still have the same rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression as everyone else in Irish society enjoys.

If I was a gynaecologist, I would make it very clear that my services were available only to people with female sex organs, regardless of their gender identity or sexuality.

If you have a penis, you have no business wasting the time or energy of healthcare professionals who specialise in treating biological women, even if you are a trans-woman.

The Irish constitution provides for differential treatment of people based on their physical capacity, so no equality law need make it compulsory for healthcare providers who specialise in treatment based on biological sex to provide those services on the basis of gender identity.

Gender identity =/= biological sex.

Conflating the two is retrograde and can be used to uphold harmful patriarchal stereotypes.

One eyed Jack

sondagefaux wrote: »

If I was a gynaecologist, I would make it very clear that my services were available only to people with female sex organs, regardless of their gender identity or sexuality.

If you have a penis, you have no business wasting the time or energy of healthcare professionals who specialise in treating biological women, even if you are a trans-woman.

The Irish constitution provides for differential treatment of people based on their sex, so no equality law which purports to make it compulsory for healthcare providers who specialise in treatment based on biological sex should have to be compelled by law to provide those services on the basis of gender.

Gender identity =/= biological sex.

From the very beginning of this thread I have said that Yanniv is wasting people’s time for their own amusement, and there is nothing in law which would compel a gynaecologist to perform any kind of an examination on anyone, regardless of their sex or how they preferred to identify themselves. Yanniv is just as likely to lose a case if they decide to target gynaecologists, but something tells me for Yanniv it’s less about equality and more about just pure and simple attention seeking behaviour.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s honestly disturbing. That’s along the lines of people telling women who need mastectomies that it’s grand because they’ll get a free boob job out of it. (Yes, some people have had people say that to them) :eek: Breast-removal is a very serious surgery. The idea of it happening on a still-developing body is disturbing.

And entering children into medical trials for that is so unethical.

You'd swear they think that humans are "plug and play" creatures or something, able to swap parts and hormones willy nilly with no major effects. Certainly seems like what they are trying to convey to children anyway but they are medical professionals and should know better. It's very sinister indeed and you'd have to wonder if they are being paid by the pharmaceutical companies, which in the US is entirely possible.

Gynoid

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s honestly disturbing. That’s along the lines of people telling women who need mastectomies that it’s grand because they’ll get a free boob job out of it. (Yes, some people have had people say that to them) :eek: Breast-removal is a very serious surgery. The idea of it happening on a still-developing body is disturbing.

And entering children into medical trials for that is so unethical.

There is so much that is very disturbing. I can hardly even begin to express it, I feel like I am a mad woman looking out in horror at what is happening when so few seem to be reacting and so many dismiss that horror as bigotry, paranoia or alt right hysteria. There are terrible things being done to thousands and thousands of very vulnerable people. I cannot understand why people cannot simply express gender how ever the hell they want but leave their good normal bodies to be healthy, fertile, and sexually functioning etc. Be as manly or girly as one likes no matter the birth sex, change it up, do what the hell you want but first do no harm. Thsi gender theory stuff seems like such a regressive, square, backwards way of thinking.
Here is a kid, named Emily Tressa. Gorgeous looking kid. At 17 (this year) they had their penis inverted into a neo vagina. SEVENTEEN. A doctor took a scalpel to this teenagers body - and the kid is a trans ''icon''.

Check out Emily, now turned 18, on a Twitter live stream 3 days ago - this is a child, a very childish child actually, a very vain child who overtly seeks unhealthy sexual attention as their Instagram feed shows. I do not know how in good conscience a medical team so drastically took a knife to this child's healthy body when they are obviously so immature - what would have been wrong with waiting a few years until their brain developed?

https://twitter.com/Emily_tressa/status/1202430565418332160

Emily is one of hundreds, thousands, probably tens of thousands of youngsters who came through the hot house atmosphere of online trans communities. There are oceans of youtubes of people like Emily, craving attention, very immature. People speak of the Chans as transgressive, violent, alt right etc - and they are certainly murky places - but they never talk of the progressive liberal hotbed of dangerous radicalism that was places like Tumblr until recently and probably somewhere else now.

Sorry /Rant over for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJG_loFVNd0&t=741s
Don't know why that won't fricking embed...

