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

mohawk

There was a time where you had to have gender Dysphoria to be considered transgender and the common term was transexual. Now being transgender is considered by some to be an identity no need for gender Dysphoria just feel like you have a gender different to your sex.

Up until last summer I thought all transgender people had gender Dysphoria and over the years any article or interview I read or heard with someone with gender Dysphoria I had to say I found many of them very moving as they told their stories and it was a tough journey for them. I think the narrative has changed. Previously many described an internal battle with themselves and how they view themselves. Now the battle is external and trying to control how others view them ( yes I am generalising here).

I would say plenty of transgender people have made a positive impact on the world around them. However, realistically it isn’t a walk in the park if you find that you must transition to lead a happier life. When you look at GIDS referrals for teenagers in UK many have significant comorbidities. So I would have great empathy for them and their families as they try to figure out the best route forward.

Gentlemanne

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please tell me how you would attempt to view the fact that someone is transgender is positive?

What exactly about being "trapped in the wrong body" is positive?

Could you ask why it would be positive to be homosexual?

"Trapped in the wrong body" isn't something transgender people say. Maybe this might be a familiar term if all you hear about trans people is from The Sun, or Graham Linehan or something.

But he has gone of the deep end so much that I'm actually amazed that people here would still promote his stuff.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Could you ask why it would be positive to be homosexual?

"Trapped in the wrong body" isn't something transgender people say. Maybe this might be a familiar term if all you hear about trans people is from The Sun, or Graham Linehan or something.

But he has gone of the deep end so much that I'm actually amazed that people here would still promote his stuff.

Sexual orientation is vastly different to body dysphoria. Why would you conflate the two?

But to answer your question, there is absolutely no positive to being homosexual. It's a sexual preference.

And being born a different sex that you identify could easily be conflated to being trapped in what you feel is the wrong body. It's not extreme to say that. And plenty of trans people have used that phrase to describe their feelings.

Very common tactic to use though. If you say something that Graham linehan said, you obviously are a lunatic like him. Akin to Hitler was a vegetarian, ergo if you are a vegetarian, you are a nazi.

Gentlemanne

Deleted User wrote: »

Sexual orientation is vastly different to body dysphoria. Why would you conflate the two?

But to answer your question, there is absolutely no positive to being homosexual. It's a sexual preference.

And being born a different sex that you identify could easily be conflated to being trapped in what you feel is the wrong body. It's not extreme to say that. And plenty of trans people have used that phrase to describe their feelings.

Very common tactic to use though. If you say something that Graham linehan said, you obviously are a lunatic like him. Akin to Hitler was a vegetarian, ergo if you are a vegetarian, you are a nazi.

Actually a more appropriate analogy would be more like, I have some concerns about these Jewish people, here is an interview this failing German artist performed, it has some insight into the concerns that I have.

By the way, if you're going to invoke Godwin's Law, its worth pointing out that alongside jewish people, homosexuals etc., transgender people were another minority group the Nazis wanted to eradicate. Part of the reason some (incorrectly) believe that being trans is a relatively recent phenomenon is that the researchers were murdered, medical documents and research destroyed.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Actually a more appropriate analogy would be more like, I have some concerns about these Jewish people, here is an interview this failing German artist performed, it has some insight into the concerns that I have.

By the way, if you're going to invoke Godwin's Law, its worth pointing out that alongside jewish people, homosexuals etc., transgender people were another minority group the Nazis wanted to eradicate. Part of the reason some (incorrectly) believe that being trans is a relatively recent phenomenon is that the researchers were murdered, medical documents and research destroyed.

That whole post is nonsense.

I have no issue with people identifying as whatever gender they like, once they do not conflate sex and gender.

Unfortunately, it is more common than not that people think that they can change their biological sex, or expect people to treat them as if they are the opposite sex, by simply willing it to be true or by surgery.

That's not true and there should be no reason to compel people to pander to a demonstrably false biological fact.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it doesn’t? Being transgender doesn’t actually require any medical treatment or medical intervention whatsoever. I’m not even sure how you quantify what treatment is necessary for anyone to live a normal life, the criteria vary considerably according to culture, values and time in every society.

The discussion is specifically about gender identity in modern Ireland. But even putting that aside, despite the fact that there are cultures (modern and historical) that are very accepting of additional genders, they almost always translate to something like "masculine male", "feminine female", "masculine female" or "feminine male", or something in between. Indeed, in practice, these multiple genders seem to work to preserve the binary "hardware" distinction between male and female while allowing for the "software" of gender expression to be varied.

