LGBTQ+ 6 -- It's a Rainbow of Flavors

[Ran]

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

None of the above has any valid relationship to bullshit social contagion theory being posted in a thread that bans discussion like that. So I say again, fuck off with that.

I don't know why the article from the Guardian is being cited as talking about social contagion -- those words, as well as rapid-onset gender dysphoria,are nowhere referenced in the article, and you are the only person who have referred to these things in the thread.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Ran

[Heartofice]

I'd say we are not at a stage to really know how many people regret transitioning. 

The numbers I've posted have been conveniently ignored, but they do point to an enormous increase in the number of young people wanting referrals to gender clinics, and that increase has been almost entirely from biological girls. Remember the numbers went from 250 to 5000 a year in just a decade. I'm sure some of that will be due to greater acceptance of trans people, but there are clearly a lot of other factors at play too.

It's too early to see whether those transitioning within the last few years will face regret and wish to detransition. I think we do need to acknowledge that these numbers have massively increased and that something has changed in recent years however to explain it. 

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, karaddin said:

First part - yes, there is a tiny number of people that detransition. Their numbers are exaggerated, and how much weight they should be given in the process compared to all the people that are harmed by inability to access medical care is overblown by people with an agenda that does not include the well being of trans people. A single cis person incorrectly receiving treatment is treated as so bad that 100 trans people should go without.

Let me be 100% clear that I am not talking about de-transitioners. I don't know as much as I might about them, so I'm not going to make any statement about them.

Second, in no case do I want people--any people--to go without the medical care they need. I do not think that we should close a door to everyone because some people probably shouldn't go through it. I have always believed that and I still believe it. I think patients should be treated as individuals, and not as battlegrounds in the culture war.

[karaddin]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't know why the article from the Guardian is being cited as talking about social contagion -- those words, as well as rapid-onset gender dysphoria,are nowhere referenced in the article, and you are the only person who have referred to these things in the thread.

I'm the only one referring to them by name. That's not the same thing.

I guess this is confirming the old rules for this thread no longer apply.

[Ran]

23 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm the only one referring to them by name. That's not the same thing.

But the article again has nothing to do with that. It's a report on an NHS study which was raised to suggest the long wait times cited by Varys were due to the great increase in referrals.

If your issue is that the NHS report is inaccurate, that there is not in fact an increase, you can of course say so.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Ran

[karaddin]

24 minutes ago, Ran said:

But the article again has nothing to do with that. It's a report on an NHS study which was raised to suggest the long wait times cited by Varys were due to the great increase in referrals.

If your issue is that the NHS report is inaccurate, that there is not in fact an increase, you can of course say so.

Clearly I'm not arguing that there hasn't been an increase, I'm taking issue with this specific poster insinuating that there's something sinister going on with that increase. You can try argue I'm barking at shadows with the first post and HoI was simply mistaking this thread for UK Politics and dismissing any shortcomings with the NHS, but this

50 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'd say we are not at a stage to really know how many people regret transitioning. 

The numbers I've posted have been conveniently ignored, but they do point to an enormous increase in the number of young people wanting referrals to gender clinics, and that increase has been almost entirely from biological girls. Remember the numbers went from 250 to 5000 a year in just a decade. I'm sure some of that will be due to greater acceptance of trans people, but there are clearly a lot of other factors at play too.

It's too early to see whether those transitioning within the last few years will face regret and wish to detransition. I think we do need to acknowledge that these numbers have massively increased and that something has changed in recent years however to explain it. 

Is going further than that, although yet again he avoids actually saying what exactly it is. Just puts forward that something must be going on there, with the deniable implication being something untoward.

This isn't the UK politics thread or any of the others where I'd simply ignore HoI now, this thread proclaims itself to be a safe space where the basics of our existence don't get debated. If that's no longer the case then it should be clear in the thread so people know what they're getting into.

But while we're at it, the article discusses the increase in patients over a 10 year period and the before state was "mostly trans girls", the after state being 2/3 trans boys. Why is the current skew a sign of potential issues, but a similar skew in the opposite direction beforehand not noteworthy at all? In both cases the numbers are being influenced by a complicated political situation and social stigma. But let's also look at how intellectually honest HoI is being with how he describes this

Quote

that increase has been almost entirely from biological girls.

