Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, I don’t accept that personally. I think we know enough to know that giving such potent medications is wrong and unethical. We actually had a live experiment with cross sex hormones on minors from the ‘70s and ‘80s. That would be the coerced East German female athletes who were fed T from very young ages (preteens, some of them) and the older teens years for others. They suffered myriad health problems.

With puberty blockers, these are cancer drugs that make grown men weep. Cancer patients take these drugs incredibly reluctantly and that’s with the goal of killing off out-of-control cells that will overwhelm bodily organs if not stopped. To give them to physically healthy minors makes me want to cry. It really does. I’m currently dealing with an incredibly harsh cancer treatment myself right now and it makes me angry to think of minors being given such powerful medication when they are physically healthy. These medications are no joke.

There are some things that I’m okay with the world being exposed to. For example, biological males competing with biological females in NON-CONTACT sports on a world stage. The absurdity can be highlighted without serious injuries to females* being risked. But I’m not okay with minors having their bodies permanently damaged and altered when we do know that cross sex hormones can cause many health problems and that there are harbingers of permanent health problems with puberty blockers. I am not okay with using minors as guinea pigs to learn more about the long-term effects of blockers.

I really do think we know enough to apply common sense here. Minors don’t have to be sacrificed.

*I really wish I could just say ‘women’ rather than ‘females’ here. But, alas. In order to make my point with clarity, the word ‘females’ and ‘males’ must be used.

I agree. I do not want it to happen. Have been talking about the craziness of it for several years now. But I cannot see how it will be stopped now without pain happening first. Look at how people in the wider world are completely ignoring it or thinking the good thing is to welcome it. We are in a minority who have thought deeply about it and the terrible implications. And as Ayaan Hirsi Ali says these days most frame their thoughtlessness as compassion..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

On Graham Linehan, I don’t agree with his methods. I’ve said it before - on this thread, I think, or maybe the one that preceded it - that I think his banning from Twitter was a good thing. IMO, he was beginning to harass people on Twitter. I can’t and won’t condone that. Plus, I believe that there is a strong enough case here that harassment should not need to be resorted to.

I do believe that he will be vindicated on a lot of the points that he has made. However, I suspect it will come at a personal and professional cost for him. His comedic legacy is assured but I think his future career will be affected.

Cestmoi 111

suicide_circus wrote: »

Levine not so skillfully avoiding the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82oXKf83Pw

Very blatantly evading the question. Fair play to Senator Paul for being so direct and informative.
And how does everyone who hears it not have a huge problem with this stuff being practiced on minors? arrgghhhh, can’t get my head around it.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

Very blatantly evading the question. Fair play to Senator Paul for being so direct and informative.
And how does everyone who hears it not have a huge problem with this stuff being practiced on minors? arrgghhhh, can’t get my head around it.

She was right not to engage with his misinformation. Kiera Bell was not given cross sex hormones or had a mastectomy as a minor. Why would Levine engage with gotcha-style lies?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

She was right not to engage with his misinformation. Kiera Bell was not given cross sex hormones or had a mastectomy as a minor. Why would Levine engage with gotcha-style lies?

Because if it was such a misinformed lie, they could have proven it and cemented their point.

Unless you believe that their "truth" can be picked apart and that factual information is not their friend in this argument?

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

She was right not to engage with his misinformation. Kiera Bell was not given cross sex hormones or had a mastectomy as a minor. Why would Levine engage with gotcha-style lies?

plenty of minors have received cross-sex hormones and had mastectomies, haven’t they? Would love to be wrong.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because if it was such a misinformed lie, they could have proven it and cemented their point.

Unless you believe that their "truth" can be picked apart and that factual information is not their friend in this argument?

He started off basically talking about FGM without actually saying FGM implying he was talking about trans medicine. Despicable. You can't debate people like that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

She was right not to engage with his misinformation. Kiera Bell was not given cross sex hormones or had a mastectomy as a minor. Why would Levine engage with gotcha-style lies?

Keira Bell received cross sex hormones at 17 according to this article:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-clinics-face-puberty-blocker-ban-for-under-17s-5gghl5nsc

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

He started off basically talking about FGM without actually saying FGM implying he was talking about trans medicine. Despicable. You can't debate people like that.

He seems to conflate gender reassignment surgery (or whatever the official term is) with FGM. Perhaps to him they are the same thing.
But it would only have taken Levine a few seconds to advise him (and all the people watching) that usually the term genital mutilation is not used within the medical profession for that surgery. It’s like Levine had just prepared those stock lines about going to his office and was going to say them regardless of the question.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

He started off basically talking about FGM without actually saying FGM implying he was talking about trans medicine. Despicable. You can't debate people like that.

Yeah despicable.

Like mutilation of genitals happens in trans surgery.

So false.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

He seems to conflate gender reassignment surgery (or whatever the official term is) with FGM. Perhaps to him they are the same thing.
But it would only have taken Levine a few seconds to advise him (and all the people watching) that usually the term genital mutilation is not used within the medical profession for that surgery. It’s like Levine had just prepared those stock lines about going to his office and was going to say them regardless of the question.

I wondered the same thing. Why did Levine not correct that? Because whatever people’s feelings might be about gender reassignment surgery, I think we can all agree that it is carried out by qualified surgeons in suitable facilities and is not the same as FGM. The opposition to it being carried out on minors is down to issues of consent, not the quality of the surgery.

Cestmoi 111

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I wondered the same thing. Why did Levine not correct that? Because whatever people’s feelings might be about gender reassignment surgery, I think we can all agree that it is carried out by qualified surgeons in suitable facilities and is not the same as FGM. The opposition to it being carried out on minors is down to issues of consent, not the quality of the surgery.

Yes thankfully GRS is performed in proper hospital settings with qualified surgeons on patients who actually want it.

The surgery can have very grim and upsetting outcomes tho and there are many accounts online from deeply upset individuals who are suffering with complex and painful effects from it.
Even if it goes according to plan it takes a major toll on patients as females are left with extensive scarring to their arms where large amounts of skin was removed for phalloplasty and males must follow a very gruelling and often painful dilation schedule in order to keep the cavity open.
One of the most well known of the surgeries is probably that performed on Jazz Jennings and the poor kid was in agony a few times with major complications and multiple surgeries required. Jazz had two highly renowned surgeons in this field but they admit the surgery was experimental. I saw a clip where they were just humming and hawing in such a casual manner about how to proceed during the surgery, it was jarring. Thankfully Jazz now appears to be happy with the results after the third surgery.
I don’t know the rates of complications, successes etc compared to other elective surgeries but i would like to hope better outcome for patients could be achieved sooner rather than later.

Gruffalux

I would have issues with the quality of the surgery. In terms of the realistic potential to achieve functioning healthy organs at this present time. Perhaps in the future the surgery will be less risky, but it is quite risky still.
The functioning healthy organs are either amputated or dissected/ disassembled to achieve simulations of organs that often enough seem to generate health issues.

In Trans women there are problems with fistula, strictures, infection, closure, narrowing or shortening of neo-vaginas known as stenosis, stenosis of urethra, smell because of use of colon tissue, bacterial vaginosis, internal hair, necrosis, bleeding, perforation etc. Almost 20% experience haemotoma, and 30% experience recurrent infections. Nerve injury and painful sex are possible.

In trans men the earlier use of hormones may necessitate the removal of infected wombs which is often a precursor to prolapse in women who have to undergo hysterectomy generally. Death of tissue or rejection of tissue is possible in phalloplasty. Phalloplasty is much less likely to allow for sexual enjoyment than vaginoplasty. Complications are more common. Penile implants are required for erection. Peeing standing up is usually impossible. There is significant scarring on the site from where tissue is harvested. About 40% have urethral difficulties post surgery.

Scott Newgent describes surgical aftermath
https://www.newsweek.com/we-need-balance-when-it-comes-gender-dysphoric-kids-i-would-know-opinion-1567277

I am a 48-year-old transgender man. I was thrilled when the medical community told me six years ago that I could change from a woman to a man. I was informed about all the wonderful things that would happen due to medical transition, but all the negatives were glossed over. Since then, I have suffered tremendously, including seven surgeries, a pulmonary embolism, an induced stress heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection, 16 rounds of antibiotics, three weeks of daily IV antibiotics, arm reconstructive surgery, lung, heart and bladder damage, insomnia, hallucinations, PTSD, $1 million in medical expenses, and loss of home, car, career and marriage.

The article provides a list of morbidities with links to studies of outcomes of surgery and hormones.

LLMMLL

Thankfully his comments are widely being viewed as completely inappropriate

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/rachel-levine-vivek-murthy-senate-hearing/index.html

Cestmoi 111

Gruffalux that's a horrific list. I would hope most patients are warned of the possible complications in advance.


Re Sen Paul - why did he call Levine a "witness"? Was he just getting carried away?!

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I swiped through 100 profiles. Not a sign of a trans woman. Of course you can’t identify a trans person just by appearances

Lol. Invalidating your point exactly a sentence after you tried to prove a point.

The state of your stance is hilarious

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lol. Invalidating your point exactly a sentence after you tried to prove a point.

The state of your stance is hilarious

Not at all. But in every single one of the examples of trans people using Her that Linehan posted they were openly trans.

In the 100 I swiped through there was not a single openly trans person. Are we really to believe that there are so many trans women on this app that it's unusable for cis lesbians who are only into cis women.

It's such obvious nonsense and I can't believe anyone's is still trying to defend this.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not at all. But in every single one of the examples of trans people using Her that Linehan posted they were openly trans.

In the 100 I swiped through there was not a single openly trans person. Are we really to believe that there are so many trans women on this app that it's unusable for cis lesbians who are only into cis women.

It's suchauhhabke nonsense and I can't believe anyone's is still trying to defend this.

Defend what?

You said you swiped and you didn't see any trans people.

Then you said that you definitely can't tell if some is trans by looking at them.

Now you are saying that they didn't openly admit they were trans so probably weren't.

Can you or can you not have (at the very least) a very very strong inclination that a person is trans by their appearance?

Or do you think that if whatever they say in their bio is gospel and they can identify however they wish *insert sassy finger click* mmmmhmmmmmm

**** off moving goal posts.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Defend what?

You said you swiped and you didn't see any trans people.

Then you said that you definitely can't tell if some is trans by looking at them.

Now you are saying that they didn't openly admit they were trans so probably weren't.

Can you or can you not have (at the very least) a very very strong inclination that a person is trans by their appearance?

Or do you think that if whatever they say in their bio is gospel and they can identify however they wish *insert sassy finger click* mmmmhmmmmmm

**** off moving goal posts.

There's no need for abuse.

I'm saying it's highly unlikely that out of any group of 100 women where zero are openly trans it's bizarre to assume that so many of them are trans that an app would become unusable to lesbians only interested in cis women.

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not at all. But in every single one of the examples of trans people using Her that Linehan posted they were openly trans.

In the 100 I swiped through there was not a single openly trans person. Are we really to believe that there are so many trans women on this app that it's unusable for cis lesbians who are only into cis women.

It's such obvious nonsense and I can't believe anyone's is still trying to defend this.

It wouldn’t take “so many trans women” to change the experience. If a lesbian has been using the app as a way of meeting other lesbians and suddenly the rules change and allow male people in, that will completely change the experience for her, regardless of how many or how few males join. Female only experiences are totally different from mixed-sex experiences. I have heard and understand it’s the same for male only experiences; they are totally changed once females enter the space.

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

It wouldn’t take “so many trans women” to change the experience. If a lesbian has been using the app as a way of meeting other lesbians and suddenly the rules change and allow male people in, that will completely change the experience for her, regardless of how many or how few males join. Female only experiences are totally different from mixed-sex experiences. I have heard and understand it’s the same for male only experiences; they are totally changed once females enter the space.

Sounds like you support male only golf clubs.

I use a gay dating app that has a few trans women on it and one trans man (that I've seen). The idea that this somehow fundamentally changes the experience of the app is nonsense.

And you're also treating a dating app like some kind of social club space where you basically have to interact with people. It's not. The Her app means if you swipe left you will never see that person again. They cannot interact with you. They cannot message you.

What you're basically saying is that lesbians should not even have to see a trans person who doesn't "pass".

Yet people on here are at pains to say that they've no issue with trans people in general. They're just against certain things like changing rooms and prisons and domestic violence shelters and medical approaches to.young people.

But when you start claiming that cis people should not even see an image of a trans person on a dating app then youve clearly crossed the line into someone who just finds trans people in general to be disgusting.

I'm glad you've posted the above actually. At least it lets us know what we're dealing with.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sounds like you support male only golf clubs.

I use a gay dating app that has a few trans women on it and one trans man (that I've seen). The idea that this somehow fundamentally changes the experience of the app is nonsense.

And you're also treating a dating app like some kind of social club space where you basically have to interact with people. It's not. The Her app means if you swipe left you will never see that person again. They cannot interact with you. They cannot message you.

What you're basically saying is that lesbians should not even have to see a trans person who doesn't "pass".

Yet people on here are at pains to say that they've no issue with trans people in general. They're just against certain things like changing rooms and prisons and domestic violence shelters and medical approaches to.young people.

But when you start claiming that cis people should not even see an image of a trans person on a dating app then youve clearly crossed the line into someone who just finds trans people in general to be disgusting.

I'm glad you've posted the above actually. At least it lets us know what we're dealing with.

*mod snip - uncivil posting, this is not acceptable

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

*mod snip - uncivil posting, this is not acceptable*

They're not seeing men. They're seeing women. Trans women.

Why should they not have to see trans women? Do you have that much of a problem with the existence of trans people that seeing less than 1 in 100 on an app would trigger some kind of upset in you?

Necro

Mod:

Gatling's threadban lifted after discussion with poster

Cestmoi 111

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sounds like you support male only golf clubs.

I use a gay dating app that has a few trans women on it and one trans man (that I've seen). The idea that this somehow fundamentally changes the experience of the app is nonsense.

And you're also treating a dating app like some kind of social club space where you basically have to interact with people. It's not. The Her app means if you swipe left you will never see that person again. They cannot interact with you. They cannot message you.

What you're basically saying is that lesbians should not even have to see a trans person who doesn't "pass".

Yet people on here are at pains to say that they've no issue with trans people in general. They're just against certain things like changing rooms and prisons and domestic violence shelters and medical approaches to.young people.

But when you start claiming that cis people should not even see an image of a trans person on a dating app then youve clearly crossed the line into someone who just finds trans people in general to be disgusting.

I'm glad you've posted the above actually. At least it lets us know what we're dealing with.

As long as there are enough golf clubs for everyone, I have no problem with single sex golf clubs.
Transpeople are absolutely entitled to their own spaces, as women, and men are entitled to their own spaces. It doesn’t have to be a clash with one group forcing themselves on another.
When you say I’ve shown myself as someone you know you’re dealing with...are you happy to tell everyone who exactly you think I am? Who you accused me of being last night?

Gatling

suicide_circus wrote: »

Levine not so skillfully avoiding the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82oXKf83Pw

Seemed very much smug about it ,like I'm looking forward to working with you ,
Wonder could they throw a spanner in the works and say no they aren't happy with the choice .
On Keira bell she was given both puberty blocker's and a double mastectomy .

LLMMLL

Cestmoi 111 wrote: »

As long as there are enough golf clubs for everyone, I have no problem with single sex golf clubs.
Transpeople are absolutely entitled to their own spaces, as women, and men are entitled to their own spaces. It doesn’t have to be a clash with one group forcing themselves on another.
When you say I’ve shown myself as someone you know you’re dealing with...are you happy to tell everyone who exactly you think I am? Who you accused me of being last night?

No group is being forced on another.

Trans lesbians are using an app for lesbians. Not everyone is entitled to make every space their own. If an app is open to be used by both cis and trans lesbians then they are entitled to use it.

A small group of cis lesbians do not get to decree that it's their space only. What of the cis lesbians who have no issues with trans lesbians. Why should they have a trans ban enforced in their name?

LLMMLL

More good news from the US

https://twitter.com/TaylorSmallVT/status/1365078651264409602?s=20

Vic_08

LLMMLL wrote: »

They're not seeing men. They're seeing women. Trans women.

Why should they not have to see trans women?

Because they do not want to date a person with a prick. How is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

It isn't a social club or pub, it's a dating app, excluding those you have no interest in dating is the most basic function.

It is perfectly obvious that this insisting on mixing trans in with lesbians is being done purposely on that app due to fit in with the ideology of those running it.

Making it compulsory for users to properly categorise their sex and giving a tickbox for others to include/exclude trans as per their preference is all that is needed here. The only reasonable explanation for not doing this is the app admins want to make it as difficult as possible for lesbians to exclude trans-women from their dating pool regardless of their personal preferences.

That sounds pretty unusable to me for anyone who would find the idea of being set up to go out with someone they fundamentally do not wish to have any intimacy with a traumatic one.

Do you really not get that some women may not want to be in a situation where they have to reject someone face to face because they are trans, not only because going on a date with them would be a complete waste of their time but because of the possibility of verbal or physical abuse and on-line retaliation? Or maybe it's that you have a problem with women who only want to date actual women and you want it made as difficult as possible for them to do this without hassle and recriminations.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you have that much of a problem with the existence of trans people that seeing less than 1 in 100 on an app would trigger some kind of upset in you?

Give over with the pathetic victim card nonsense and the derogatory insinuations that other posters are bigoted.

You whinge about abuse yet you are constantly throwing these backhanded accusations at people, grow up.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

More good news from the US

https://twitter.com/TaylorSmallVT/status/1365078651264409602?s=20

That is good news. But also quite sad that it's only being removed now. It's a pretty horrible defence.