Recognising different positions along the gender spectrum as being valid for either sex is a different thing from pushing to then conflate gender (as a spectrum) with sex (a binary with a 500-million-year lineage) and insist that (eg.) "transwomen are women"—all while being unable to define what "woman" means and insisting that safeguarding and fairness measures that have existed because of very real sex differences in strength and size ought to be swept aside to preserve feelings.

If a 6ft man ran onto a rugby pitch and started folding women like deckchairs, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say that were fair. If a 6ft man spends 18 months taking estrogen and says he identifies as a woman (after more than 30 years of life) before running onto a rugby pitch and folding women like deckchairs, there is a very small but vocal minority of authoritarian activists who will not only insist that you not notice that a 6ft man is folding women like deckchairs on the rugby pitch, but if you have the audacity to notice and, worse, the temerity to say anything about it, will call you a bigot and make your life as uncomfortable as they possibly can.

Human beings generally are incredibly strongly tuned into fairness as a concept, and are so committed to it that a majority will literally leave themselves worse off rather than allow an unfair distribution of a given resource to go ahead. It's been shown that fairness in and of itself can be a primary reward or threat, activating the same neural network as pleasure (in the case of fairness) and pain (in the case of unfairness), and "fairness" is really the only reason that women's sports exist at all, given that "men's leagues" are not actually that, and do not actually prevent women from trying out or competing in most cases. Which suggests that, unless we can be honest about the potential (and actual) impact of male-bodied people in women's sports, or in women's prisons, or in women's refuges, to give a few examples, and if we keep on tying those things to general acceptance of transgender people, by insisting that anyone who is not okay with single-sex spaces, sports and so on being open to the other sex is bigoted, it's doomed to fail. How do you think the Irish public would react if Katie Taylor were knocked out in the first minute tomorrow, by a boxer who started identifying as a woman last week and won a lightweight championship as a man the week before?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ill-informed scaremongering doesn’t help anyone.

Sure. But neither does the dismissal of very real health implications of taking hormone blockers, long-term hormone replacement, surgeries and so on. And this is part of the issue with discussion around this subject. Rather than give Isha the benefit of the doubt and assume that she's concerned about the suffering that can be caused by medical transition (both in those who feel that transition was a good decision for them and in those who detransition), you essentially descend into implying that she's an ill-informed bigot. Without, I note, offering any actual counter to the health concerns she mentions. Were people reading that to saddle you with the same presumption of malice, they might conclude that you are perfectly happy for trans people to suffer those consequences as long as you get to look progressive on boards. That's not what I think, for the record, but it makes the point all the same.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

"Trapped in the wrong body" isn't something transgender people say. Maybe this might be a familiar term if all you hear about trans people is from The Sun, or Graham Linehan or something.

Eh. "Trapped in the wrong body" or "born in the wrong body" is pretty common parlance and you can find many examples of it used by trans people, about themselves, with a quick internet search. Mermaids used it somewhat regularly until the UK department of education said that schools should not use it and should not work with charities and other organisations that use it.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please tell me how you would attempt to view the fact that someone is transgender is positive?

What exactly about being "trapped in the wrong body" is positive?

I think it is a positive thing that trans people can be themselves. Frankly all of you who are harping on and on about being trans being a negative thing are sending a message to every trans person that they are worthless, that their life has no dignity and their life has no value. You are labelling being trans as negative but this is also labelling their entire life as negative. Thats the crux of it as I see it.

mohawk

Annasopra wrote: »

I think it is a positive thing that trans people can be themselves. Frankly all of you who are harping on and on about being trans being a negative thing are sending a message to every trans person that they are worthless, that their life has no dignity and their life has no value. You are labelling being trans as negative but this is also labelling their entire life as negative. Thats the crux of it as I see it.

No one else has used words such as worthless. That is your interpretation of the views of others. We are all complex individuals including transgender people. We all have hopes and dreams we all have highs and lows.

I may not agree with some aspects of what TRA’s campaign for, however that doesn’t mean that I think any persons life has no dignity or no value be they trans or not.

volchitsa

Annasopra wrote: »

I think it is a positive thing that trans people can be themselves. Frankly all of you who are harping on and on about being trans being a negative thing are sending a message to every trans person that they are worthless, that their life has no dignity and their life has no value. You are labelling being trans as negative but this is also labelling their entire life as negative. Thats the crux of it as I see it.

But then why do you think none of that applies equally to the disabled? Aren't their lives equally valuable and dignified?

