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

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Aye, indeed. There are lots of really sensible voices on this topic on Twitter and they will be much harder to ban. Linehan was inflammatory whereas these people are not. Him being gone will leave a bit of a void. Interesting to see how it’s filled. Going after other people as moderate as Rowling? That won’t be a good look.

There are certainly lots of sensible voices on this topic (none of them on twitter IMO :pac:), but “going after” JK? JK invited them to come at her when she advertised her “sorry not sorry explanation” on twitter with the words “TERF wars” -

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1270749170215903232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

BarnardsLoop

By the same token... you know nothing of me, my background, or my qualifications.

And nah, I don't think you give a damn about the safety or welfare of children, otherwise you wouldn't think your opinion outweighs that of a medical professional when it comes to medical matters.

If you think harming children to suit your ideology is okay then yeah, I suppose we shouldn't have any further interaction. Oh! But there - putting your ideology about the welfare and safety of children is pretty transphobic when it's because those children are trans.

Is that good enough for ya?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Think a medical doctor might know more and better about such matters than some rando on Boards but what the hell, apparently that's a controversial thing to say around these parts.

I mean, have ye not stopped at any point to consider the possibility that maybe it's not the medical community that's wrong... it's just you?

The NHS - you know, the health service of the United Kingdom - until recently claimed that puberty blockers were reversible. They now say that they do not have the long-term studies to back this claim. So they made a false claim. You are hopelessly naïve if you think doctors are infallible. And if the long-term efforts are unknown, informed consent is impossible to give.

AND you don’t need to be a medical doctor to be knowledgable on this topic. Anyone who has worked in drug-testing, clinical trials or medical research will have a good grounding too. And you don’t know the professional backgrounds of people working here.

Though I gotta say, as somebody with experience of drug-testing and some scientific research, you do not need scientific qualifications to feel (rightfully) queasy about the administration of powerful drugs to rapidly developing children. This is important and I would implore any parent to trust their instincts if they feel that puberty blockers are the wrong way to go.

jam_mac_jam

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

By the same token... you know nothing of me, my background, or my qualifications.

And nah, I don't think you give a damn about the safety or welfare of children, otherwise you wouldn't think your opinion outweighs that of a medical professional when it comes to medical matters.

If you think harming children to suit your ideology is okay then yeah, I suppose we shouldn't have any further interaction. Oh! But there - putting your ideology about the welfare and safety of children is pretty transphobic when it's because those children are trans.

Is that good enough for ya?

There are ethical questions though about puberty blocker and ethical questions about allowing children to make such a life changing decision.

If they change their minds as they get older then they have done irreparable damage. If they don't change their minds and you haven't prescribed puberty blockers then it's likely they will suffer going through puberty. I would say it's a difficult decision by a parent or doctor. No matter how much you are trying to support the child.

Also there are side effects such as bone density. But again all these things need to weighed up. It's not as simple as always right or always wrong.

BarnardsLoop

There's a hell of a lot of ground between "doctors are infallible" (not what I'm saying) and "doctors know more than random anonymous accounts on the internet" (what I'm saying).

You don't need to be a doctor to be knowledgeable on the subject, no, but it usually helps if you're going to contradict the word of one. And again no, I don't know the backgrounds of anyone here, nor you mine. That's kind of the point. Anyone here can claim any kind of expertise they want but when we have the word of an actual doctor on one hand and the word of an anonymous online account on the other - well, I know what most people would put their trust in.

Well, as I said, anyone can claim whatever expertise they like on the internet. You're free to insist you have that experience and I'm just as free to disregard it, especially given the opinions you've expressed here. Can't say you're the most impartial source to take for your own claims of expertise, after all.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

If you think the prescription/administering of hormone blockers to children is ok then we’ll have no further interaction.

There are legitimate medical reasons for prescribing hormone blockers for children, depending upon the specific circumstances in each case. However it’s the over-prescription of them is the real issue, not that they are prescribed in the first place. It’s obviously controversial, but prescribing hormone blockers for children has a legitimate place in medicine -


Puberty blockers prevent the development of biological secondary sex characteristics. They slow the growth of sexual organs and production of hormones. Other effects include the suppression of male features of facial hair, deep voices, and Adam's apples for children and adolescents and the halting of female features of breast development and menstruation.

Transgender youth are a specific target population of puberty blockers to halt the development of natal secondary sex characteristics. Puberty blockers allow patients more time to solidify their gender identity, without developing secondary sex characteristics. If a child later decides not to transition to another gender, the effects of puberty blockers can be reversed by stopping the medication. Puberty blockers give the future transgender individual a smoother transition into their desired gender identity as an adult.

While there are few studies that have examined the effects of puberty blockers for gender non-conforming or transgender adolescents, the studies that have been conducted indicate that these treatments are reasonably safe, and can improve psychological well-being in these individuals. In 2019, a study in the journal Pediatrics found that access to pubertal suppression during adolescence was associated with a lower odds of lifetime suicidality among transgender people.

The potential risks of pubertal suppression in gender dysphoric youth treated with GnRH agonists may include adverse effects on bone mineralization.

Research on the long term effects on brain development is limited, but a 2015 study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology observed the executive functioning in 20 transgender youth treated with puberty blockers compared to untreated youth with gender dysphoria and found that there was no difference in performance.


Puberty blocker


It would depend on the circumstances in each individual case whether or not puberty blockers are considered necessary or recommended as a course of treatment.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are legitimate medical reasons for prescribing hormone blockers for children, depending upon the specific circumstances in each case. However it’s the over-prescription of them is the real issue, not that they are prescribed in the first place. It’s obviously controversial, but prescribing hormone blockers for children has a legitimate place in medicine -


Puberty blockers prevent the development of biological secondary sex characteristics. They slow the growth of sexual organs and production of hormones. Other effects include the suppression of male features of facial hair, deep voices, and Adam's apples for children and adolescents and the halting of female features of breast development and menstruation.

Transgender youth are a specific target population of puberty blockers to halt the development of natal secondary sex characteristics. Puberty blockers allow patients more time to solidify their gender identity, without developing secondary sex characteristics. If a child later decides not to transition to another gender, the effects of puberty blockers can be reversed by stopping the medication. Puberty blockers give the future transgender individual a smoother transition into their desired gender identity as an adult.

While there are few studies that have examined the effects of puberty blockers for gender non-conforming or transgender adolescents, the studies that have been conducted indicate that these treatments are reasonably safe, and can improve psychological well-being in these individuals. In 2019, a study in the journal Pediatrics found that access to pubertal suppression during adolescence was associated with a lower odds of lifetime suicidality among transgender people.

The potential risks of pubertal suppression in gender dysphoric youth treated with GnRH agonists may include adverse effects on bone mineralization.

Research on the long term effects on brain development is limited, but a 2015 study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology observed the executive functioning in 20 transgender youth treated with puberty blockers compared to untreated youth with gender dysphoria and found that there was no difference in performance.


Puberty blocker


It would depend on the circumstances in each individual case whether or not puberty blockers are considered necessary or recommended as a course of treatment.

This won’t come as a big surprise to you but I disagree entirely

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

There's a hell of a lot of ground between "doctors are infallible" (not what I'm saying) and "doctors know more than random anonymous accounts on the internet" (what I'm saying).

You don't need to be a doctor to be knowledgeable on the subject, no, but it usually helps if you're going to contradict the word of one. And again no, I don't know the backgrounds of anyone here, nor you mine. That's kind of the point. Anyone here can claim any kind of expertise they want but when we have the word of an actual doctor on one hand and the word of an anonymous online account on the other - well, I know what most people would put their trust in.

Well, as I said, anyone can claim whatever expertise they like on the internet. You're free to insist you have that experience and I'm just as free to disregard it, especially given the opinions you've expressed here. Can't say you're the most impartial source to take for your own claims of expertise, after all.

I’m not the one who loftily speculated on people’s qualifications. That would be you.

Meanwhile, I do have the concrete knowledge that the health service of the UK until recently made a claim about puberty blockers that it now admits it could not back up. And I know that this lack of evidence has been highlighted by a not inconsiderable amount of people before the NHS quietly corrected their SNAFU.

So... yeah.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

This won’t come as a big surprise to you but I disagree entirely

Ahh no that’s fair enough like, there’s a lot of it I disagree with myself, like I would be entirely opposed to medicalisation and pathologisation of children in the first place, but I understand it’s a decision that’s made between parents and multidisciplinary teams on the basis of what they believe is acting in the child’s best interests. I don’t believe for example that children should have the right to have their preferred gender recognised in law, nor do I support the teaching of this sort of stuff to children in schools.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

There's a hell of a lot of ground between "doctors are infallible" (not what I'm saying) and "doctors know more than random anonymous accounts on the internet" (what I'm saying).

You don't need to be a doctor to be knowledgeable on the subject, no, but it usually helps if you're going to contradict the word of one. And again no, I don't know the backgrounds of anyone here, nor you mine. That's kind of the point. Anyone here can claim any kind of expertise they want but when we have the word of an actual doctor on one hand and the word of an anonymous online account on the other - well, I know what most people would put their trust in.

Well, as I said, anyone can claim whatever expertise they like on the internet. You're free to insist you have that experience and I'm just as free to disregard it, especially given the opinions you've expressed here. Can't say you're the most impartial source to take for your own claims of expertise, after all.

40 medical staff including psychologists and the Director have resigned from the Tavistock gender clinic in the UK in the past 3 years due to what they think is improper treatment of children. That's 40 qualified people with hands on experience in this field who would disagree with you. Probably transphobes too, no doubt.

BarnardsLoop

Oh! So those doctors are the ones who know best! Oh how foolish of me, I really should've consulted you before I formed my own opinion. Of course. Wow, forty whole medical staff! And how many is it that support the currently accepted treatments for dysphoria? Y'know, since apparently you're keeping a running tally on these things.

Gruffalux

Em...yes....those doctors..in the biggest national children's gender clinic in the UK.

BarnardsLoop

So you've said. And as I asked: how many more support the currently used treatments for gender dysphoria? Because maybe I'm wrong but I believe it's a few more than "forty".

But hey, you're the one with the figures.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Ooh look! I can post passive-aggressive images too!

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

So you've said. And as I asked: how many more support the currently used treatments for gender dysphoria? Because maybe I'm wrong but I believe it's a few more than "forty".

But hey, you're the one with the figures.





Ooh look! I can post passive-aggressive images too!

Those who support the current policies better have good insurance.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Em...yes....those doctors..in the biggest national children's gender clinic in the UK.

Was it five staff who quit, with one referring to their 40 years of experience in psychiatry? There appears to have been some disagreement over how the patients were being treated alright, but it could simply have been down to disgruntled employees too. You’d have to wonder what happened between 2015 and 2019 -


It was named by the Health Service Journal as one of the top hundred NHS trusts to work for in 2015. At that time it had 449 full-time equivalent staff and a sickness absence rate of 0.92%. 84% of staff recommend it as a place for treatment and 73% recommended it as a place to work.


Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust


Murky mix of ideology and politics influencing medical practice in the whole area really.

BarnardsLoop

And transphobes had better start looking for their new group to target for abuse.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Was it five staff who quit, with one referring to their 40 years of experience in psychiatry? There appears to have been some disagreement over how the patients were being treated alright, but it could simply have been down to disgruntled employees too. You’d have to wonder what happened between 2015 and 2019 -


It was named by the Health Service Journal as one of the top hundred NHS trusts to work for in 2015. At that time it had 449 full-time equivalent staff and a sickness absence rate of 0.92%. 84% of staff recommend it as a place for treatment and 73% recommended it as a place to work.


Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust


Murky mix of ideology and politics influencing medical practice in the whole area really.

No, 35 up to Dec 2019, and 40 mentioned in BBC Newsnight program last week. Google.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

And transphobes had better start looking for their new group to target for abuse.

Would that be the pretty and polite transphobes now, or the transphobes who are often very violent and enjoy murdering? Just asking for a nervous friend..

jam_mac_jam

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oh! So those doctors are the ones who know best! Oh how foolish of me, I really should've consulted you before I formed my own opinion. Of course. Wow, forty whole medical staff! And how many is it that support the currently accepted treatments for dysphoria? Y'know, since apparently you're keeping a running tally on these things.

Well you are the one pointing out repeatedly that the medical community support your position but when it's pointed out that some don't then the numbers aren't enough.

It's not a straightforward issue.

BarnardsLoop

Gruffalox wrote: »

Would that be the pretty and polite transphobes now, or the transphobes who are often very violent and enjoy murdering? Just asking for a nervous friend..

Would that friend be trans? Because they've a lot to fear from transphobes. Ah! Silly me! Of course someone like you would never be friendly to someone like that.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well you are the one pointing out repeatedly that the medical community support your position but when it's pointed out that some don't then the numbers aren't enough.

It's not a straightforward issue.

Yes, exactly, "some". You don't get unanimity, you get consensus. Exceptions don't really disprove that.

Sittingpretty

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well you are the one pointing out repeatedly that the medical community support your position but when it's pointed out that some don't then the numbers aren't enough.

It's not a straightforward issue.

That’s because the tiny medical community that agree with said poster are the only ones who are right. The rest are clearly wrong AND transphobic.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

No, 35 up to Dec 2019, and 40 mentioned in BBC Newsnight program last week. Google.

Couldn’t find the report itself but did find this on transgender trend website alright -


We were told in the report that 40 clinicians had left the GIDS within three years. As one ex-GIDS clinician told us “All the good people are leaving.”


BBC Newsnight report on the Tavistock GIDS


10% attrition rate of clinicians in three years wouldn’t be unusual, “all the good people are leaving” though sounds more like “all the people who agree with me are leaving”.

jam_mac_jam

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Would that friend be trans? Because they've a lot to fear from transphobes. Ah! Silly me! Of course someone like you would never be friendly to someone like that.



Yes, exactly, "some". You don't get unanimity, you get consensus. Exceptions don't really disprove that.

We have no idea of what the consensus is of medical personnel on what the definition of a woman is. Yet you keep saying it.

BarnardsLoop

Sittingpretty wrote: »

That’s because the tiny medical community that agree with said poster are the only ones who are right. The rest are clearly wrong AND transphobic.

Tiny? WPATH is "tiny" is it?

BarnardsLoop

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

We have no idea of what the consensus is of medical personnel on what the definition of a woman is. Yet you keep saying it.

I've never once spoken about "the definition of a woman" and feel free to quote where I have.

What I've been talking about is the generally accepted treatment for gender dysphoria.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Would that friend be trans? Because they've a lot to fear from transphobes. Ah! Silly me! Of course someone like you would never be friendly to someone like that.

.

''Someone like me'' likes facts. Studies show that murder rates for trans people are no more and instead are very possibly less than non trans people. And are usually committed in the context of domestic situations or during sex work which is very risky for every sex worker.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5551619/
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk
https://quillette.com/2019/12/07/are-we-in-the-midst-of-a-transgender-murder-epidemic/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well you are the one pointing out repeatedly that the medical community support your position but when it's pointed out that some don't then the numbers aren't enough.

It's not a straightforward issue.

Indeed.

BarnardsLoop

And yet again, arguing against something I didn't say. Easier than trying to argue against what I did say, I suppose.

Which was that trans people are often targeted for violence by transphobes. Which is true.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

And yet again, arguing against something I didn't say. Easier than trying to argue against what I did say, I suppose.

Which was that trans people are often targeted for violence by transphobes. Which is true.

The stats show trans people are less often murdered than non trans people. And usually by their partners. Which hopefully is not as a result of transphobia because if peoples actual intimate partners are phobic of them then we really have an uphill battle ahead to stamp out transphobia.

Objectively then the truth is that people are sometimes targeted for violence by other people.
Which I think we can all agree on.

BarnardsLoop

Gruffalox wrote: »

The stats show trans people are less often murdered than non trans people. And usually by their partners. Which hopefully is not as a result of transphobia because if peoples actual intimate partners are phobic of them then we really have an uphill battle ahead to stamp out transphobia.

Objectively then the truth is that people are sometimes targeted for violence by other people.
Which I think we can all agree on.

Once more, I never said "they're targeted more than the rest of the population". Feel free to quote where I did.

And even a majority being attacked by their partners that doesn't change that "often" (not "always") transphobes do attack them. Maybe we just have different ideas of "often".

Jesus, I know you're desperate to stuff words in my mouth but it's getting a bit pathetic now.