J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is not an opinion. This is the point. It's not opinion. It is a fact. Just because some people don't like those facts does not mean they are not true. They can have an opinion that those facts are wrong, but they have to provide some kind of evidence as to why that is the case.

In my opinion I'm the actor Brad Pitt. I'm not though am I! That is an opinion that is demonstratively false. So is the opinion that a trans-women is a women. They are not though. It is demonstratively false.

Nobody has to provide any evidence of anything to you, to me, or to anyone else. That’s the point. People can claim whatever they like or refer to themselves however they like. It’s just changing language, it’s like the way in my current occupation there is constant conflict over the titles people use or prefer to be referred to.

I’ve known people who have claimed legal expertise, and I know unless they got their law degree handed to them in the ladies jax at Kings Inns, their claims are dodgy af. It doesn’t mean they can’t claim it, but it doesn’t mean I have to be a dick about it either. They’re not doing any harm to me personally because they’re not demanding that I refer to them as I might refer to anyone who has those credentials. Even someone who has those credentials I might still refer to them as an idiot, because merely being in possession of those credentials doesn’t in and of itself suggest anything about their capacity as a competent professional :pac:

Basically, you can be an actor and call yourself Brad Pitt if you like, hell you can become a writer and call yourself Robert Galbraith Heath if you like, and claim you were completely unaware of the association with this Robert Galbraith Heath, a psychiatrist who had some very weird, and grossly unethical, ideas about gay conversion therapy.

If anyone asks, just call it a coincidence! Worked for JK for long enough for anyone who wasn’t already aware of Robert Galbraith Heath

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

The truth will set you free......from this thread

I think truth has to be defended. It is truth vs ideology. That is why I spend my energy on it. It is important. That there are pesky irritating contrary voices that will not be quiet and roll over.
Biological sex is. It exists. It is truth. It is real. It is not mutable in humans. People cannot change sex.
Transgender is perfectly fine. Deserving of compassion and respect. Adults can make their decisions.
But..
Asking society to tell untruths like sex can literally be changed is not fine. Erasure of reality is not fine. Having children brutally ruined to justify an ab initio ideological absurdity like "born in the wrong body" is not fine.
There may be reasons beyond autism, anxiety, depression, family abuse (these issues are all common comorbidities) plus social media influence etc that may case gender dysphoria in children, such as perhaps endocrine disorders or hormonal imbalance due to chemical pollution of the environment with synthetic hormones, chlorine, pesticides, phtalates etc etc. That ideology is now paramount and hateful to challenge means potential issues such as that cannot even begin to be scientifically investigated.

suicide_circus

But claiming to be Brad Pitt does not make you Brad Pitt.

Even if I was absolutely certain in my heart of hearts that i was Brad Pitt, I still wouldn't be Brad Pitt.

People could humour me and agree that I was indeed Brad Pitt and i still wouldn't be Brad Pitt.

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

I think truth has to be defended.

This is my one and only interest in the subject. The "externalisation" of the dysphoria is something I am constitutionally incapable of getting on board with.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

I think truth has to be defended. It is truth vs ideology. That is why I spend my energy on it. It is important. That there are pesky irritating contrary voices that will not be quiet and roll over.
Biological sex is. It exists. It is truth. It is real. It is not mutable in humans. People cannot change sex.
Transgender is perfectly fine. Deserving of compassion and respect. Adults can make their decisions.
But..
Asking society to tell untruths like sex can literally be changed is not fine. Erasure of reality is not fine. Having children brutally ruined to justify an ab initio ideological absurdity like "born in the wrong body" is not fine.
There may be reasons beyond autism, anxiety, depression, family abuse (these issues are all common comorbidities) plus social media influence etc that may case gender dysphoria in children, such as perhaps endocrine disorders or hormonal imbalance due to chemical pollution of the environment with synthetic hormones, chlorine, pesticides, phtalates etc etc. That ideology is now paramount and hateful to challenge means potential issues such as that cannot even begin to be scientifically investigated.