Yet this all started when you got annoyed at someone comparing transgender people who need long term medical treatment and surgery to people with other disabilities that may also need medical treatment.

Annasopra

mohawk wrote: »

No one else has used words such as worthless. That is your interpretation of the views of others. We are all complex individuals including transgender people. We all have hopes and dreams we all have highs and lows.

I may not agree with some aspects of what TRA’s campaign for, however that doesn’t mean that I think any persons life has no dignity or no value be they trans or not.

But if you view being transgender as negative then what I said above is the logical outcome.

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

But then why do you think none of that applies equally to the disabled? Aren't their lives equally valuable and dignified?

Yet this all started when you got annoyed at someone comparing transgender people who need long term medical treatment and surgery to people with other disabilities that may also need medical treatment.

No. All of this started with lots of posters in this discussion saying being trans is negative.

I dont feel comparing being trans to being a person with a disability is correct. I said nothing whatsoever about long term medical treatment or surgery.

Shield

Annasopra wrote: »

Frankly all of you who are harping on and on about being trans being a negative thing are sending a message to every trans person that they are worthless, that their life has no dignity and their life has no value.

This is quite the reach.

I don't think it's helpful to view transgenderism in terms of positive OR negative because it will always lead to hyperbolic responses on either side of the gender critical discussion.

Never before has "because I said so" been an acceptable standard of evidence for any state of being without extensive exploration of other possibilities first. That's the problem: there are other possibilities that are not discussed for fear of causing offence. Until that changes, people will be forced into obedience as opposed to having their minds changed... and that never ends well for anyone.

Annasopra

Shield wrote: »

This is quite the reach.

I dont believe it is. The judgement that the persons identity is negative is in essence also a judgement on the person.

volchitsa

Annasopra wrote: »

No. All of this started with lots of posters in this discussion saying being trans is negative.

I dont feel comparing being trans to being a person with a disability is correct. I said nothing whatsoever about long term medical treatment or surgery.

Why not? Most transgender people take hormone treatment, usually life long, and many go on to get major surgery that, even apart from the risk of the surgery itself, often leaves them infertile, for trans women at least.

Whereas being gay, which seems to be the preferred comparison for trans activists, only requires people being left to get on with their lives. No medical intervention at all.

mohawk

Annasopra wrote: »

But if you view being transgender as negative then what I said above is the logical outcome.

I have a disabled brother, he will never be able to work or live independently. His life has unique challenges that my other siblings and I don’t have. Does that mean his life is worthless or lacks dignity...no. He has a different life to us other siblings but he is the best of us. Now obviously a disability and being transgender are separate things. However my point is that just because someone is ‘different’ doesn’t mean they are any less worthy.
Saying a group can have unique challenges is not a criticism of that group. It is not a criticism of their character as people. So no it’s not the logical outcome. It’s your interpretation of what others are saying.

volchitsa

mohawk wrote: »

I have a disabled brother, he will never be able to work or live independently. His life has unique challenges that my other siblings and I don’t have. Does that mean his life is worthless or lacks dignity...no. He has a different life to us other siblings but he is the best of us. Now obviously a disability and being transgender are separate things. However my point is that just because someone is ‘different’ doesn’t mean they are any less worthy.
Saying a group can have unique challenges is not a criticism of that group. It is not a criticism of their character as people. So no it’s not the logical outcome. It’s your interpretation of what others are saying.

If we applied the same logic to Annasopra as Annasopra is doing to everyone else, their posts saying that comparing being trans to having a disability is viewing being trans negatively is really offensive to the disabled.

Shield

Annasopra wrote: »

I dont believe it is. The judgement that the persons identity is negative is in essence also a judgement on the person.

I'm really not sure how you make the logic leap from "the state of being transgender is a negative state"

to

"transgender people are worthless, have no value or dignity, and their entire life is negative".

You're not reasoning your way there at all. In fact, if you want to argue that the state of being transgender is all positive, then be prepared for someone to conclude that the taxpayer need not fund gender reassignment surgery. If you're not precise in your language, you're painting yourself into a corner.

I stand by what I said. I don't believe rhetorical flourishes help move the discussion forward.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The discussion is specifically about gender identity in modern Ireland. But even putting that aside, despite the fact that there are cultures (modern and historical) that are very accepting of additional genders, they almost always translate to something like "masculine male", "feminine female", "masculine female" or "feminine male", or something in between. Indeed, in practice, these multiple genders seem to work to preserve the binary "hardware" distinction between male and female while allowing for the "software" of gender expression to be varied.

