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

ceadaoin.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Well that's convenient that you will post links to absolutely everything else, from Nike shoes to the Williams sisters to the US military, but won't answer the question which shows the absolute glaring hole in your logic.

Men and women are biologically different, and to ignore that reality is to ignore the drastic physical benefits bestowed upon the male sex. Your assertion that women are deprived the chance to prove themselves by men is absolutely nonsense - the exact opposite, their own leagues have been made to account for the biological biases that exist, the exact same reason why we differentiate with age.

You are doing severe damage to women's participation in sports with your dangerous adherence to this ideology, let alone risking the safety of competitors in physical sports.

If women wanted to compete with men in physical sports, they would ask for it - they are loud, proud competitors and would demand it. SO why are women not clamouring for mixed participation? Because they understand the inequality far greater than you.

Here comes the link to that one woman who wants to compete with men. Its circles at this stage, I dont see the point in engaging its extremely tedious to read the same stuff over and over.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Well that's convenient that you will post links to absolutely everything else, from Nike shoes to the Williams sisters to the US military, but won't answer the question which shows the absolute glaring hole in your logic.

It’s not inconvenience is the reason I don’t address your attempted whataboutery. It’s because age discrimination is irrelevant to the discussion about discrimination based upon sex or gender. The only glaring hole is the one in which you’re attempting to lob in the red herring of age discrimination and expect me to address that when I don’t have any issue with it. I don’t care about age discrimination in sports any more than you do. There are reasonable arguments in favour of age discrimination which don’t apply to discrimination based upon sex or gender.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Men and women are biologically different, and to ignore that reality is to ignore the drastic physical benefits bestowed upon the male sex. Your assertion that women are deprived the chance to prove themselves by men is absolutely nonsense - the exact opposite, their own leagues have been made to account for the biological biases that exist, the exact same reason why we differentiate with age.

Again, I haven’t argued otherwise. However, by your logic, based purely upon sex differences alone, I should be able to beat Flo-Jo in a race, and rock up to Wimbledon and beat the pants off Serena Williams, based purely upon the fact that I am male. Secondly, I never argued that women are deprived the chance to prove themselves by men, which would be absolute nonsense. I’m saying they are denied the chance to prove themselves by rules which prohibit their ability to do so. The same rules also prohibit women from doing so against other women they can beat. The report I linked to also argues an association based upon racial discrimination, but I don’t agree with the assertion. I would argue it’s a correlation - the rules don’t prohibit women’s participation on the basis of their ethnicity, they prohibit women’s participation on the basis of sex or gender in that the criteria only allow for a strict definition of those who are eligible to compete in women’s events based upon preconceived notions backed up by bad science.

That their own leagues exist is neither here nor their in terms of whether or not they have the opportunity to compete with men. You might as well be trying to argue that seats exist at the back of the bus which are reserved for women, while men sit up front, based upon the “biological fact” that men are superior to women. You ignore all sorts of factors such as the influence of socioeconomic factors, nutrition, genetics, psychological aptitude, opportunities to develop their abilities and a whole host of other factors which influence athletic ability. There are some scientists who argue that athletic ability is inheritable, but I don’t mind admitting I’m still not convinced of that one. Humans will of course inherit traits which allow for their potential to excel in any given area such as sports, and they may lean more towards being a sprinter than a long distance runner or triathletics or tennis (one of the only sports in which women have the opportunity to earn as much as their male counterparts, in contrast to football where Messi is on €100m and Alex Morgan is on €5m), but without the opportunities to develop their potential, Messi would be unheard of for example and could have had a career as a ‘recycling consultant’. I’m not suggesting that it is predetermined that he would be a recycling consultant, I’m suggesting that without the opportunities to develop his potential, he certainly wouldn’t be regarded as one of the greatest players the sport has ever known.

Smacruairi wrote: »

You are doing severe damage to women's participation in sports with your dangerous adherence to this ideology, let alone risking the safety of competitors in physical sports.

I’m doing no such thing.

Smacruairi wrote: »

If women wanted to compete with men in physical sports, they would ask for it - they are loud, proud competitors and would demand it. SO why are women not clamouring for mixed participation? Because they understand the inequality far greater than you.