I’m still disturbed by a judge in the UK telling a woman who was speaking under oath to refer to her alleged attacker (subsequently found guilty) as ‘she’ rather than ‘he’. If the woman didn’t believe the person was a she, wasn’t the judge asking her to lie under oath? I believe the judge threatened her with contempt of court (not quite sure) if she kept saying ‘he’. So when people say that nobody is being compelled to speak a certain way, my mind immediately goes to that case.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has to provide any evidence of anything to you, to me, or to anyone else. That’s the point. People can claim whatever they like or refer to themselves however they like. It’s just changing language, it’s like the way in my current occupation there is constant conflict over the titles people use or prefer to be referred to.

I’ve known people who have claimed legal expertise, and I know unless they got their law degree handed to them in the ladies jax at Kings Inns, their claims are dodgy af. It doesn’t mean they can’t claim it, but it doesn’t mean I have to be a dick about it either. They’re not doing any harm to me personally because they’re not demanding that I refer to them as I might refer to anyone who has those credentials. Even someone who has those credentials I might still refer to them as an idiot, because merely being in possession of those credentials doesn’t in and of itself suggest anything about their capacity as a competent professional :pac:

Basically, you can be an actor and call yourself Brad Pitt if you like, hell you can become a writer and call yourself Robert Galbraith Heath if you like, and claim you were completely unaware of the association with this Robert Galbraith Heath, a psychiatrist who had some very weird, and grossly unethical, ideas about gay conversion therapy.

If anyone asks, just call it a coincidence! Worked for JK for long enough for anyone who wasn’t already aware of Robert Galbraith Heath

Ye they can claim to be whatever they want. It doesn't mean what they claim they are is true. You already know this, so I fail to see what exactly it is your are arguing.

And it is not 'changing' language. There is only an extremely, extremely small subsection of the population that have a problem with the definition of the word woman, and what to seek to change it. And they only want to do this for ideological reasons.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

But claiming to be Brad Pitt does not make you Brad Pitt.

Even if I was absolutely certain in my heart of hearts that i was Brad Pitt, I still wouldn't be Brad Pitt.

People could humour me and agree that I was indeed Brad Pitt and i still wouldn't be Brad Pitt.

That’s essentially it really. The organisation in question which used terminology that JK got her knickers in a bunch about were using the terminology they did effectively to do what you’re suggesting - their aim was to reach out to and educate as many people as possible about the importance of menstrual healthcare in underdeveloped societies. To that end, I understand that they would humour people who identified themselves as people who are non-binary.

People who are non-binary still require knowledge of, and access to, adequate and appropriate menstrual healthcare. They present a far more difficult to reach problem than just girls or women, because as individuals, they’re likely to reject biology, and therefore put themselves at risk. Not knowing about menstruation doesn’t mean menstruation isn’t a natural biological process. It’s like not knowing about gravity doesn’t prevent one from falling if they step off a cliff.

In order to reach those people, it’s a necessity to allow them to feel included, as opposed to excluded on the basis that the education and advocacy only applies to women and girls. For a global organisation that’s leaving out an awful lot of people who menstruate who do not identify with the terms women and girls for any number of social and cultural reasons. JK undoubtedly did her research beforehand before she chose to highlight the organisation, so she had to have been aware of context and intent, and still chose to make an example of the women behind the organisations use of language which was deliberately designed to have as broad an appeal as possible.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ye they can claim to be whatever they want. It doesn't mean what they claim they are is true. You already know this, so I fail to see what exactly it is your are arguing.

And it is not 'changing' language. There is only an extremely, extremely small subsection of the population that have a problem with the definition of the word woman, and what to seek to change it. And they only want to do this for ideological reasons.

The points very simple - you’re demanding that it be kept as it suits you, for ideological reasons.

That would only work if people would respect your authoritah -





That’s obviously not working out.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ye they can claim to be whatever they want. It doesn't mean what they claim they are is true. You already know this, so I fail to see what exactly it is your are arguing.

And it is not 'changing' language. There is only an extremely, extremely small subsection of the population that have a problem with the definition of the word woman, and what to seek to change it. And they only want to do this for ideological reasons.

That’s something I need to remind myself of. Most people agree that woman is an adult member of the female sex. Either they agree or they don’t really care. It’s just a minority that want the meaning changed.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s something I need to remind myself of. Most people agree that woman is an adult member of the female sex. Either they agree or they don’t really care. It’s just a minority that want the meaning changed.

But the word is being omitted in public documents and by NGOs.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

But the word is being omitted in public documents and by NGOs.

I know, it’s odd. It seems like activists in this area are disproportionately represented in media, politics and the arts so they have influence. It’s hardly surprising though. The most vocal activists seem to come from pretty cushy backgrounds and the needs of disadvantaged, vulnerable women would probably never occur to them. People from privileged backgrounds also tend to predominate in the areas I mentioned above: media, the arts, politics. Certainly this is the case in the UK. The two areas dovetail nicely.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The points very simple - you’re demanding that it be kept as it suits you, for ideological reasons.

That would only work if people would respect your authoritah -





That’s obviously not working out.

Nope. That is how reality is. A man cannot be a woman. There is nothing ideological about that. No matter how much you want it to be true, it isn't.

Lefty Bicek

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No problem with TERF though? Hypocrite.

He has no problem with it at all, and he uses it with intent. Here's a particularly snide one that I recall...

Thousands of Irish (women) feminists are trans inclusive feminists. I find it odd that there is an assumption we are branding all women as transphobes because we call terfs terfs.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109562005&postcount=48


Rather than, say, trans exclusive, as is obviously suggested by his own terminology there.

There's a measured spitefulness to it.

Dehumanising, one might say.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Nope. That is how reality is. A man cannot be a woman. There is nothing ideological about that. No matter how much you want it to be true, it isn't.

Point missed by a country mile. For other people (that’s people other than you or I), it is true, it is their reality. What’s objectively true is that just because you define something, doesn’t mean that someone else can’t either define it another way, or differently, or refer to what they’re speaking of as something entirely different altogether from what you have chosen it should be called and how everyone else should understand it.

I’d be saying the same of those people who disagree with you too btw, but you’re trying to make the point that they can’t... and you still don’t see yourself as an authoritarian...

Well that makes complete sense :pac:

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Point missed by a country mile. For other people (that’s people other than you or I), it is true, it is their reality. What’s objectively true is that just because you define something, doesn’t mean that someone else can either define it another way, or differently, or refer to what they’re speaking of as something entirely different altogether from what you have chosen it should be called and how everyone else should understand it.

I’d be saying the same of those people who disagree with you too btw, but you’re trying to make the point that they can’t... and you still don’t see yourself as an authoritarian...

Well that makes complete sense :pac:

haha oh my here we go. 'Their reality'. This is why I alluded to Brad Pitt earlier. I am Brad Pitt. It's my reality. But I'm not Brad Pitt. Now you may go on as if I am because you're a nice guy, but you know I'm not.

The word woman has a scientific basis to it. Adult human female. Now 'their reality' may be that a female is anyone who says they are, or that it has no definition and we have to use tables of exemplars to try and figure out what it is. But they are incorrect, a female is (in relation to human's):

a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

As such a woman is:

an adult person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

All this talk of 'your truth and my truth' is philosophical and irrelevant. Such is the power of (hard) Science, it can put to bed the question of what is and is not true.

My truth is the World is flat. But it is not, and we can demonstrate why.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

All this talk of 'your truth and my truth' is philosophical and irrelevant. Such is the power of (hard) Science, it can put to bed the question of what is and is not true.

Hey I don’t care much for it myself Cteven, but to say it’s irrelevant would be a rejection of reality on your own part when it has formed the bedrock of the structures upon which societies and civilisations and all our ideas that have been formed into (hard) science, law, taxonomy and so on, are built! Science can’t put to bed shìt tbh, it raises more questions than any that it can be used to answer, because fundamentally science is about measuring and quantifying what can be observed.

Taxonomy is about naming it.

mohawk

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Point missed by a country mile. For other people (that’s people other than you or I), it is true, it is their reality. What’s objectively true is that just because you define something, doesn’t mean that someone else can’t either define it another way, or differently, or refer to what they’re speaking of as something entirely different altogether from what you have chosen it should be called and how everyone else should understand it.

I’d be saying the same of those people who disagree with you too btw, but you’re trying to make the point that they can’t... and you still don’t see yourself as an authoritarian...

Well that makes complete sense :pac:

You can argue that it’s their reality until the cows come home. Just because I believe something doesn’t make it fact. In some places in USA creationism is taught alongside evolution because of you know beliefs. I would strongly object to the same being done here. Science has the back up of hard data. A person’s feelings on a subject is not hard data.

If a trans person is admitted to hospital should the doctors treat and diagnose them based on their birth sex or their gender identity. Obviously doctors can use preferred pronouns but what about their actual treatment. If you read up on many diseases prevalence differs between the sexes. When doing clinical trials for new drugs biological sex has to be taken into consideration because males and females can have differing responses.

My point in people should be free to live as they please and do what they want but there has to be boundaries.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hey I don’t care much for it myself Cteven, but to say it’s irrelevant would be a rejection of reality on your own part when it has formed the bedrock of the structures upon which societies and civilisations and all our ideas that have been formed into (hard) science, law, taxonomy and so on, are built! Science can’t put to bed shìt tbh, it raises more questions than any that it can be used to answer, because fundamentally science is about measuring and quantifying what can be observed.

Taxonomy is about naming it.

And, as I said earlier:

We've reached a stage were the definition can be rigid. It's rigid now, that's the point. If someone finds something so brilliant that it usurps the biological definition of male and female to the extent where one can become the other then they will no doubt win the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology and we will all have to accept and adapt to this new biological reality. I won't hedge my bets though.

And ofcourse it can put **** to bed. Just because Science may open up more questions does not mean it has not answered others. One may demonstrate that the World is not flat, the question may then be what shape is the World. So we can go and try figure that out, and find that the World is globular or more precisely an oblate spheroid. You may then ask well how did it come to be such a shape, and try figure that out. However, the question of what shape the World is has still been put to bed.

One eyed Jack

mohawk wrote: »

You can argue that it’s their reality until the cows come home. Just because I believe something doesn’t make it fact. In some places in USA creationism is taught alongside evolution because of you know beliefs. I would strongly object to the same being done here. Science has the back up of hard data. A person’s feelings on a subject is not hard data.

If a trans person is admitted to hospital should the doctors treat and diagnose them based on their birth sex or their gender identity. Obviously doctors can use preferred pronouns but what about their actual treatment. If you read up on many diseases prevalence differs between the sexes. When doing clinical trials for new drugs biological sex has to be taken into consideration because males and females can have differing responses.

My point in people should be free to live as they please and do what they want but there has to be boundaries.

There are boundaries, in law, and in every jurisdiction, as I’m sure you’re well aware, there are some laws which differ, and some laws which are the same.

You’d strongly object to the same being done here, and yet it’s done in 90% of schools and educational institutions and has been for some time now and there’s very little you as an individual could possibly do to have any impact on that reality.

I dunno about your experience or expectations of medicine but in my experience they tend to perform an assessment of every patient on an individual basis in order to determine the best outcomes for the patient according to their beliefs. The idea that they are somehow removed from reality is a strange notion as they are bound by all sorts of codes of practice, ethics and the law of the jurisdiction in which they operate.

Well, most of them anyway adhere to these boundaries. There are the few who give the profession a bad reputation, but most medical professionals are capable of empathising with their patients and attempt to understand their conditions rather than going in all gung-ho because they’ve got hard data and science on their side. The vast majority of medical professionals understand that they’re dealing with a person, who has feelings, and has a right to a say in their own interests. If they are incapacitated or their opinions are unable to be determined as a result of their being unconscious or simply not having the cognitive capacity to understand fully the consequences of any course of treatment, in Ireland at least there exists in legislation the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act -


About the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act 2015

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Point missed by a country mile. For other people (that’s people other than you or I), it is true, it is their reality.

People don't get to define their reality. Reality is what it is. I can't define myself as a planet. Or a tomato.

What’s objectively true is that just because you define something, doesn’t mean that someone else can’t either define it another way, or differently, or refer to what they’re speaking of as something entirely different altogether from what you have chosen it should be called

If that were true then no language would ever make sense. Even the post structuralists realise that language is largely agreed upon. A sentence like:

"A tomato is red"

relies on a definition shared by all of what tomato and red are. We can't define our own terms, or nothing makes sense.

I’d be saying the same of those people who disagree with you too btw, but you’re trying to make the point that they can’t... and you still don’t see yourself as an authoritarian...

Because some people are wrong, and some aren't. For instance if you believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, you are wrong. If you believe that a few words by a priest turns bread into Jesus* you are wrong, and if you believe that the earth is flat you are wrong. Even though these ideas may be your truth, and your strongly held beliefs, and your personal definitions - they are, nevertheless, wrong.



* old school trans, for bread.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I dunno about your experience or expectations of medicine but in my experience they tend to perform an assessment of every patient on an individual basis in order to determine the best outcomes for the patient according to their beliefs.

You didn't answer the specific question put to you. Should a transwoman be treated the same as a biological woman in medical terms.

Lefty Bicek

FVP3 wrote: »

If you believe that a few words by a priest turns bread into Jesus* you are wrong,



* old school trans, for bread.

You can't say that.

You're dehumanising the bread.

A man.

Amen.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

People don't get to define their reality. Reality is what it is. I can't define myself as a planet. Or a tomato.

If that were true then no language would ever make sense. Even the post structuralists realise that language is largely agreed upon. A sentence like:

"A tomato is red"

relies on a definition shared by all of what tomato and red are. We can't define our own terms, or nothing makes sense.

We can define our own terms? We do it every day? Like the example I gave earlier that I can think of at least 50 different names for my John Thomas without breaking a sweat. And that’s just in one language of over 7,000 languages used across the known world.

You’re honestly either overthinking this or purposely making it appear more difficult than it is in reality. If you didn’t know any of the number of languages besides English spoken in Uganda for example, you’d struggle to make yourself understood, and the locals would struggle to understand you if they didn’t have a word of English. If you’re having a medical emergency it undoubtedly presents something of an issue, but not a difficulty that’s impossible to overcome.

Might be best to avoid China altogether but if you ever do find yourself there, Mandarin Chinese is going to sound like Double Dutch if you’re not familiar with it.

FVP3 wrote: »

You didn't answer the specific question put to you. Should a transwoman be treated the same as a biological woman in medical terms.

The question is based upon a false premise, either through a misunderstanding of the practice of medicine, or through a deliberate misrepresentation. I figured I’d give mowhawk the benefit of the doubt and point out that each case is determined on its own merits. The best answer I could give you is that I wouldn’t imagine any two patients are treated exactly the same in medical terms.

They couldn’t be, because patient outcomes while decisions can be informed by evidence based and best practice medicine, any medical professionals worth their salt will be very quick to inform you that they aren’t in possession of crystal balls - they cannot predict nor offer any guarantees of outcomes, they’re no different than the patient in that respect in that everyone’s hoping for the best outcome. It’s also a good thing if everyone’s on the same page, and that’s why effective communication between a patient and their medical professionals is so important. Some people here may well imagine a patients feelings aren’t taken into account or are irrelevant, but in reality there are disciplines of medicine and science dedicated to it -

What Is Psychology?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question is based upon a false premise, either through a misunderstanding of the practice of medicine, or through a deliberate misrepresentation. I figured I’d give mowhawk the benefit of the doubt and point out that each case is determined on its own merits. The best answer I could give you is that I wouldn’t imagine any two patients are treated exactly the same in medical terms.

