World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

They key part of this is that they don't have to inform the parents if their child is using a different name or pronouns at school. I don't understand this. encouraging a child to keep secrets from their parents and an adult actively participating in hiding information is considered a safeguarding risk. A child who is being "protected" by the school in this way is at huge risk for an abuser or groomer to hold this information over them and use it to their advantage. Now it's the law wtf? I find this current notion that parents have no right to know things about their own children and that children can consent to certain life changing things to creepy in the extreme.

I think the disagreement here is regarding what constitutes gentleness and kindness. One would have to question whether someone who is in such a state of mental distress is wise to embark on a course of drug and or surgical treatment which will have irreversible consequences. I'm a strong believer in free will, but also the principle of informed consent. It really is an ethical minefield.

If I understood the conclusions of the Cass review there was no evidence that puberty blockers reduced the risk of suicide?

I said nothing about PB, or any other interventions for that matter. My line of thought was more that there seems to be question marks about some semi-accepted things like that - but still one thing that seems indisputable is that this is a vulnerable group. People (not talking about posters or this thread) are often oppositional not just to ideas or policies, but towards the people pushing them, especially the trans ones. I think this is not good, especially because they are vulnerable people.

You can frame it as a condition which results in more than 40% of people with it trying to kill themselves, because it definitely is that. Imagine the same sort of conversations happened about a group of people with a medical condition with such grievous stats, including children. They would be very different in tone.

I don't know those groups and I think you are arguing with me about things I didn't say. I said they require compassion. I did not take a position about what sort of medical interventions or guidance they should or should not receive. Because I don't have any sort of authority on that.

I just think the discourse in general on both sides has a somewhat belligerent personally oppositional tone. That is strange and inappropriate and it seems to me it should be discussed as a sensitive and delicate topic, given its relationship to suicide.

That stat is everywhere. Google suicide rate trans.

I make no claim to authority on what is best for trans people, so not sure why you're challenging that.

There are papers that dispute the quality of research about things like PB use and other practices that people argue about in threads like this. However, the same papers accept the rate of suicidality as extremely high. I haven't seen anything to contradict the notion that trans people are at very high risk of suicide.

A quick Google shows many articles claiming up to half of trans people are suicidal, but none with a credible source. Even taking that stat a face value, it's not at all clear if the suicidal feelings arise out of being trans, or there is some underlying mental distress, and gender dysphoria is just one way that manifests.

The affirmative care folks like to use the risk of suicide as a lever to promote their unscientific treatments - not a lot of delicacy or sensitivity there.

On the thread in general, the only conduct I find objectionable is when claims are rubbished due to their source, rather than by presenting contrary evidence. WPATH have provided the videos and documents to undermine their own credibility - there may be more to come. It is shocking how supposedly reputable organisations are digging in despite all the incontrovertible evidence.

Yeah there are lots of papers about the suicidality. First three google results for me are the following. I guess it's influenced by your previous behaviour on google. The whole first page is a variety of studies or reputable news sources discussing them

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/28/health/transgender-suicide-risk

Even papers questioning some of the accepted ideas like the effects of transition quoted the rate of suicidality as fact.

Who was in what trenches? How does showing compassion to a group relate to death threats or rape? Obviously rapists and people threatening murder should be dealt with in a judicial context, and I'm not suggesting any special treatment of them. Most trans people are more likely to be victims than perpetrators though. Most of them are or have been suicidal. I think lumping suicidal people in with rapists and people who threaten murder is unhelpful.

I mean that is the basic argument I've seen in favour of medical interventions - that it reduces suicidality. I've also seen papers questioning the research supporting that. Yes, suicide rates were much higher historically, and that is part of the argument in favour of interventions. The questions that are being asked are along the lines of -people with medical interventions have lower suicidality, but perhaps this is because more of them are sampled now and more non-transitioners were sampled decades ago when trans people did indeed commit suicide more frequently.

I would rate my knowledge on the topic in general as enough to know that I don't know much about it at all. I would say that many people approach the conversation entrenched in one point of view or the other, and that is not great when it comes to expanding their knowledge. Personally, the only thing I do feel confident in knowing is that their suicidality is a real thing.

I think I've expressed what I mean about a compassionate approach as well as I am able tbh. Part of what I am talking about is trying to move past the 'us vs them' mindset that exists on both sides of debates about this.

It's a more general point but still relevant here: the evidence for medical treatment of suicidality is weak. In particular there's lots of evidence to show that commonly prescribed drugs increase the risk of suicide, and the patient information leaflets for many common drugs have black box warnings for this reason.

40% suicidal ideation is not the same as a 40% suicide rate.