Ehh, there are women demanding it, you’re just choosing to ignore them and handwave them away as though they don’t exist, and claiming that there is nothing in the rules which prohibits their equal participation (we know that’s not true), and they aren’t paid equal to men because they’re not as good as men or their performance isn’t as good as men or they aren’t as entertaining to watch as men, while none of that has ANY bearing on their opportunities for equal pay. It’s true that women are loud, proud competitors, which is why they’re demanding equal pay and conditions as men in sports where their livelihood is dependent upon their ability to participate equally in the sport -

’Shocked and disappointed’: Judge dismisses USWNT’s equal pay claim

What Happens When You're an Elite Athlete—and You Get Pregnant?

In the second example, the women are made to sign non-disclosure agreements, and precisely because they are not afraid to speak up for equal treatment and conditions and pay with their male counterparts, they are breaking these non-disclosure agreements in order to inform the public about the unfair treatment and discrimination which is rife in sports. I’ve no doubt they too have no shortage of critics who tell them to pipe down, that they are putting women at risk, that they are ruining the sport for women, that they are doing damage to women’s participation in sports and risking the safety of competitors in physical sports too with their “adherence to a dangerous ideology”.

Respectfully mate, there aren’t enough rolleyes.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, I haven’t argued otherwise. However, by your logic, based purely upon sex differences alone, I should be able to beat Flo-Jo in a race, and rock up to Wimbledon and beat the pants off Serena Williams, based purely upon the fact that I am male.

Literally nobody said that or even hinted at it.

If, you had the same amount of training as Flo Jo and had the same amount of training in Tennis as Serena Williams, then yes. You would almost definitely beat them.

Elite women will beat untrained men.

Men who engage in the same training and same fitness regiemes will beat women.

Women want to compete against the best in their category.

If women try to prove themselves against equally trained men, in almost 100% of the cases, they lose. Not through lack of effort or application, but through biology.

If you are suggesting the rules of the game are changed to enable a more equal competition, you are changing the game.

There is no difference, despite your protestation, between having different age categories and having different sex categories. They are there to ensure as equal competition as possible.

I am starting to think by your baffling lack of comprehension that you may be on a wind-up.

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why not? Why would this topic be exempt? I’m interested to read people’s opinions on it.

Fair enough, I suppose opinion pieces shouldn't have topics that are off limits. The ones I've read on this topic recently I've found quite trite and it just seems to be the same talking points from both sides over and over. I suppose if they stopped being written though then the chances of any meaningful new ideas being brought to the table drops.

I enjoy reading people's opinions on things as well which is why I'm on boards and other social media , which I prefer because I can see people's opinions in the context of a discussion. I'm not a fan of opinion pieces in general as I just hate the idea of a media class getting a platform to pontificate from unchallenged, when I don't think their opinions are any more worthy of projection than us common folk and often less so. I'd rather they were replaced with a larger letters section. I despise some of the people that have built careers from them simply by unloading hot takes they probably don't even believe to generate outrage. Katie Hopkins is the first example springing to mind.

In fairness though, with everything being so online these days people are free to comment and challenge opinion pieces immediately, so that point is fast becoming if not already moot.

gibgodsman

Males are Males, Females are Females, Trans are what ever they began with, you can think of yourself as whatever you want, but legally and factually you will never be anything other than what you were born as.

RWCNT

gibgodsman wrote: »

Males are Males, Females are Females, Trans are what ever they began with, you can think of yourself as whatever you want, but legally and factually you will never be anything other than what you were born as.

Legally? Have you actually read any of this thread?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ehh, there are women demanding it, you’re just choosing to ignore them and handwave them away as though they don’t exist, and claiming that there is nothing in the rules which prohibits their equal participation (we know that’s not true), and they aren’t paid equal to men because they’re not as good as men or their performance isn’t as good as men or they aren’t as entertaining to watch as men, while none of that has ANY bearing on their opportunities for equal pay. It’s true that women are loud, proud competitors, which is why they’re demanding equal pay and conditions as men in sports where their livelihood is dependent upon their ability to participate equally in the sport -

’Shocked and disappointed’: Judge dismisses USWNT’s equal pay claim

What Happens When You're an Elite Athlete—and You Get Pregnant?

Respectfully mate, there aren’t enough rolleyes.