They couldn’t be, because patient outcomes while decisions can be informed by evidence based and best practice medicine, any medical professionals worth their salt will be very quick to inform you that they aren’t in possession of crystal balls - they cannot predict nor offer any guarantees of outcomes, they’re no different than the patient in that respect in that everyone’s hoping for the best outcome. It’s also a good thing if everyone’s on the same page, and that’s why effective communication between a patient and their medical professionals is so important. Some people here may well imagine a patients feelings aren’t taken into account or are irrelevant, but in reality there are disciplines of medicine and science dedicated to it -

What Is Psychology?

One of these "merits" that determine the diagnosis or course of treatment for a patient is their sex. Its pretty important. For example, for a male presenting with severe stomach pain, being in labour isn't going to be considered as a possible cause is it? Heart attack symptoms in females present very differently from males so thats another point where sex matters. Blood transfusions, the same. A male receiving blood from a female who has ever been pregnant can actually be dangerous. Side effects of medicine, dosage etc also differ between males and females. This is based on studies and evidence, not just random guessing or "crystal balls" as you seem to portraying in your post.

Its still possible for a doctor to address a patient as they wish and treat them with dignity and kindness whilst still medically treating them according to their actual sex, which like it or not, is pretty fundamental when it comes to medical care.

mohawk

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are boundaries, in law, and in every jurisdiction, as I’m sure you’re well aware, there are some laws which differ, and some laws which are the same.

You’d strongly object to the same being done here, and yet it’s done in 90% of schools and educational institutions and has been for some time now and there’s very little you as an individual could possibly do to have any impact on that reality.

I dunno about your experience or expectations of medicine but in my experience they tend to perform an assessment of every patient on an individual basis in order to determine the best outcomes for the patient according to their beliefs. The idea that they are somehow removed from reality is a strange notion as they are bound by all sorts of codes of practice, ethics and the law of the jurisdiction in which they operate.

Well, most of them anyway adhere to these boundaries. There are the few who give the profession a bad reputation, but most medical professionals are capable of empathising with their patients and attempt to understand their conditions rather than going in all gung-ho because they’ve got hard data and science on their side. The vast majority of medical professionals understand that they’re dealing with a person, who has feelings, and has a right to a say in their own interests. If they are incapacitated or their opinions are unable to be determined as a result of their being unconscious or simply not having the cognitive capacity to understand fully the consequences of any course of treatment, in Ireland at least there exists in legislation the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act -


About the Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act 2015

Okay then don’t answer the question. In a clinical trial which group should a transgender person be placed into when analysing the data. Their biological sex or their gender identity? My point is your biological sex is real and it’s so real that it has an impact on your health. It has been studied extensively the health differences between the sexes. It’s a significant one at that.

A person should be able to live by their gender identity for most things without persecution or discrimination. Self acceptance is as important as societal acceptance. It’s okay to be trans. It’s something they need to come to terms with. They can’t wipe away all traces of their biological sex

Also creationism isn’t taught in science classes alongside evolution in Irish schools.

Stark

mohawk wrote: »

Okay then don’t answer the question. In a clinical trial which group should a transgender person be placed into when analysing the data. Their biological sex or their gender identity? My point is your biological sex is real and it’s so real that it has an impact on your health. It has been studied extensively the health differences between the sexes. It’s a significant one at that.

A person should be able to live by their gender identity for most things without persecution or discrimination. Self acceptance is as important as societal acceptance. It’s okay to be trans. It’s something they need to come to terms with. They can’t wipe away all traces of their biological sex

Also creationism isn’t taught in science classes alongside evolution in Irish schools.

Thing is, most transgendered people's issues are with the people who want to deny them the right to live as their chosen gender identity without persecution or discrimination. Not denial of biological/natal sex.