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You'd swear they think that humans are "plug and play" creatures or something, able to swap parts and hormones willy nilly with no major effects. Certainly seems like what they are trying to convey to children anyway but they are medical professionals and should know better. It's very sinister indeed and you'd have to wonder if they are being paid by the pharmaceutical companies, which in the US is entirely possible.

Undoubtedly, but also she receives funding for her “research” from the US government -


Olson-Kennedy is currently in receipt of a $5.7million NIH grant to study the effects of early medical interventions for adolescents with gender dysphoria. Mid-way through the study, the minimum age for cross-sex hormone treatment was decreased from 13 to 8. (This means that an 8 year-old girl with precocious puberty may be given testosterone.) The lack of a control group and a short-term follow-up virtually ensures that Olson-Kennedy will get the results she is after and testosterone use will be declared ‘best practice’ for girls in early puberty. Olson-Kennedy is an enthusiastic advocate for testosterone for 12 and 13 year-old girls (see below).


https://www.transgendertrend.com/johanna-olson-kennedy-gender-affirmative-approach/

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Undoubtedly, but also she receives funding for her “research” from the US government -


Olson-Kennedy is currently in receipt of a $5.7million NIH grant to study the effects of early medical interventions for adolescents with gender dysphoria. Mid-way through the study, the minimum age for cross-sex hormone treatment was decreased from 13 to 8. (This means that an 8 year-old girl with precocious puberty may be given testosterone.) The lack of a control group and a short-term follow-up virtually ensures that Olson-Kennedy will get the results she is after and testosterone use will be declared ‘best practice’ for girls in early puberty. Olson-Kennedy is an enthusiastic advocate for testosterone for 12 and 13 year-old girls (see below).


https://www.transgendertrend.com/johanna-olson-kennedy-gender-affirmative-approach/

That's shocking. It's already known that treating precocious puberty with hormone blockers has long term harmful side effects but yeah let's throw testosterone into the mix too, what could go wrong? Maybe when the lawsuits start this madness will end but in the meantime how many lives and bodies will be ruined?

sondagefaux

sondagefaux wrote: »

If I was a gynaecologist,

I would take Yaniv's appointment, get payment up front and ask that they remove the dress they are wearing... and end the consultation. I would say I would be very happy to make another appointment with them and the consultation fee will again be €500. Would next Monday suit? And repeat as often as necessary.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Gender identity =/= biological sex.

Agreed, every single transgender woman will have X & Y chromosomes. No amount of cosmetic surgery can change that. In fact they could harvest cells and fertilise a human egg. So... Not a female.



If I met any transgender woman I'd recognise them as such, but as I said above out of politness and empathy. But, that doesn't make them female, nor does it mean a gynecologist should pander to someone with an intact male genitalia.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I met any transgender woman I'd recognise them as such, but as I said above out of politness and empathy. But, that doesn't make them female, nor does it mean a gynecologist should pander to someone with an intact male genitalia.

The Practice Standards of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia is worth a read -


Neither the BC Human Rights Code nor the CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism removes the physician’s right to refuse to accept a patient for legitimate reasons, as determined in law.


https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/PSG-Access-to-Medical-Care.pdf

AndrewJRenko

Gynoid wrote: »

Emily is one of hundreds, thousands, probably tens of thousands of youngsters who came through the hot house atmosphere of online trans communities. There are oceans of youtubes of people like Emily, craving attention, very immature. People speak of the Chans as transgressive, violent, alt right etc - and they are certainly murky places - but they never talk of the progressive liberal hotbed of dangerous radicalism that was places like Tumblr until recently and probably somewhere else now.

Would you like to confirm your source for the 'hundreds, thousands, probably tens of thousands' claim please?

You've possibly list sight of the fact that your language and terminology is a very clear indicator of how you've been captured into a very narrow and specific bubble on this issue - 'the chans as transgressive', 'radical trans rights activists', 'hasty gender affirmation procedures', the raft of examples immediately at hand from fake news websites and questionable social media channels. It is possible that you've gone one or two steps too far down the rabbit hole? You might want to think about stepping back from the brink, taking a good few breaths of fresh air, and getting a little perspective on the whole thing.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i suppose the "leaning into it" treatment for gender dysphoria and the legal element is the first medical treatment i've encountered which makes people stop in their tracks and say "eh...sorry, what?!"

it boils down to the externalisation of the condition: not only does the subject have the condition but the treatment is that everyone else has to validate the subject's internal feelings and whims on pain of legal censure. its a perposterous and frankly intolerable imposition.