So there were 250 beforehand which were mostly assigned male at birth, so somewhere between 126 and 200 seems a reasonable range. There is now 5000 with 2/3 being assigned female at birth, which leaves about 1670 patients assigned male at birth. That's an over 800% increase that you'd think didn't happen at all on the basis of HoI's statement. That's the numbers from his own article.

And I need to state that the UK Guardian does not have a history of being neutral in it's reporting on transgender issues.

Edited August 3, 2023 by karaddin
Fixed typo

[karaddin]

Also love how all the existing studies on detransitioning and regret rates have to be completely thrown out the window just because the numbers increased. Those studies will continue to be done, but in the absence of evidence that trends have changed the prior evidence should stand as the best evidence we have.

Speculating that just because numbers have increased means we should go back to tabula rasa is absurd. It's the same attitude that says period blockers aren't safe because the studies weren't done specifically on trans kids, just cis kids who are fine to receive them for precocious puberty while ignoring that these studies being asked for cannot be run ethically - to give a trans kid a placebo when an effective treatment is available is in violation of medical and pharmaceutical ethics. 

[Heartofice]

So I would respond to this but I will agree with the point that the board rules for this thread are unclear and if I do respond I’m going to get slammed for doing just that.
 

I would suggest further clarity, either proper debate is allowed here or it’s not. 
 

If this thread is just a safe space then to maintain that, keep this thread to personal chat and keep the politics out of it, and that applies to everyone. Otherwise what is happening is you will see a very one sided conversation with no right to respond. 
 

Happy to take this conversation elsewhere if you want to continue it 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Heartofice

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, karaddin said:

that increase has been almost entirely from biological girls.

Oh also, should note when a person uses “biological” in this way they usually mean real.

Not always(I’ve seen good faith actors who aren’t especially transphobic use it) but usually it’s a vapid way to sound scientific way when denigrating the identity of trans people.

Though it also sounds a bit redundant if a person says they believe women and girls are already strictly biological categories.

18 minutes ago, karaddin said:

But while we're at it, the article discusses the increase in patients over a 10 year period and the before state was "mostly trans girls", the after state being 2/3 trans boys.

Oh yeah transphobia really is repackaged misogyny with the old “we got protect the gentler sex from being manipulated into doing things not of their interest because they’re hysterical.”

Trans girls and trans women despite being women still enjoy the presumption of individuality, even w

Trans men and trans boys like cis women and girls get presumed of simply being beguiled, of being confused, not being mature enough to consent to certain medical care that their cis peers coukd enjoy with no hassle.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[karaddin]

I'm pretty sure a one sided discussion is ok in this context even if we're talking about politics.

I love that there are states in the US firing up the engine for queer genocide and this shit is what we get bogged down litigating over and over again. Gotta make sure we're being adequately fair to the views of transphobia when complaining that a 7 year wait to receive treatment is a major problem for a lot of trans folk regardless of what the cause of that delay is.

[Heartofice]

I mean I disagree, and I disagree with many of your statements which I think are just inaccurate. The suggestion here is that we just don’t have skin in the game but I have children, this stuff is also important to me. 
 

As I said , best thing would be to either leave this thread for just personal stuff, and if someone like Varys wishes to constantly stoke the flames by pushing his stuff then putting it somewhere else might be better. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm pretty sure a one sided discussion is ok in this context even if we're talking about politics.

I love that there are states in the US firing up the engine for queer genocide and this shit is what we get bogged down litigating over and over again. Gotta make sure we're being adequately fair to the views of transphobia when complaining that a 7 year wait to receive treatment is a major problem for a lot of trans folk regardless of what the cause of that delay is.

It’d be nice if the NHS got a lot more funding to not only give proper care to trans people but others who need medical treatment.

I just read about how ten percent of the country just a did dentistry on themselves. I don’t hear anyone suggesting more people stop trying to fix their teeth in general as to alleviate the waiting list.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[karaddin]

That's not the standing rules of the thread however. I'm asking for clarification on if they remain, you're asking for them be changed to narrow the scope of the thread to something that's actually impossible. The personal is political, especially with this.

And claiming you have skin in the game just because you have children is pretty despicable shit.