My issue is with the people who claim it's not okay for someone to be trans or try to claim that those people are lying when they claim to have a gender identity that's at odds with their biological sex. And I'll happily call that out for the transphobia that it is.

volchitsa

Stark wrote: »

Thing is, most transgendered people's issues are with the people who want to deny them the right to live as their chosen gender identity without persecution or discrimination. Not denial of biological/natal sex.

So in what way is J K Rowling trying to deny them the right to live as their chosen gender identity?

A couple of examples of what she's actually done that's so terrible would be nice.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

One of these "merits" that determine the diagnosis or course of treatment for a patient is their sex. Its pretty important. For example, for a male presenting with severe stomach pain, being in labour isn't going to be considered as a possible cause is it? Heart attack symptoms in females present very differently from males so thats another point where sex matters. Blood transfusions, the same. A male receiving blood from a female who has ever been pregnant can actually be dangerous. Side effects of medicine, dosage etc also differ between males and females. This is based on studies and evidence, not just random guessing or "crystal balls" as you seem to portraying in your post.

Its still possible for a doctor to address a patient as they wish and treat them with dignity and kindness whilst still medically treating them according to their actual sex, which like it or not, is pretty fundamental when it comes to medical care.

I dunno what your issue is tbh. I acknowledged already that assessments are carried out on patients? You’re mixing up all sorts of contexts between research and practice. I’m well aware that there are conditions more prevalent in one sex than another, but on an individual basis the prognosis would be determined by a number of factors, not just one. A female taking sex hormones for example would be treated differently to a female who isn’t, among a bucketload of other factors such as age, family history and lifestyle questions. That’s why assessments are carried out.

I’d imagine assessments were fairly important in this particular case, and there was plenty to be learned from performing those assessments and determining the different treatments necessary that could lead to the best outcomes for all involved -


Transgender man loses court battle to be registered as father


It’s just one of the reasons why the specific needs of people who are transgender need to be addressed in medicine, because in spite of appearances in the media and so on, there’s still so much is unknown.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

volchitsa wrote: »

So in what way is J K Rowling trying to deny them the right to live as their chosen gender identity?

A couple of examples of what she's actually done that's so terrible would be nice.

You won’t get any examples. But that in itself will be telling.

One eyed Jack

mohawk wrote: »

Okay then don’t answer the question. In a clinical trial which group should a transgender person be placed into when analysing the data. Their biological sex or their gender identity? My point is your biological sex is real and it’s so real that it has an impact on your health. It has been studied extensively the health differences between the sexes. It’s a significant one at that.

I get your point, I’m just not sure whether me agreeing with you that a persons sex is important is particularly relevant, someone else who considers their gender identity as more important than their sex will give you a different answer. I’d say it would depend upon a whole multitude of factors and the more data they have, the better the study. I’m not a fan of small scale studies which is what a lot of these determinations are based upon, precisely because there aren’t too many people willing to volunteer among the population who are transgender.

mohawk wrote: »

A person should be able to live by their gender identity for most things without persecution or discrimination. Self acceptance is as important as societal acceptance. It’s okay to be trans. It’s something they need to come to terms with. They can’t wipe away all traces of their biological sex.

Again though, and this is the fundamental point you and others keep missing - in just the same way as you are not compelled to live your life according to my particular standards for example, nobody else can be compelled to live their lives according to your standards either. That’s exactly what equality looks like in a democratic society rather than compelling anyone to live their lives according to the standards shared by the majority. The laws exist to protect all people equally before the law. Legal recognition is fundamentally far more important than social recognition, because it determines a persons rights and responsibilities. Far too often people ignore the responsibilities part of that equation, but it’s how Western society has developed into an individualistic culture which is why most people don’t give a fiddlers about things they don’t feel have any direct impact on their lives.

mohawk wrote: »

Also creationism isn’t taught in science classes alongside evolution in Irish schools.

Forgive me, I thought you were only using Creationism in the US as an example of beliefs being taught in schools which you would object to on the basis that education should only involve imparting facts to students. Again I was simply trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as opposed to going out of my way to be a dick and pretending I thought you meant literally that it was something I should be concerned about.