There is only one side that is pushing the suicide angle. Anyone who has done any training with crisis phone lines knows that you never present suicide as an option, or an inevitable to someone in distress, but that's exactly what trans activists do when they tell vulnerable children it's "transition or death", calling puberty blockers and cross sex hormones "life saving care", and the multiple reports of parents being told things like "Would you prefer a live son, or a dead daughter."

When you constantly tell vulnerable people that transition is the only thing that will save their life, don't be surprised when those people become suicidal.

I would expect that the 40% suicidal ideation rate is likely because after a placebo period, most who do transition likely realise that it has not solved any of their problems, especially those who medically transition which often has lifelong negative medical consequences.

Again, can you give examples of what you would consider to be appropriate "noncombative" ways to approach the discussion please?

But you do have an opinion on this, just one that seems disconnected from any practical examples. You keep saying "be kind", be "less combative" but you don't even know the names of major trans activist associations, so presumably don't know what they say on the issues.

At what point does "I don't know" become an insufficient response on an issue? IMO, it's when you're using that ignorance to avoid explaining your position, but holding firm to it all the same.

I made very one very simple point.

Well, you said "be less combative" and then refused to give any examples of what you mean.

This is a discussion forum, so people are going to ask questions to clarify what you're saying, since TBF it's not clear. Calling that "snowballing into crazy bullshit" is frankly bizarre. It seems rather … combative. If you want a monologue, set up a blog.

I thanked the quoted post, as I agree with the thrust of it. I dont agree with this bit though:

"and it's striking that the violence towards women comes, as always, from the male side, in this case from male transitioners, claiming to be female, but presenting the usual male violence towards women"

I agree that violence against women, or indeed men, is due to male perpetrators. However, males are not usually violent and male violence against women is not usual, though sadly far too common. It's easy enough to find documented evidence of extreme violence by women against other women, or men, though it is much rarer than the inverse case.

My point doesn't doesn't undermine your argument though - all the horrific threats of violence in this particular sphere seem to be from trans women aka biological males.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not a women so I don't have the lived experience, but I suspect that regarding female-only spaces, as well as wanting to feel safe from physical/sexual assault there's a desire to feel comfortable.

I watched an interview with Riley Gaines recently and she described that experience (i.e. being offerred counselling). She's highly articulate and remarkable lacking bitterness given the circumstances.

I spoke on the other thread about the risks of physical injury if men are allowed into women's sports - that might be a rare occurrence but the possibility of psychological injury must be almost universal. Imagine having to endure what you described in the quoted post, and then having insult heaped on injury by having the organisation that is supposed to protect you telling you that you are the problem.

Indeed, and it appears that many of the new wave feminists, who would be of the "all women must unite in fighting the oppressive patriarchy" camp, are all in on the "men can be women, and shure why would anyone object to a woman waving her penis around in a women's changing room" mindset. (of course men in positions of responsibility are guilty of the moral cowardice and muddled thinking as well).

Oh absolutely, and as I say I’m not immune to it myself, even though I’d consider myself to be fairly conscious of the whole subject. Certainly compared to a few years ago anyway.

A rockey road ahead if the Labour party decides to follow the politically motivated ban on puberty blockers

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6p2l7ze7m0o

Except Dr Hilary Cass is a paediatrician with years of experience, not a politician. Since when do medical associations get to disregard the lasest evidence because of an ideological stance? It's concerning that they think this is acceptable.

From what I've been reading, the majority of doctors are in favour of the ban, as they generally like to follow the scientific evidence. I'm sure there were doctors years ago who were outraged that they couldn't lobotomise people anymore but now it's widely accepted that they were wrong.

As usual the activist minority are throwing a tantrum but I don't think it will work anymore.

From that BBC article

The stance has been criticised by one of the BMA’s council members, Dr Emma Runswick.

Earlier this week, she said on X that it was a “terrible political decision which will cause incredible harm to trans people”.

From wikipedia, it seems she's from a strongly political background herself and is LGBT. I'm sure there's a variety of different opinions on the BMA council. Hopefully, they come to a sensible consensus.

You lambasted the Conservatives for politicising this issue; on that occasion it was pointed out to you that that kind of goes with the territory for a political party. The same applies here. The precautionary principle surely applies: given the known adverse effects of these drugs, and no scientific support for the claimed benefits, then they should not be administered.

Can you provide any meaningful scientific evidence to support the reversal of the ban, or are you advocating a course of action based on politics/ideology?

Thee BMA is not SIPTU and your attempt to discredit the opinions of the representative body of the British medical establishment is a bit pathetic really.