Recognising different positions along the gender spectrum as being valid for either sex is a different thing from pushing to then conflate gender (as a spectrum) with sex (a binary with a 500-million-year lineage) and insist that (eg.) "transwomen are women"—all while being unable to define what "woman" means and insisting that safeguarding and fairness measures that have existed because of very real sex differences in strength and size ought to be swept aside to preserve feelings.

Took a couple of readings before what you’re saying made sense to me, and I don’t disagree with any of it. It’s perfectly aligned to what I suggested earlier that the criteria for a normal life is determined by culture, values and time in any society. It’s true that various social standards which were based upon the idea of differences between the sexes had implications for everyone in any given society. In Ireland it meant that people who are transgender had no recognition in Irish law, and so after much campaigning, Irish law changed, and so the standards changed to recognise all people in Irish society as equals. Safeguarding and fairness and all that good stuff still exists, and it’s now extended to people who are transgender. Because being transgender is also no longer considered a medical or psychological condition which requires treatment, the stigma which used to be associated with being transgender is being eroded. That’s all that’s happened. Nobody’s rights are actually being eroded. The same protection which applied before, still applies, and now it applies to everyone. What you’re arguing for is that social standards which were advantageous to you, but disadvantageous to others, should be maintained, so your feelings are protected. The idea that anyone is actually any threat to anyone on the basis of any particular characteristic is fundamentally based upon fear and prejudice, nothing more.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a 6ft man ran onto a rugby pitch and started folding women like deckchairs, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say that were fair. If a 6ft man spends 18 months taking estrogen and says he identifies as a woman (after more than 30 years of life) before running onto a rugby pitch and folding women like deckchairs, there is a very small but vocal minority of authoritarian activists who will not only insist that you not notice that a 6ft man is folding women like deckchairs on the rugby pitch, but if you have the audacity to notice and, worse, the temerity to say anything about it, will call you a bigot and make your life as uncomfortable as they possibly can.

Human beings generally are incredibly strongly tuned into fairness as a concept, and are so committed to it that a majority will literally leave themselves worse off rather than allow an unfair distribution of a given resource to go ahead. It's been shown that fairness in and of itself can be a primary reward or threat, activating the same neural network as pleasure (in the case of fairness) and pain (in the case of unfairness), and "fairness" is really the only reason that women's sports exist at all, given that "men's leagues" are not actually that, and do not actually prevent women from trying out or competing in most cases. Which suggests that, unless we can be honest about the potential (and actual) impact of male-bodied people in women's sports, or in women's prisons, or in women's refuges, to give a few examples, and if we keep on tying those things to general acceptance of transgender people, by insisting that anyone who is not okay with single-sex spaces, sports and so on being open to the other sex is bigoted, it's doomed to fail. How do you think the Irish public would react if Katie Taylor were knocked out in the first minute tomorrow, by a boxer who started identifying as a woman last week and won a lightweight championship as a man the week before?

I don’t imagine many people would give two fcuks tbh. If we take for example the circumstances in this thread, it’s not exactly caused any national outrage. I’m not sure even with her fame, that anyone who wasn’t interested in the sport of boxing would care that Katie Taylor was knocked out, even if it were Mike Tyson, which suggests that people who are concerned about the welfare of women who they don’t appear to have cared about before, are only using those women as a means to support a shìtty non-existent argument by trying to associate people who are transgender with people who commit violence. Had they even the slightest interest in the people they claim to want to protect, then the last people those people are at risk from, is people who are transgender, purely on the basis that people who are transgender are thought to make up only 0.6% of any given population.

Seeking to punish that tiny minority of the population for the behaviour of another tiny minority of the population who commit violence, just doesn’t make any sense to me. I just don’t get it, and I’ve never been given any sort of an explanation of the reasoning that drives it. Again, giving people the benefit of the doubt means acknowledging that they don’t have an answer. They want to see a tiny minority of people being treated unfairly, but they have no good reason for it, the only justification they put forward is that it’s because of what other people might do given the chance.

How, if you wouldn’t mind, does that make sense?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure. But neither does the dismissal of very real health implications of taking hormone blockers, long-term hormone replacement, surgeries and so on. And this is part of the issue with discussion around this subject. Rather than give Isha the benefit of the doubt and assume that she's concerned about the suffering that can be caused by medical transition (both in those who feel that transition was a good decision for them and in those who detransition), you essentially descend into implying that she's an ill-informed bigot. Without, I note, offering any actual counter to the health concerns she mentions.