The footballers are demanding equal pay as their male counterparts. Thats bull****. Nobody is interested in the womens national team. They might be the best in their field, but the standard of the teams they beat wouldn't even be on par with most men's amateur leagues.

They do not deserve equal pay, as they are not as good as the men's team and do not elicit the same engagement from fans or sponsors. Should the spec

What happens when you are an elite athlete and get pregnant? I'm not even reading that Marie Claire article as it has nothing to do with anything discussed here. FFS. Of course elite athletes will not be treated the same when they become pregnant. I assume the article will be giving out that women don't get paid maternity leave if they are unable to compete.

Jesus.

gibgodsman

Deleted User wrote: »

The footballers are demanding equal pay as their male counterparts. Thats bull****. Nobody is interested in the womens national team. They might be the best in their field, but the standard of the teams they beat wouldn't even be on par with most men's amateur leagues.

They do not deserve equal pay, as they are not as good as the men's team and do not elicit the same engagement from fans or sponsors. Should the spec

What happens when you are an elite athlete and get pregnant? I'm not even reading that Marie Claire article as it has nothing to do with anything discussed here. FFS. Of course elite athletes will not be treated the same when they become pregnant. I assume the article will be giving out that women don't get paid maternity leave if they are unable to compete.

Jesus.

Best female team in the world, USA, lost to a random u15 boys team, says enough, end the debate on equal pay in football

RWCNT

Off-topic and nothing here that would counter anyone's points around equal pay in sports or that men are generally better at vast majority of sports, just a few points in this guy's vid that some may find interesting. (Watch on at least 1.25x speed, he's got a shockingly slow speaking pace)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9xmpikmsBI

ObvzDespBrekkies, if you're reading this - the irony of me going on a rant about how much I hate opinion pieces then proceeding to link to a video of a 20 minute monologue from a cartoon skull is not lost on me.

TomTomTim

RWCNT wrote: »

Off-topic and nothing here that would counter anyone's points around equal pay in sports or that men are generally better at vast majority of sports, just a few points in this guy's vid that some may find interesting. (Watch on at least 1.25x speed, he's got a shockingly slow speaking pace)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9xmpikmsBI

ObvzDespBrekkies, if you're reading this - the irony of me going on a rant about how much I hate opinion pieces then proceeding to link to a video of a 20 minute monologue from a cartoon skull is not lost on me.

Can't you summarize his arguments/evidence? No is one is going to sit through a 20 minute video just to see if someone has an argument of substance. I don't see anything in his sources that would be of any worth either.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ehh, there are women demanding it, you’re just choosing to ignore them and handwave them away as though they don’t exist, and claiming that there is nothing in the rules which prohibits their equal participation (we know that’s not true), and they aren’t paid equal to men because they’re not as good as men or their performance isn’t as good as men or they aren’t as entertaining to watch as men, while none of that has ANY bearing on their opportunities for equal pay. It’s true that women are loud, proud competitors, which is why they’re demanding equal pay and conditions as men in sports where their livelihood is dependent upon their ability to participate equally in the sport -

’Shocked and disappointed’: Judge dismisses USWNT’s equal pay claim

What Happens When You're an Elite Athlete—and You Get Pregnant?

In the second example, the women are made to sign non-disclosure agreements, and precisely because they are not afraid to speak up for equal treatment and conditions and pay with their male counterparts, they are breaking these non-disclosure agreements in order to inform the public about the unfair treatment and discrimination which is rife in sports. I’ve no doubt they too have no shortage of critics who tell them to pipe down, that they are putting women at risk, that they are ruining the sport for women, that they are doing damage to women’s participation in sports and risking the safety of competitors in physical sports too with their “adherence to a dangerous ideology”.

Respectfully mate, there aren’t enough rolleyes.

Neither of these two links have any relevance whatsoever to the current point being discussed. You are suggesting that women should compete against men; the US women's football team are not looking for their team and the mens team to be disbanded in favour of mixed US team, as they are aware as anyone that if such a thing was to occur it would be 23 men making up the squad.

As has been pointed out, equal or increased funding will not result in a situation were women's marathon times equal those of men, it will not enable women to be as physically strong as men, or as tall, as quick etc etc. All these differences become more pronounced the more elite you get.

And the second link is even more irrelevant. This is what I meant earlier about strawmanning. You are arguing points that no-one has made.

RWCNT

TomTomTim wrote: »

Can't you summarize his arguments/evidence? No is one is going to sit through a 20 minute video just to see if someone has an argument of substance. I don't see anything in his sources that would be of any worth either.

Hmmm, 589k views. I'd wager a lot of people have probably sat through it for that purpose. It would also be shorter than 20 minutes if watched sped up as I recommend

And no, not worth the effort. Like I say, it doesn't relate specifically to the topic at hand in my opinion. It's just a tangentially related video that I was reminded of by the talk of women's teams performances against youth men's teams. If people are generally interested in the subject of the comparative performance of the sexes in sport then they may enjoy it.

suicide_circus

For anyone who doesn't know, Dr John Money was an early practitioner of gender woo woo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

For anyone who doesn't know, Dr John Money was an early practitioner of gender woo woo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

oh dear

political analyst

Here's a summary of Brenda Power's article that was published in The Sunday Times last weekend:

If a 14-year-old anorexic girl in Ireland thinks she's fat, she is deemed to be mentally ill and then treated with counselling, which is followed, if it doesn't work, by hospitalisation and force-feeding. It makes sense not to let her hurt herself in trying to achieve her ideal. We don't give anorexics drugs to make them thinner or perform surgery to remove flesh and tissue from them or refer them to politicised counselling services that encourage they to reject their bodies and strive, with surgery and chemicals, to achieve the bodies they think will make them happy. But those things are being done to children with gender dysphoria.

Over the past 3 years, 78 Irish children have been referred to Tavistock, of which more than 30 have been prescribed puberty blockers. Other statistcs suggest 80% of those taking puberty blockers proceed transition fully. When they don't get tese drugs, just 5% transition and the rest "grow out of it".

For fear of incurring transgender activists' wrath, nobody wants to ask how many trans patients regret the treatment - a proposed study at Bath Spa University was stopped in 2017 "so as not to offend people", the therapist involved told the BBC.

Counselling services and support organisations that should be impartial have let themselves be politicised. Look at the NWCI effectively denounce those questioning the commital of 2 biological males to a women's prison as "right-wing bigots".

Keira Bell said:

The craziness of identity politics, the lies and silencing of alternative viewpoints, made me realise something was wrong.

We don't let children under 18, let alone under 16, vote or marry without consent but we encourage them to self-mutilate rather than inflame the transgender lobby. We won't starve themselves to achieve their ideal bodies but we;ll let doctors cut off their genitals for the same purpose. How is this not abuse?

political analyst

In the Sunday Indo (6 December), Stella O'Malley wrote that her friend and colleague Dr Lisa Littman analysed the phnomenon of "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" among teenage girls but that the peer-reivewed study was removed from the Brown University website following trans activists' protests that the study was "transphobic" and that Prof. Donal O'Shea, the clinical lead for the National Gender Service, was accused of being transphobic when he pointed out that the controversial World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines were not fit for purpose and that aligning with them would result in significant harm to patients.

Stella asked how doctors and clinicians hope to 'first, do no harm' if they're not allowed to freely discuss different paths for children.

She wrote that this conversation is unavoidable and that it has started in the UK but that they had to go to court to have it and asked:

Could Ireland perhaps do it differently?

grassylawn

political analyst wrote: »

Here's a summary of Brenda Power's article that was published in The Sunday Times last weekend:

If a 14-year-old anorexic girl in Ireland thinks she's fat, she is deemed to be mentally ill and then treated with counselling, which is followed, if it doesn't work, by hospitalisation and force-feeding. It makes sense not to let her hurt herself in trying to achieve her ideal. We don't give anorexics drugs to make them thinner or perform surgery to remove flesh and tissue from them or refer them to politicised counselling services that encourage they to reject their bodies and strive, with surgery and chemicals, to achieve the bodies they think will make them happy. But those things are being done to children with gender dysphoria.

Over the past 3 years, 78 Irish children have been referred to Tavistock, of which more than 30 have been prescribed puberty blockers. Other statistcs suggest 80% of those taking puberty blockers proceed transition fully. When they don't get tese drugs, just 5% transition and the rest "grow out of it".

For fear of incurring transgender activists' wrath, nobody wants to ask how many trans patients regret the treatment - a proposed study at Bath Spa University was stopped in 2017 "so as not to offend people", the therapist involved told the BBC.