So showing some basic civility and respect for a vulnerable person is now 'frankly intolerable imposition'. I think we're starting to get to the nub of the issue here.

suicide_circus wrote: »

which seem to be based the complainant's perceptions of the incident. wacky times.

Wacky times indeed. Just imagine not being able to sneer, bully and degrade people at will because they happen to be a bit different to you.

Gynoid wrote: »

I think Die Linke is actually saying there will be push back or back lash or the meek will finally rise up and tell radical trans rights activists to fcuk off...something like that

The only back lash and rising up is happening in your own little bubble. In the real world, this is a non-issue. They had their one Prime Time programme, Glinner's with his 'deep expertise' on the matter tried to rile people up, and pretty much failed. There is no rising happening, outside of Mumsnet of course.

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is already happening, Marks and Spencers recently announced gender neutral changing rooms...it is sweeping through society at remarkable speed!

Surely not - gender neutral changing rooms! You mean to say, when I'm trying on my M&S chinos there could be a person of a different gender in the changing room next to me? That's just outrageous, I mean, how will I actually cope?
Next thing you know, we'll have gender neutral toilets in people's houses.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Wait until it really starts to hit the gender qoutas that we are witnessing across the public and private sectors, how do you close the (the albeit debunked) gender pay gap when your gender is can no longer be legally defined in any meaningful manner!!

Wouldn't it be funny though if those who've spent the last few years denying the existence of the gender gap and decrying quotas now find themselves arguing FOR quotas and gender gaps, just to try to validate their little obsession? That would be fun to watch.

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is going to be fairy traumatic for young women in particular...they can thank the humanity departments in the Universities across the developed world....what is it called, the law of unintended consequences!

The young women that I come across, like the hundreds of them in Aidan Comerford's profile pic, are confident that they won't have any trauma coming. They're quite happy to stand with transgender people, to ensure that they get a basic level of respect and dignity. I don't think Comerford has been near the Humanities department of any university as far as I know. I think I read that he's a draftsman. It's almost as if you've missed the mark a bit?

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably far less, although I graduated from high school over 20 years ago, when the awareness & attitude towards homosexuality was far different from it is today, and still, there are many hangups today about it.

In any case, you're bypassing the point. Gender dysphoria is far more than simply being sexually attracted to the same gender. We're talking about a series of beliefs that, can lead to actual physical change once their belief of gender dysphoria is accepted. Society is changing rapidly with new concepts being encouraged to be allowed into mainstream acceptance, before such changes are fully understood. That is why I have a concern about such things being made accessible to children/teens.

The attitude for many here on this thread is that those who experience gender dysphoria are, in fact, the desired gender. Males thinking they're female, so they are female. Those that make the further step of physically changing themselves, should be accepted as the same as the original genders. i.e. male/female.

They're not. They don't have the experience/memories of being the desired gender except for their expectation of what it entails, and what they hear from others. Instead, their experience/memories are that of their "original" gender. They'll also retain many physical characteristics of their original gender regardless of how much they change their general appearance or sexual organs. Simply, they become something other than male or female. A different classification entirely. And such a change should be properly understood for the effects it has on the person, and the possible consequences of that choice, before people/society encourages general acceptance. hence my concern.

You're right in that the gender dysphoria issue is a bit more complex and nuanced. I don't want to get nitpicky about one particular word, but I don't think 'desired gender' is the right term. It's not about a person's desire - it's about the gender they are at their core, regardless of what sexual organs they have.
But I really don't get this point that it is something that "we shouldn't be encouraging". It's the same kind of stuff that we heard in the 80s and even the 90s about the gay scene - how kids would be converted to gayness by seeing gay people on TV or in their schoolbooks. It's nonsense of course.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Really?
Take a look across the water.
There is a case in the High Court at the moment that disproves that entirely, search for We Are Fair Cop.

Women (mainly women) who dare say they don't believe the mantra are routinely sacked, particularly within the fields of higher education where this all began. And of course, many 'official' govt funded 'womens' orgs frequently deplatform GC women.

Female organised public debate is very, very frequently deplatformed.

In 2019.