[Heartofice]

Just now, karaddin said:

That's not the standing rules of the thread however. I'm asking for clarification on if they remain, you're asking for them be changed to narrow the scope of the thread to something that's actually impossible. The personal is political, especially with this.

And claiming you have skin in the game just because you have children is pretty despicable shit.

Ok let me clarify my statement in case it’s misconstrued. I meant that I have a daughter and if she had confusion when she hits her teens I want the treatment she gets to be the right one and I don’t want there to be poor outcomes based on treatments based on ideology with no scientific backing. That’s my main concern.

And yes I’d suggest the rules of this thread be changed to prevent these discussions happening here. Otherwise the rule you are asking for is you are allowed to post inaccuracies, lies and conspiracy theories but nobody is allowed to challenge any of it. If that is what you actually want them just come out and say it. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

That's not the standing rules of the thread however. I'm asking for clarification on if they remain, you're asking for them be changed to narrow the scope of the thread to something that's actually impossible. The personal is political, especially with this.

And claiming you have skin in the game just because you have children is pretty despicable shit.

It does seem to harken back to the old notion queer people or a society becoming accepting of queer people will naturally lead to large-scale. brainwash children who without pressure come out cis-het.

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

As I said , best thing would be to either leave this thread for just personal stuff

Please stop trying to shut conversation guy. 

[karaddin]

On 1/26/2018 at 12:15 PM, Xray the Enforcer said:

Reminder: This thread is for the discussion of issues relating to the lives of LBGTQ+ (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning) people. This thread aims to be a supportive space for issues on sexuality and gender identities. Please do not post comments that negate, belittle, or insult people's chosen identity.

This thread operates with a number of givens, including (but not limited to): that equal marriage rights are human rights, and thus are not subject to debate in this thread; that bisexuality is a legitimate orientation and is not up for debate in this thread; among others. This is not an exhaustive list, and it is up to the mods' discretion what is or isn't a legitimate avenue of debate. 

These rules do not restrict conversation of political issues that impact our lives, I consider trying to narrow the thread to ban that aspect would defeat half the point of the thread. I'm not obfuscating my position, and I've already said it pretty clearly.

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok let me clarify my statement in case it’s misconstrued. I meant that I have a daughter and if she had confusion when she hits her teens I want the treatment she gets to be the right one and I don’t want there to be poor outcomes based on treatments based on ideology with no scientific backing. That’s my main concern.

And yes I’d suggest the rules of this thread be changed to prevent these discussions happening here. Otherwise the rule you are asking for is you are allowed to post inaccuracies, lies and conspiracy theories but nobody is allowed to challenge any of it. If that is what you actually want them just come out and say it. 

I haven't posted conspiracy theories, I've called out the spreading of them. The risk of ideology overriding appropriate treatment for your daughter comes from those that ignore the existing stance of medical bodies towards transition. 

[TormundsWoman]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

I'm the only one referring to them by name. That's not the same thing.

I typed a detailed comment to this and then I fucked up and lost it.

short version:

You’re correct. You are the only person in this entire thread who’s putting a very specific label on what the Guardian article is implying while beating expertly around the bush.

Also, not that it matters but I also think you’ve also nailed the moving goalposts style of politics when it comes to controversial issues especially gender identity. 

I wish there was something I can add but it would be useless.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

These rules do not restrict conversation of political issues that impact our lives, I consider trying to narrow the thread to ban that aspect would defeat half the point of the thread. I'm not obfuscating my position, and I've already said it pretty clearly.

Ok so in that case, just to be clear, you have zero problem with anyone disagreeing with your statement or taking opposition positions to you in this thread and you will no longer make objections as soon as anyone says something that you don’t agree with. 

[Spockydog]

How very convenient for conservatives to cite concerns for the future welfare of their children when discussing trans issues, while the very real threat to their children's wellbeing is dismissed as a Chinese conspiracy, overactive sunspots, or just snowflake libs getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Otherwise the rule you are asking for is y

@karaddin hasn’t asked for any rule change that need allow conspiracy theory, lies, and inaccuracies with no push back.

She’s not even asking for a change to the status quo like you through calling for censorship.

Just noted this thread was posted explicitly barring anything you deemed “political” from being discussed.

I oppose your call for censorship.