Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
And explaining exactly when they ought to be treated as the opposite sex, even when we know they aren't, is a complicated subject and there is much less agreement among us trans-exclusive folks on that question, but that doesn't seem like a topic you are interested in pursuing.
Click to expand...

I'd also add that most of us Gender Criticals were previously quite willing to make accommodations on a case-by-case basis as the need presented itself. But we keep being told that we cannot make case-by-case decisions, that we *MUST* grant accommodation and access to *ANY* male who claims a gendery feel, and if we do not do so, we are transphobic bigots.

And when we're forced to choose between all or none, well, my answer is none.
 
Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?

If not then sorry to interrupt but the two people who were pushing this theory were insistent I come over.here if I wanted to know more about it.

Yes, maybe they were just yanking my chain (so to speak) but they seemed very sincere.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?

If not then sorry to interrupt but the two people who were pushing this theory were insistent I come over.here if I wanted to know more about it.

Yes, maybe they were just yanking my chain (so to speak) but they seemed very sincere.
Click to expand...

For avoidance of doubt, please quote the specific question you want answered. Not a rephrase or reframe, but the actual question itself as it was posed in the other thread.
 
Robin said:
Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?
Click to expand...

That's a new one.

For my answer, I would respond much as I did to Dani. Give me a definition, and maybe I can answer, but definitions are kind of sparse in this neighborhood. They are sought far more than they are provided.

Maybe more context would make it make more sense, but I'm puzzled given just the stuff you have there.
 
Robin said:
Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?
Click to expand...

There are relatively few situations when one is forced to choose between gender roles, i.e. the set of "behaviors...generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable" for males or the set considered acceptable for females. Upthread we've discussed various sports leagues, changing rooms, sleeper cars, swimming or spa facilities, clothing stores, etc. but the situation which comes up most often in everyday life would have to be public toilets.
 
Last edited:
I have moved some bickering to AAH, and given cards to a couple of posters

Try to behave with some civility
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob


continued from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=356361

I tried to sort out what posts were not insults in the last few pages and gave up
Posted By: jimbob
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Upthread we've discussed various sports leagues, changing rooms, sleeper cars, swimming or spa facilities, clothing stores, etc. but the situation which comes up most often in everyday life would have to be public toilets.
Click to expand...
A quick addendum to this post. The everyday act of having to choose between behaviour considered socially acceptable for males (entering the men's restroom) and behaviour considered socially acceptable for females (entering the women's restroom) is generally considered oppressive by transgender individuals who identify as non-binary. This is why progressive conferences like Skepticon will go to some pains to provide gender neutral restrooms among other accessibility features. I imagine that agender folks (like Robin) would enjoy not having to undergo the ordeal of implicitly self-identifying whenever they need to take a leak.
 
Last edited:


Interested in a skeptical take on the claims about puberty blockers just after 9:40 or so.
 
We've discussed this several times in the thread. The claims are completely false.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
For avoidance of doubt, please quote the specific question you want answered. Not a rephrase or reframe, but the actual question itself as it was posed in the other thread.
Click to expand...

Hello Robin! Just wanted to let you know I'm still happy to answer your question, and do the best I can to further explain my views if you want a followup discussion, any time you're ready!
 
I see that thing that never happens has happened again. And again, and again.

Trans-Identified Male Paedophile Avoids Jail After Being Caught With 125,000 Child Sex Abuse Images

A trans-identified male paedophile has avoided jail after after a judge deemed that prison would make it too difficult for him to “cope” with his transition and anxiety.

Peter Selby, 68, was found with over 125,000 pieces of child sexual abuse media after a police raid in 2019, some of which depicted children as young as three years old. Selby is male but identifies as a transgender ‘woman.’ [....]

In recent months, there have been multiple instances of trans-identified male paedophiles being turned out into the community on suspended sentences in the United Kingdom.

In April, a 60-year-old paedophile who claimed to identify as a 5-year-old girl avoided jail despite having breached a long-standing sexual harm prevention order by approaching and kissing two children.

Weeks prior to that, another trans-identified male was spared jail on a suspended sentence after being caught with over 250 pieces of child sexual abuse media, some of which included toddlers being sexually tortured.
Click to expand...


I do not know whether this should be interpreted as indicating a particularly pernicious propensity for abhorrent behaviour on the part of transwomen, or the opportunistic behaviour of sex offenders who have realised that claiming a trans identity may spare them prison entirely, and even if it doesn't, is likely to see them serving their sentences locked up with a bunch of women who can't get away from them. It doesn't really matter, because with self-ID there is no way to tell the difference, and in practical terms the effect is the same.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I see that thing that never happens has happened again. And again, and again.