On the contrary - it’s precisely because I do give isha the benefit of the doubt that she’s not a complete idiot, that I didn’t dismiss her latest effort to throw everything but the kitchen sink out there. I know for a fact, that isha knows better, that she knows that what she’s saying amounts to nothing more than scaremongering nonsense. I know that she knows that individual patients are assessed in every single case and informed about the potential risks involved, not only because it’s in their patients interests, but because not only do adverse outcomes tend to damage their reputation, but medical professionals are held to account for their actions by numerous oversight committees, their employers, and the potential legal implications of their actions.

I didn’t imagine any further counter was necessary to refute ill-informed nonsense than to point out that ill-informed nonsense doesn’t help anyone. I also didn’t imply anything about isha, I was referring solely to the effort of an argument she was putting forward for consideration.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Were people reading that to saddle you with the same presumption of malice, they might conclude that you are perfectly happy for trans people to suffer those consequences as long as you get to look progressive on boards. That's not what I think, for the record, but it makes the point all the same.

Wouldn’t be the first time anyone was wrong. People are perfectly entitled to think whatever they want to, what people think or what they believe is generally of no concern to me whatsoever, although I do appreciate that you don’t think I’m progressive, that’s good to know at least. I do take issue however with what I think are bad ideas, and I question ideas which don’t make any sense to me, and if the evidence suggests that the ideas are based upon nothing more than fear and prejudice and perpetuating discrimination against any group in society, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question those ideas and assess whether they actually have any merit or not.

So far tbh I’m coming up a blank as to why people who are transgender should be treated any differently to anyone else or regarded with prejudice on the basis that they are transgender. That strikes me as not only unfair, but completely unreasonable. If individuals wish to hold those prejudices, I don’t care, I’ve got plenty of my own. But arguing that the law should maintain and uphold those prejudices, or that the medical profession in their practice, or scientists in their research or politicians in their policies, should uphold those prejudices? No, no I don’t think so, tbh. Much as I’m a firm believer in the idea that ignorance is bliss, and I don’t want to know, I don’t think everyone should be held to my standards which I’m comfortable with.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

But if you view being transgender as negative then what I said above is the logical outcome.

Logical?

Hardly.

It's not logical to think someone who truly believes they have the wrong body is in any way positive.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

I dont believe it is. The judgement that the persons identity is negative is in essence also a judgement on the person.

Would it be cruel to describe someone suffering from anorexia nervosa as underweight or that it is not a positive aspect of their life.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know for a fact, that isha knows better, that she knows that what she’s saying amounts to nothing more than scaremongering nonsense. I know that she knows that individual patients are assessed in every single case and informed about the potential risks involved, not only because it’s in their patients interests, but because not only do adverse outcomes tend to damage their reputation, but medical professionals are held to account for their actions by numerous oversight committees, their employers, and the potential legal implications of their actions.

I didn’t imagine any further counter was necessary to refute ill-informed nonsense than to point out that ill-informed nonsense doesn’t help anyone. I also didn’t imply anything about isha, I was referring solely to the effort of an argument she was putting forward for consideration.





Wouldn’t be the first time anyone was wrong.
.

You, knowing everything about me, apparently.. :eek:




By the way, Sweden called. They want you to know that up until March 2021 the doctors did not know best. And who knows about the legal implications of all of that. Förlåt, they said, before rushing off rather quickly.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately, it is more common than not that people think that they can change their biological sex, or expect people to treat them as if they are the opposite sex, by simply willing it to be true or by surgery.

That's not true and there should be no reason to compel people to pander to a demonstrably false biological fact.

The counter arguments will then be

A. "Sure just humour them, what harm is it doing? Where's your EMPATHYYYYY?!!" There by treating the issue as if it's akin to telling a child Santa is real and as if being compelled to lie is no big deal.

or

B. If you don't validate and affirm their "gender identity" they might commit suicide. Straight out out of the abusive relationship playbook. And as Cymro previously pointed out, if being misgendered or deadnamed prompts someone's suicide, the treatment is clearly completely inadequate.

Kathleen Stock has recently written a book on gender theory issues as they pertain to now. Material Girls, it is called. It is very good so far, outlining how the philosophies have evolved and defining terms. I am only a quarter way through but so far it is informative.

Shield

isha wrote: »

Kathleen Stock has recently written a book on gender theory issues as they pertain to now. Material Girls, it is called. It is very good so far, outlining how the philosophies have evolved and defining terms. I am only a quarter way through but so far it is informative.

Speaking of books, try Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters". It got review-bombed by the usual mafiactivists, with only 5 out of the 85 negative reviews being a "Verified Purchase".

When any book gets the nod from Ray Blanchard, you know it's worth reading. Highly recommended if you're guided by facts and evidence.

Shield

Shield wrote: »

Speaking of books, try Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters". It got review-bombed by the usual mafiactivists, with only 5 out of the 85 negative reviews being a "Verified Purchase".

When any book gets the nod from Ray Blanchard, you know it's worth reading. Highly recommended if you're guided by facts and evidence.

I know her book too.

Whatever one thinks about anything, good, bad or indifferent, never ever be on same side as book burners.
Just a generally good rule of thumb in life.

AllForIt

Shield wrote: »

Speaking of books, try Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters". It got review-bombed by the usual mafiactivists, with only 5 out of the 85 negative reviews being a "Verified Purchase"

When any book gets the nod from Ray Blanchard, you know it's worth reading. Highly recommended if you're guided by facts and evidence.

Oh which reminds me - Jordon Peterson did a podcast with Shrier recently, https://open.spotify.com/episode/4c5ZxbHT9lFk0io2IYJII1
Worth is listen. One can get the jist of where she's coming from in this podacst. She was slated in this thread eairler, but she seems genuine to me.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You, knowing everything about me, apparently.. :eek:

I never claimed to know anything about you other than the fact that I know you’re not an idiot.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By the way, Sweden called. They want you to know that up until March 2021 the doctors did not know best. And who knows about the legal implications of all of that. Förlåt, they said, before rushing off rather quickly.

Sweden haven’t said any such thing? I’m not sure if you’re referring to the fact that up until 2012 one of the conditions of availing of gender affirmation surgery was mandatory sterilisation, and since mandatory sterilisation was taken off the criteria, the numbers of people presenting for treatment of gender dysphoria have risen exponentially, which doesn’t really come as a surprise to anyone who understands that mandatory sterilisation as a condition of treatment would likely put anyone off seeking said treatment. The legal implications of that were that Swedish Government offered compensation to those people who had been forced to undergo mandatory sterilisation -


Sweden will compensate trans people who were forced to be sterilized


No apology has ever been issued for that human rights violation either.

Or are you referring to the policy change by the Karolinska University Hospital to no longer provide puberty blockers to children under 16 outside of clinical trials? I’m not sure whether I’m heartened by the fact that they have decided not to prescribe puberty blockers to children outside of clinical trials, or whether to be sketchy about the fact that they are limiting themselves to prescribing puberty blockers only to children in clinical trials.

Either way the decision for a change in policy in one hospital has no bearing on private practice, and neither the Swedish Government, nor the Swedish Courts, have prohibited the prescription and provision of puberty blockers to children, nor made any indication that they intend to do so.

One eyed Jack

Shield wrote: »

When any book gets the nod from Ray Blanchard, you know it's worth reading. Highly recommended if you're guided by facts and evidence.
[/SIZE]

Just like Ray Blanchard’s theories are not the only source of evidence of anything (and thank fcuk for that), Amazon is not the only source to procure a PDF copy of the book you’re referring to. I certainly had no intention of lining the pockets of a journalist whose opinions frankly weren’t worth reading. It’s not the least bit surprising that the book received a nod from Blanchard when it was pretty much supporting his political views. There’s very little in the way of value as regards scientific evidence of anything though, a criticism of the book which has been made by a number of people who have read the book rather than just commenting on how well written or researched it is -

A Review of "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or are you referring to the policy change by the Karolinska University Hospital to no longer provide puberty blockers to children under 16 outside of clinical trials? I’m not sure whether I’m heartened by the fact that they have decided not to prescribe puberty blockers to children outside of clinical trials, or whether to be sketchy about the fact that they are limiting themselves to prescribing puberty blockers only to children in clinical trials.

Either way the decision for a change in policy in one hospital has no bearing on private practice, and neither the Swedish Government, nor the Swedish Courts, have prohibited the prescription and provision of puberty blockers to children, nor made any indication that they intend to do so.

The Karolinski Institute is the Tavistock of Sweden - it is the national clinic that deals with children with dysphoria. There won't be doctors still doling out puberty blockers or cross sex hormones to minors elsewhere in the country. The Institute has made its decision based on a public enquiry. You can read about it back further in thread. I am too lazy to link it for you again.