The weapon of choice used - 'transphobe', 'bigot', 'alt-right' blah blah
*They do not want any debate whatsoever*



So yeah, thought crime is real with this ideology.
(Look out for new Garda guidelines very soon - Ireland follows UK, UK follows Ireland, see Denton PDF linked earlier in thread)

Eh, isn't this debate that we're having here? No-one is being deplatformed or fired.
The only think the UK High Court case proves is that there are enough suckers willing to put a few quid into covering legal fees.
Would you like someone to explain the difference between thoughts and speech for you?

Gynoid wrote: »

Exactly it. I remember the same types - if not the same boyos - defending drag kids in some threads and in others the effective chemical castration of children with mental health co-morbidities in the name of respect for people's rights. Now that the tables are beginning to turn with public investigations of hasty gender affirmation procedures being doled out to vulnerable children, and more doctors and experts speaking up about the travesty that has happened over the past several years with minors rendered sterile and
impotent, one does not hear a peep from them on those issues.

If you're not hearing a peep from them, that must be because they've been deplatfformed and silenced. That's how it works, right?

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I repeat, you're some boyo.

Handy cutting there, the work of a disingenuous arsetwitch.

And I see an 'alt-right' thrown in replying to another poster.

You've already tried deflecting from the debate multiple times, that is your modus operandi.

You've taken the fact that women are at risk from men and tried unsuccessfully to turn it back on women who express legitimate concerns for extremely bad law which puts their single sex spaces at risk.

You've tried the <you're not from|Ireland so shut up, none of this has happened in Ireland so shut up> but silence when a link is given to prove without a doubt the GI push is international including Ireland being a very important case study and an example in how to avoid sunlight on the issue which is currently being deployed in the UK.
The biggest obstacle in the ideologists way was always public debate (not just debate dictated by intersectional feminists and trans activists and captured gay orgs) and public scrutiny.


One day pretty soon, the likes of you won't mention the absurdity of what you support because you will be too ashamed to admit it.

Isn't it awful when people bring facts to bear onto an idealogical crusade like this. It makes it just so hard to rile people up to tilt at windmills when some people just keep grounding it in reality.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Practice Standards of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia is worth a read -


Neither the BC Human Rights Code nor the CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism removes the physician’s right to refuse to accept a patient for legitimate reasons, as determined in law.


https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/PSG-Access-to-Medical-Care.pdf

Which means they can refuse... a gynecologist is a consultant and can only be seen by referral. If the GP says their male genitalia possessed patient requires gynecologist examination the gynecologist can refuse based on it not being their area of expertise.

Whether he should refer the GP to the medical council is another matter.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which means they can refuse... a gynecologist is a consultant and can only be seen by referral. If the GP says their male genitalia possessed patient requires gynecologist examination the gynecologist can refuse based on it not being their area of expertise.

Whether he should refer the GP to the medical council is another matter.

That was my point. Gynaecologist or any other physician doesn’t even have to say it’s not their area of expertise -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From the very beginning of this thread I have said that Yanniv is wasting people’s time for their own amusement, and there is nothing in law which would compel a gynaecologist to perform any kind of an examination on anyone, regardless of their sex or how they preferred to identify themselves. Yanniv is just as likely to lose a case if they decide to target gynaecologists, but something tells me for Yanniv it’s less about equality and more about just pure and simple attention seeking behaviour.

That’s exactly why I suggested the practice standards of the CPSBC were worth a read, because Yanniv hasn’t a hope of making a legitimate case for discrimination.

brendanwalsh

Brian? wrote: »

It is a fact. Legally someone who was born a man can change their gender and live as a woman. That is a fact. I’m not sure what you’re struggling with here.

I’m happy to debate whether that should be legal if you want, but you can’t just deny the truth of it.

No they cannot
A man can have his penis and balls removed and a false passageway formed

However his prostate will never be removed
He can still get prostate cancer

He can shout from the rooftops that he’s a giraffe if he wants but he has a prostate and a XY chromosome set so that means he’s a man

Brian?

brendanwalsh wrote: »

No they cannot
A man can have his penis and balls removed and a false passageway formed

However his prostate will never be removed
He can still get prostate cancer

He can shout from the rooftops that he’s a giraffe if he wants but he has a prostate and a XY chromosome set so that means he’s a man

Here we go again. A person can legally change gender. That is a fact.

brendanwalsh

Brian? wrote: »

Here we go again. A person can legally change gender. That is a fact.