Trans-Identified Male Paedophile Avoids Jail After Being Caught With 125,000 Child Sex Abuse Images




I do not know whether this should be interpreted as indicating a particularly pernicious propensity for abhorrent behaviour on the part of transwomen, or the opportunistic behaviour of sex offenders who have realised that claiming a trans identity may spare them prison entirely, and even if it doesn't, is likely to see them serving their sentences locked up with a bunch of women who can't get away from them. It doesn't really matter, because with self-ID there is no way to tell the difference, and in practical terms the effect is the same.
Click to expand...

I guess evidence that this sentence was unusually lenient is supposed to be assumed?

The judge in the case cited a number of factors, including the offender seeking counseling after arrest, good behavior pending trial, an assessment by court officials that Selby was "manageable" in the community.

Is there any evidence that a cis person in a similar circumstance would not have received a similar outcome?
 
Rolfe said:
We've discussed this several times in the thread. The claims are completely false.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for a little more detailed discussion rather than conclusory assertion.

On the one hand, we have articles like this one, which claims "Puberty blockers, GnRh agonists like the injectable Lupron or the implant Supprelin, suppress puberty by modifying hormone release. Such drugs have been used off-label safely for more than 30 years to stop early puberty."

On the other hand, we have articles like this one.
 
Honestly, it's in this actual thread and I spent a lot of time typing it all out. It was a pretty in-depth discussion.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I guess evidence that this sentence was unusually lenient is supposed to be assumed?

The judge in the case cited a number of factors, including the offender seeking counseling after arrest, good behavior pending trial, an assessment by court officials that Selby was "manageable" in the community.

Is there any evidence that a cis person in a similar circumstance would not have received a similar outcome?
Click to expand...


Tell you what. You find a comparable example where a man who didn't play the "lady feelz" card wasn't imprisoned for a similar offence. Good luck.
 
Rolfe said:
Tell you what. You find a comparable example where a man who didn't play the "lady feelz" card wasn't imprisoned for a similar offence. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Right, so you're just asserting this without a lick of evidence. As I thought.
 
Rolfe said:
I do not know whether this should be interpreted as indicating a particularly pernicious propensity for abhorrent behaviour on the part of transwomen, or the opportunistic behaviour of sex offenders who have realised that claiming a trans identity may spare them prison entirely, and even if it doesn't, is likely to see them serving their sentences locked up with a bunch of women who can't get away from them.
Click to expand...
Neither of those would be a competent inference.

It doesn't really matter, because with self-ID there is no way to tell the difference, and in practical terms the effect is the same.
Click to expand...
Every self-id proposal I've seen requires a statutory declaration, so there's a very obvious way to tell the difference.
 
mumblethrax said:
Every self-id proposal I've seen requires a statutory declaration, so there's a very obvious way to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

The UK has invented quite a pointlessly complex problem because it technically allows people to officially transition and avoid any ambiguity, but in practice makes this a long and difficult process to complete.

The UK law requires trans people to have been living their gender identity for at least 2 years before any legal recognition is granted. This obviously creates an opportunity for ambiguity where an "out" trans person is still not granted any official status for years at a time.
 
Rolfe said:
Tell you what. You find a comparable example where a man who didn't play the "lady feelz" card wasn't imprisoned for a similar offence. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Took me two seconds.

https://www.scdailypress.com/2016/10/14/man-receives-deferred-sentence-in-child-porn-case/

Here's a local case, if that matters to you. I had to use slightly different search terms, so this took me about five seconds.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midland...ntence-possessing-over-1800-prohibited-images
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Honestly, it's in this actual thread and I spent a lot of time typing it all out. It was a pretty in-depth discussion.
Click to expand...
Quite sorry that I missed it, I was out of the loop throughout Lent.

Can anyone remember where the best systematic review of the evidence on puberty blockers was posted?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The UK has invented quite a pointlessly complex problem because it technically allows people to officially transition and avoid any ambiguity, but in practice makes this a long and difficult process to complete.

The UK law requires trans people to have been living their gender identity for at least 2 years before any legal recognition is granted. This obviously creates an opportunity for ambiguity where an "out" trans person is still not granted any official status for years at a time.
Click to expand...
Sure, but when Rolfe moans about trans self-id, she's talking about the proposed reforms in Scotland.

The reality is that an insincerely motivated declaration in order to avoid prison would be pretty easy for the courts to suss out. Just look at when it happened.
 
d4m10n said:
I was hoping for a little more detailed discussion rather than conclusory assertion.

On the one hand, we have articles like this one, which claims "Puberty blockers, GnRh agonists like the injectable Lupron or the implant Supprelin, suppress puberty by modifying hormone release. Such drugs have been used off-label safely for more than 30 years to stop early puberty."

On the other hand, we have articles like this one.
Click to expand...