Counselling services and support organisations that should be impartial have let themselves be politicised. Look at the NWCI effectively denounce those questioning the commital of 2 biological males to a women's prison as "right-wing bigots".

Keira Bell said:



We don't let children under 18, let alone under 16, vote or marry without consent but we encourage them to self-mutilate rather than inflame the transgender lobby. We won't starve themselves to achieve their ideal bodies but we;ll let doctors cut off their genitals for the same purpose. How is this not abuse?

They don't perform surgery or transitioning drugs. The drugs stop the onset of puberty. The rationale is that the child can wait until they re older to decide whether to stop taking them and experience puberty as per their biological sex. Or they can commit to transitioning to the opposite sex without having the secondary sex characteristics they would otherwise develop in puberty.

One consideration is that a vaginoplasty might not work so easily in this scenario because the penis will be underdeveloped and vaginoplasty involves cutting it up and repurposing it as a quasi vagina.

I disagree with giving children puberty blockers, but it isn't as extreme as what you've imagined.

Mic 1972

Puberty blockers have an impact on the body, if a child stops taking them the body inst going to catch up on the missing years, the body is permanent affected

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Marriage wasn’t redefined then any more than sports wouldn’t be redefined by allowing people to participate regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. A fundamental right is being denied when people are not treated equally.

I'm a bit offended with your non-stereotypical brief reply.:D

Anyway, it absolutely was redefined. There was no provision for men to marry men therefore it was redefined by adding to the legal definition. Marriage for gay people was not denied - it was just never catered for. Now through a legal ref it has been legally catered for.

The illogical part of your reply is that if you believe in equality then cis-men should also be allowed to participate in what is defined as a biological female sport. But no, you want to give transsexuals a special right to do so and no one else.

Yet again this issue boils down to whether one thinks a trans woman is 100% equivalent to a cis-woman in respect of rights. In relation to sport I do not, therefore there is no such fundamental right which you say I wish to deny them. I even said if the definition was proposed to be changed I wouldn't object.

Unless you can convince me that the separation of sports by sex was done for the separation of sport by how one identifies their gender, and not for the obvious reason of human physicality, then I don't see how I can ever agree with you on this. I don't care about the having an advantage stuff at all, that's irrelevant to me.



Now more generally, I think transgender activists get the above problem. They know people think the way I do, which is why in recent years they are attempting to shift the narrative of how we view gender in order to solve this impasse.

To make an analogy, gay activists were some years ago pushing this idea that sexuality was on a spectrum - on an individual level! This was an attempt to de-other homosexuals, so the new narrative is that we're all a bit gay, could flip at any time, so no one could say homosexuality was an aberration cuz we all have that gay gene somewhere and so no heterosexual is truly separate from this gay thing. It didn't wash because there is absolutely no evidence to support this new 'progressive' way of looking at things.

Gender radicals are now doing exactly the same thing. They are attempting to change the factual narrative of gender, to de-other transsexuals, gender is all on a spectrum on an individual level, it's more complicated than we know, you can be mostly male and a small bit female or visa versa or somewhere in between. If that attitude was accepted in wider society, then the sports issue would be fixed overnight. No one would object.

But I think this strategy is the whole reason for all these contentious issues we are currently experiencing, because it's what riles cis ppl the most, and that is the dogged insistence of changing the factual narrative of gender and sex to one what I think is just frankly fantasy. I'm not sure they even believe it themselves but it just suits them to get what they want. And they will nail anyone who dares to object to it such is the support they get from all of those disguising hollywood elites and tech company's and opportunistic politicians.

I think they haven't got a hope in this endeavour and until they give it up this thread will go on for years.

NewbridgeIR

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why do we have under 16 teams? And then u/18 teams? and then senior teams? why are sports divided into age groups at all?

or weight restrictions in boxing - maybe we should just have a free for all.

ceadaoin.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Puberty blockers have an impact on the body, if a child stops taking them the body inst going to catch up on the missing years, the body is permanent affected

Yes, even the activists aren't parroting the "its just harmelessly pressing pause" line anymore because its a blatant lie. These drugs can cause lifelong damage.

RWCNT

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Puberty blockers have an impact on the body, if a child stops taking them the body inst going to catch up on the missing years, the body is permanent affected

Do you have some links for some research on this? I've looked around and the stuff I've seen ranges from saying there's potential for bone density and fertility issues down the line but nothing concrete to saying that they're completely fine.

On this thread I've seen them being referred to as experimental all the way to matter-of-fact statements that they're provably terrible for you. Supposedly they've been used for about three decades to treat precocious puberty and there are both short and long term varieties. Seems mad to me as a layperson that if they've been around that long that we don't know all about them by now.

Mic 1972

RWCNT wrote: »

Do you have some links for some research on this? I've looked around and the stuff I've seen ranges from saying there's potential for bone density and fertility issues down the line but nothing concrete to saying that they're completely fine.

On this thread I've seen them being referred to as experimental all the way to matter-of-fact statements that they're provably terrible for you. Supposedly they've been used for about three decades to treat precocious puberty and there are both short and long term varieties. Seems mad to me as a layperson that if they've been around that long that we don't know all about them by now.

if a body is prevented from developing into its biological gender by puberty blockers,by the time you stop taking the blockers it might be too late for that body to catch up on the physical development that is naturally induced by puberty.
The blockers are meant to be taken by those who are going to change their sex, blockers can't be used to buy time while making a better decision because the development of a teenager's body can't be put on hold, it will develop anyway.

That is the damage with blockers. Other than that I don't know what sort of permanent damage they may create

Girly Gal

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, even the activists aren't parroting the "its just harmelessly pressing pause" line anymore because its a blatant lie. These drugs can cause lifelong damage.

The idea that puberty blockers don't have an impact is ridiculous, it stands to reason that there has to be some side effects from using puberty blockers compared to allowing puberty to develop naturally. Apart from physical changes there would also be psychological and social changes that the individual would miss out on. Puberty is very much an individual journey everyone has to go through and everyone has a different experience and happens at slightly different pace for everyone, by delaying this process the individual misses out on certain milestones that all their peers will have reached and could even be ostracized or bullied because of this. All this could make them feel even more left out and ill at ease with their body and pushing them towards transitioning as the answer when if let go through puberty naturally they make have grown out of it or accepted their body.

There is no doubt that there are some genuine cases where transitioning is the correct treatment regardless if puberty blockers are used or not, but, puberty blockers appears to be almost determining the outcome in favour of transitioning in most cases compared with when not used.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

For anyone who doesn't know, Dr John Money was an early practitioner of gender woo woo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

David Reimer’s story is so sad.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, even the activists aren't parroting the "its just harmelessly pressing pause" line anymore because its a blatant lie. These drugs can cause lifelong damage.

Some still are saying it, believe it or not!

RWCNT

Mic 1972 wrote: »

if a body is prevented from developing into its biological gender by puberty blockers,by the time you stop taking the blockers it might be too late for that body to catch up on the physical development that is naturally induced by puberty.
The blockers are meant to be taken by those who are going to change their sex, blockers can't be used to buy time while making a better decision because the development of a teenager's body can't be put on hold, it will develop anyway.

That is the damage with blockers. Other than that I don't know what sort of permanent damage they may create

Grand, that contradicts what I've found when I've searched for info on the topic. Would you mind giving me a link to somewhere that backs this up with sources, studies etc? I appreciate that data may be a bit thin on the ground but you've presumably learned this from somewhere, so can I see a bit of evidence please? Like I say, I've looked myself and not got anywhere. Help me out.

y0ssar1an22

have we yet defined all the genders? hard to have a debate without establishing the ground rules.

what are all the genders? I would defend 12 of them, but more keep cropping up.

i suppose, lets start with the definition of a gender if anyone can enlighten me?

ceadaoin.

There are some links to studies in this article about using one particular drug for precocious puberty and to increase height in adolescents. They found adverse effects on bone density and other problems and there are thousands people effected by this. This is the same medication being used off label in gender questioning children, why would the same long term damage not be seen?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems

RWCNT

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There are some links to studies in this article about using one particular drug for precocious puberty and to increase height in adolescents. They found adverse effects on bone density and other problems and there are thousands people effected by this. This is the same medication being used off label in gender questioning children, why would the same long term damage not be seen?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems

Cheers, I'll give it a read.