You cannot biologically change your gender at any point in life.

Born a man, you’ll die a man.

XY chromosome equals a man

I can legally state I’m a giraffe but it doesn’t mean I am one, equally I can walk around on all fours and bark and say I’m a dog. I can put on a dress and say I’m a woman.

Won’t change the fact I’ve got a cock and balls and a prostate

Mules

Mules wrote: »

Your impression of psychology is incorrect.

Nope. My opinion is correct. It's just different from yours. :rolleyes: Unless you can prove your opinion otherwise and make it a fact.

You see, I went and got a degree in Psychology to check out my opinion, just as I have a variety of diplomas in NLP. I've been to Psychologists for treatment a number of times, while being aware of the techniques being used and there's extremely little hard science behind what they do. I've also checked a huge variety of research papers and found that the methodology used for their research is hardly conclusive in comparison to how science is 'proven'.

So, no. Not buying it. Psychology, except where it merges with science, is mostly unproven.

At any rate psychiatrists and endocrinologists are the specialists who diagnose and treat gender dysphoria. Psychologists do not.

ok.

drunkmonkey

Brian? wrote: »

Here we go again. A person can legally change gender. That is a fact.

That's insanity that's what that is. It was brought in here without any vote by the people. Most people don't even know you can do it.
You can't do it , we're confusing the hell out of every generation coming after us in this country.
Yea it's legal, so what the laws an arse at the best of times and this is one law they really got wrong.
You can't have pint and drive but want to hack your balls off and wear a skirt knock yourself out. Madness.

Gynoid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you like to confirm your source for the 'hundreds, thousands, probably tens of thousands' claim please?

100 children were referred to Tavistock from Ireland between 2015 -2018.
2500 children were referred to Tavistock in the Uk in the 1 year calculated mid 2017 -2018. A 25% rise on the previous year.
The expert medical Directors of Tavistock have resigned because of their concerns about what goes on there.
There are over 100 gender clinics in the US dedicated to children and young teens alone, a huge rise in about 5 years. Estimates are for 150000 trans children and rapidly rising. Social contagion is being researched as a possible cause.
Govts in the UK and Sweden have started investigations into the rapid medicalisation of childrens dysphoria with experimental and dangerous drugs.
Sweden has suspended treatment of gender confused children.

As for your sneering advice to look away, nothing to see here, you can stick that up your arse, thanks.

Sir Oxman

Gynoid wrote: »

Social contagion is being researched as a possible cause.

As for your sneering advice to look away, nothing to see here, you can stick that up your arse, thanks.

^^This. This. This.
There is no doubt in my mind that social contagion is a huge part of it.
No doubt.

iguana

Gynoid wrote: »

Sweden has suspended treatment of gender confused children.

Have you a link to this? I'd like to read more about it.

Gynoid

iguana wrote: »

Have you a link to this? I'd like to read more about it.

http://www.smer.se/publications/smer-calls-for-the-government-to-review-gender-dysforia-in-childhood-and-adolescence/9/

Smer is the national council for medical ethics in Sweden. I read somewhere that the govt had suspended treatment pending results of review.

Brian?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's insanity that's what that is. It was brought in here without any vote by the people. Most people don't even know you can do it.

Most laws are brought in without a public vote. That's what we elect a parliament to do.

You can't do it , we're confusing the hell out of every generation coming after us in this country.
Yea it's legal, so what the laws an arse at the best of times and this is one law they really got wrong.
You can't have pint and drive but want to hack your balls off and wear a skirt knock yourself out. Madness.

The law was brought in on the advice of medical professionals. I'm not sure what having a pint and driving had to do with it. Drinking and driving puts other people at risk.

I am steadfastly against any medical intervention for children, by the way. I think people over 18 should be allowed make their own decisions about their body.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

http://www.smer.se/publications/smer-calls-for-the-government-to-review-gender-dysforia-in-childhood-and-adolescence/9/

Smer is the national council for medical ethics in Sweden. I read somewhere that the govt had suspended treatment pending results of review.

That's interesting. Thanks.

I might agree with you about the social contagion point. I am growing more towards agreeing lately. Which is why I don't think medical intervention should be allowed for children.