Puberty blockers are used very differently for precocious puberty compared to their use with gender dysphoria.
Children prescribed blockers for precocious puberty are prescribed them when the onset of puberty falls below the normal range, and are on them for a relatively short time, then resume puberty within the normal time frame.
Puberty blockers for GD are prescribed to prevent puberty within the normal time frame and can be prescribed as early as Tanner Stage 2 of puberty, which can be 10-12 years. Even in not prescribed until age 12, most children stay on them until the begin CSH treatment at 16, which is much longer than when use for PP.
If the child then goes off blockers, they will be undergoing puberty outside the normal time frame and not in synchrony with their peers. The long-term social, cognitive, neurological and physical effects of this are not known.
Almost all children prescribed blockers go on to CSH, yet before the advent of the affirmation-only approach the majority of cases of GD resolved at puberty. Puberty blockers may prevent the natural resolution of GD at puberty.
If children go straight to CSH treatment they will never go through natural puberty. There is no evidence that treatment with CSHs produces the same effects as natural puberty, - particularly the effects on brain development, which occurs in complex stages during natural puberty.
The claim that blockers are reversible is false, even if children do resume normal puberty. The effects of not going through puberty during the normal time scale are not reversible, and the long-term effects of delaying are not known, since it is argued that puberty is a critical period for brain development.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Quite sorry that I missed it, I was out of the loop throughout Lent.

Can anyone remember where the best systematic review of the evidence on puberty blockers was posted?
Click to expand...

You might want to look at the Cass review, even though it is only an interim report. You can download here.
 
mumblethrax said:
Sure, but when Rolfe moans about trans self-id, she's talking about the proposed reforms in Scotland.

The reality is that an insincerely motivated declaration in order to avoid prison would be pretty easy for the courts to suss out. Just look at when it happened.
Click to expand...

Canada springs to mind as the obvious test-case for such claims. Surely Scottish criminals are no more perfidious than their Canadian counterparts.

Self-ID by declaration has been the law since 2017 and changing gender is a matter of filling out a few forms.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Self-ID by declaration has been the law since 2017 and changing gender is a matter of filling out a few forms.
Click to expand...
Seems to be province-by-province in Canada, similar to the US. But that's probably even better for answering questions like "Is there a surge of opportunistic trans self-identification among those accused of possessing child pornography when self-id is introduced?" if anyone is genuinely interested in that question.
 
How did they miss the opportunity to title this thread installment Trans women are not Women (YX)?
 
Elaedith said:
You might want to look at the Cass review, even though it is only an interim report. You can download here.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Will do. :D

Elaedith said:
Puberty blockers are used very differently for precocious puberty compared to their use with gender dysphoria.
Click to expand...
Right, but if they prove dangerous in the former case then surely they are at least as dangerous in the latter.

Elaedith said:
Even if not prescribed until age 12, most children stay on them until the begin CSH treatment at 16, which is much longer than when use for PP.
Click to expand...
Right, and we seem to lack studies comparing CSH to natural puberty in terms of brain and body development.

Elaedith said:
Almost all children prescribed blockers go on to CSH, yet before the advent of the affirmation-only approach the majority of cases of GD resolved at puberty.
Click to expand...
If this claim is true, then sending young people down the path of blockers followed by cross-sex hormones may be denying them resolution to their dysphoria in addition to denying them ordinary sexual function. I would think those who advocate for trans youth would be very concerned about this possibility.

Elaedith said:
The claim that blockers are reversible is false, even if children do resume normal puberty. The effects of not going through puberty during the normal time scale are not reversible, and the long-term effects of delaying are not known, since it is argued that puberty is a critical period for brain development.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like they are only partially reversible, depending on time frame and follow-on treatment.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Right, and we seem to lack studies comparing CSH to natural puberty in terms of brain and body development.
Click to expand...
The Cass review mentions a study on page 39, section 3.33 'An international interdisciplinary panel42 has highlighted the importance of understanding the neurodevelopmental outcomes of pubertal suppression and defined an appropriate approach for investigating this further. However, this work has not yet been undertaken.'

This study is 'Chen D, Strang JF, Kolbuck VD, Rosenthal SM, Wallen K, Waber DP, et al (2020). Consensus parameter: research methodologies to evaluate neurodevelopmental effects of pubertal suppression in transgender youth.
Transgender Health 5(4). '

The article is about establishing the best approach to study the long-term effects of puberty blockade on brain development, given that we don't know anything about these effects in humans.

This article is the same one linked to on Science Based Medicine's guest article (by a pro-affirmation doctor) to support a claim that 'Studies on brain development have found no significant differences in youth on blockers'. This was pointed out several times in comments and never corrected. They literally don't care that they are linking to articles that blatantly contradict the claims.

If this claim is true, then sending young people down the path of blockers followed by cross-sex hormones may be denying them resolution to their dysphoria in addition to denying them ordinary sexual function. I would think those who advocate for trans youth would be very concerned about this possibility.
Click to expand...
There are good reasons to think that going through puberty is linked to the resolution of early-onset gender dysphoria, but activists will claim that the high percentages going on to cross-sex hormones just proves therapists are picking out the ones who would persist.
Moreover, they don't actually care anyway - if you press the point they will say it doesn't matter and you are being transphobic by implying that being trans is worse than being cis.
 
I'm pretty sure that in every way that matters, being trans is worse than being cis. That is, suffering from gender dysphoria, and having to make a substantial effort to mitigate the distress (including hormonal subversion and extensive body modification), and still having to deal with a society that responds more positively to cis coding, has got to be worse than not dealing with any of that.

Kind of like how having BIID is worse than... not having BIID. Even if you do feel better after cutting off your legs.

On the other hand, if you just want to "queer" or "hack" the social constructs of gender for fun or ideology, I don't think that's any worse than playing along with them.

On the third hand (the one that the the third sex uses for third sex stuff), if you want to "queer" or "hack" sex segregation for whatever reason, then again we're back to that being worse than not that.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Right, and we seem to lack studies comparing CSH to natural puberty in terms of brain and body development.
Click to expand...

So... here's the thing. That group of drugs are NOT dangerous for precocious puberty, but they ARE dangerous as puberty blockers, and they ARE dangerous post-puberty.

They disrupt the body's production of sex hormones. Pre-pubertal kids don't have those hormones in any material amounts. Precocious puberty occurs when one set of pubertal processes occurs much earlier than normal - and occurs out of concert with the other processes. In particular, there are two major processes that make up puberty: the pituitary process and the adrenal process. The pituitary process prompts the body to produce sex hormones, and the development of mature sexual organs and some secondary sex characteristics. The adrenal process prompts the lengthening of the long bones and the development of leg and pubic hair. The two are supposed to happen in concert over a period of time, they're processes that depend on each other to operate correctly. In precocious puberty, the pituitary process starts early, before the adrenal process begins. And it leads to health risks when the two don't happen in tandem.

So for a person with precocious puberty, the blockers prevent their body producing sex hormones until the adrenal process begins.

On the other hand... if the adrenal process begins but the pituitary process does NOT trigger... there are a lot of health problems too. Bones density accretion is blocked, leading to fragile bones and osteopenia/osteoporosis. Cognitive maturation is derailed, as sexual maturity and interactions around romantic partnering are developed during puberty. The risk of several other illnesses (can't remember them all) is increased as well.

This is what puberty blockers do when they are applied to a child who should be going through pubertal development. It also happens with some other medical conditions, and those kids need to take hormone supplements to counter those risks.

Blocking hormones in adults is also a problem, as we're evolved to use those hormones as adults. There are a lot of late-age problems in women that are directly caused by the reduction in estrogen that we experience in menopause. Men experiencing a reduction in testosterone also have health problems.
 
Emily's Cat said:
So... here's the thing. That group of drugs are NOT dangerous for precocious puberty, but they ARE dangerous as puberty blockers, and they ARE dangerous post-puberty.
Click to expand...

What always struck me as weird about the claim that puberty blockers are reversible is that for precocious puberty, you don’t want the effects to be reversible. You want to absolutely prevent precocious puberty from happening, because it produces bad effects. And when you take a child off puberty blockers later, precocious puberty doesn’t resume. You have permanently prevented it. If the effects were reversible, it wouldn’t be much use for that treatment.
 
Ziggurat said:
What always struck me as weird about the claim that puberty blockers are reversible is that for precocious puberty, you don’t want the effects to be reversible.
Click to expand...
The effect is, like it says on the tin, blocking puberty. I'd think you would eventually want to reverse that.

And when you take a child off puberty blockers later, precocious puberty doesn’t resume.
Click to expand...
It's like you think the proverbial "early bird" is a distinct species.

Precocious puberty doesn't resume because precocious puberty is not a process. Puberty is.

You have permanently prevented it. If the effects were reversible, it wouldn’t be much use for that treatment.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that we aren't capable of literally turning back time? A thoroughly reasonable interpretation of what "reversible" means in this context.
 
mumblethrax said:
The effect is, like it says on the tin, blocking puberty. I'd think you would eventually want to reverse that.
Click to expand...

Puberty which happens too early doesn’t produce normal results.

Puberty which happens too late doesn’t produce normal results.

Neither of these is reversible. The effects of using puberty blockers is not reversible. The claim that they are is a lie, and a transparent one at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom