Transgenderism

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I think there is a history to it as well though. 

It is within living memory that people were beaten up for being gay in our society. These marches started out as a defiance and a way to build solidarity amongst a marginalised community.

The internet has made it much better these days if you are a minority and want to connect with like minded people but I can imagine an actual meet up and parade is probably pretty cathartic and life affirming in a way that an online chat group is not. 

People get beat up for the most stupid things. As for the parades and marches I’m not opposed to them at all . I’ve actually heard  gay pride is a very good day/night out. 

Edited July 5 by Rugeley Villa

[Nor-Cal Villan]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Absolutely - but the people who seem to be "wasting energy" on it tend to be the "BAN SCHOOLS FROM TEACHING CHILDREN ABOUT THIS SICK FILTH!!" types.

Y'know, rather than just letting people be. 

AKA

 

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

You've read that and appear to be accusing me of saying trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist, and implying that I'm not posting in good faith. This is my exact point - you can't have a sensible conversation about even a minor aspect of transgenderism without someone accusing you of being a transphobe.

That wasn't my intent, the point about good faith response was perhaps a clumsy way of implying the opposite, as I've seen all too often with discussions around trans people that presenting any supportive evidence is seen as outright dismissal of people's opinion which I didn't want it to be taken as, plus the fact it's an incredibly hard topic to distinguish people who are genuinely concerned but not fully informed, and people who don't want to actually engage at all, the latter being the reason I rarely view this topic as I feel it is all too common throughout it. The point about trans existence was why I actually considered not quoting you as it was more a comment on the general thread and comments I saw in the election thread, again perhaps a clumsy way of expanding on my thoughts.

Quote

The Cass review and the other studies preceeding are very much "actual science" that suggest we shouldn't be giving those drugs to children.

There were many concerns over the Cass review prior to it's publication and much criticism of it has come out since it's publication by a wide range of institutions. I would highly recommend reading even just the summary and conclusion of the Integrity Project's rebuttal of it as it highlights serious flaws not only in the review itself but the actions and representations of the review taken off the back of it which are not in line with the evidence or recommendations of the report. Particularly how it highlights that often concern over puberty blocking drugs derives from a misunderstanding of their purpose, primarily that it isn't to stop Gender Dysphoria or increase body satisfaction in Trans teens, but to prevent further stress from these factors and should be used in conjuntire with gender affirming care (notably from the response referring to the Cass Review "Foremost, it is not an endorsement of a ban on medical care for transgender youth.").

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

Quote

Executive Summary:
Section 1: The Cass Review makes statements that are consistent with the models of
gender-affirming medical care described by WPATH and the Endocrine Society. The
Cass Review does not recommend a ban on gender-affirming medical care.
Section 2: The Cass Review does not follow established standards for evaluating
evidence and evidence quality.
Section 3: The Cass Review fails to contextualize the evidence for gender-affirming care
with the evidence base for other areas of pediatric medicine.
Section 4: The Cass Review misinterprets and misrepresents its own data.
Section 5: The Cass Review levies unsupported assertions about gender identity, gender
dysphoria, standard practices, and the safety of gender-affirming medical treatments, and
repeats claims that have been disproved by sound evidence.
Section 6: The systematic reviews relied upon by the Cass Review have serious
methodological flaws, including the omission of key findings in the extant body of
literature.
Section 7: The Review’s relationship with and use of the York systematic reviews
violates standard processes that lead to clinical recommendations in evidence-based
medicine.

Quote

Conclusion
The Cass Review was commissioned to address the failure of the UK National Health Service to
provide timely, competent, and high-quality care to transgender youth. These failures include
long wait times—often years—and resulting delays in timely treatment by skilled providers.
Instead of effectively addressing this issue, however, the Review’s process and recommendations
stake out an ideological position on care for transgender youth that is deeply at odds with the
Review’s own findings about the importance of individualized and age-appropriate approach to
medical treatments for gender dysphoria in youth, consistent with the international Standards of
Care issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Clinical
Practice Guidelines issued by the Endocrine Society. Far from evaluating the evidence in a
neutral and scientifically valid manner, the Review obscures key findings, misrepresents its own
data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method. The Review deeply considers the
possibility of gender-affirming interventions being given to someone who is not transgender, but
without reciprocal consideration for transgender youth who undergo permanent, distressing
physical changes when they do not receive timely care. The vast majority of transgender youth in
the UK and beyond do not receive an opportunity to even consider clinical care with qualified
clinicians—and the Review’s data demonstrate this clearly

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

That wasn't my intent, the point about good faith response was perhaps a clumsy way of implying the opposite, as I've seen all too often with discussions around trans people that presenting any supportive evidence is seen as outright dismissal of people's opinion which I didn't want it to be taken as, plus the fact it's an incredibly hard topic to distinguish people who are genuinely concerned but not fully informed, and people who don't want to actually engage at all, the latter being the reason I rarely view this topic as I feel it is all too common throughout it. The point about trans existence was why I actually considered not quoting you as it was more a comment on the general thread and comments I saw in the election thread, again perhaps a clumsy way of expanding on my thoughts.

There were many concerns over the Cass review prior to it's publication and much criticism of it has come out since it's publication by a wide range of institutions. I would highly recommend reading even just the summary and conclusion of the Integrity Project's rebuttal of it as it highlights serious flaws not only in the review itself but the actions and representations of the review taken off the back of it which are not in line with the evidence or recommendations of the report. Particularly how it highlights that often concern over puberty blocking drugs derives from a misunderstanding of their purpose, primarily that it isn't to stop Gender Dysphoria or increase body satisfaction in Trans teens, but to prevent further stress from these factors and should be used in conjuntire with gender affirming care (notably from the response referring to the Cass Review "Foremost, it is not an endorsement of a ban on medical care for transgender youth.").

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

Fair enough. No offence taken then - I misunderstood what you were saying. And yes, I know it's a difficult topic to tell whether people are arguing in good faith or not.

I recently skimmed through the Yale response but I'll give it a proper read when I've got a bit more time this weekend.

Edited July 5 by Panto_Villan

[Rugeley Villa]

Does anyone find this offensive. I’ve known this bloke for years , lovely bloke , used to run a pub which was my local at the time. He’s good mates with my mum etc etc etc . Let’s say his name is Paul for arguments sake. Anyway sometimes when I bump him to him which isn’t that often anymore I’ll say how are you Paul are you still gay?  He always chuckles to himself and takes it in good humour. Do I do that with all gay people, no I don’t but Paul doesn’t take himself too seriously and we get on.  

[tomav84]

19 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Does anyone find this offensive. I’ve known this bloke for years , lovely bloke , used to run a pub which was my local at the time. He’s good mates with my mum etc etc etc . Let’s say his name is Paul for arguments sake. Anyway sometimes when I bump him to him which isn’t that often anymore I’ll say how are you Paul are you still gay?  He always chuckles to himself and takes it in good humour. Do I do that with all gay people, no I don’t but Paul doesn’t take himself too seriously and we get on.  

IMO the only person you should be asking is paul himself. if he's genuinely taking it in good humour rather than laughing it off but actually feeling uncomfortable, then all good

[Rugeley Villa]

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

IMO the only person you should be asking is paul himself. if he's genuinely taking it in good humour rather than laughing it off but actually feeling uncomfortable, then all good

I’m assured he does take it in good humour. Just wondered what this crazy satanic left wing forum thought. 

[DaoDeMings]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I’m assured he does take it in good humour. Just wondered what this crazy satanic left wing forum thought. 

I think you want the crazy satanic left wing people in the forum to be upset by it but in reality no one is 

[Rugeley Villa]

3 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said:

I think you want the crazy satanic left wing people in the forum to be upset by it but in reality no one is 

Not at all . I don’t post on VT to cause controversy. Just wondered after the last few days if people would find that offensive. Suppose self examination after some of the criticism that’s come my way.  Pisses me off that people think I’d have a pop at trans or gay people just for attention. I’m a dick but not that much of a dick. I have nothing against trans or gay people. 

[DaoDeMings]

4 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Not at all . I don’t post on VT to cause controversy. Just wondered after the last few days if people would find that offensive. Suppose self examination after some of the criticism that’s come my way.  Pisses me off that people think I’d have a pop at trans or gay people just for attention. I’m a dick but not that much of a dick. I have nothing against trans or gay people. 

Apologies for taking it as provocative. I suppose it’s a good opportunity for learning - I think the vast majority of people regardless of political persuasion wouldn’t find a joke between two friends upsetting. Very much dependent on context though, obviously there are situations where such jokes could cause offense. It’s easy in real life to perceive someone’s tone whereas online it gets difficult - I think this is where much of the division nowadays stems from.

[kidlewis]

2 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Does anyone find this offensive. I’ve known this bloke for years , lovely bloke , used to run a pub which was my local at the time. He’s good mates with my mum etc etc etc . Let’s say his name is Paul for arguments sake. Anyway sometimes when I bump him to him which isn’t that often anymore I’ll say how are you Paul are you still gay?  He always chuckles to himself and takes it in good humour. Do I do that with all gay people, no I don’t but Paul doesn’t take himself too seriously and we get on.  

The only person in that situation who could be offended is Paul. 
 

anyone else overhearing, is making up their own context to the situation, which is why being offended on behalf of someone else doesn’t work. 

[foreveryoung]

16 minutes ago, kidlewis said:

The only person in that situation who could be offended is Paul. 
 

anyone else overhearing, is making up their own context to the situation, which is why being offended on behalf of someone else doesn’t work. 

People are always getting offended, by other people not being offended.

It's like when David Moyes said something out of turn to a female reporter. The reporter thought nothing of it, the the feminists went wild.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

People are always getting offended, by other people not being offended.

It's like when David Moyes said something out of turn to a female reporter. The reporter thought nothing of it, the the feminists went wild.

Just because the person it’s directed to doesn’t find it offensive, doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive. 
 

(This is a general point, not related to the Gay Paul thing. I’m not sure why that was posted in the trans thread anyway)

[Demitri_C]

5 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Does anyone find this offensive. I’ve known this bloke for years , lovely bloke , used to run a pub which was my local at the time. He’s good mates with my mum etc etc etc . Let’s say his name is Paul for arguments sake. Anyway sometimes when I bump him to him which isn’t that often anymore I’ll say how are you Paul are you still gay?  He always chuckles to himself and takes it in good humour. Do I do that with all gay people, no I don’t but Paul doesn’t take himself too seriously and we get on.  

Nope i dont even though I am not gay my 1st cousin and god father are both gay. They like a good joke. But there may be some gay people who would.

I guess depends how sensitive or how much you can take the joke i suppose

[foreveryoung]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Just because the person it’s directed to doesn’t find it offensive, doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive. 
 

(This is a general point, not related to the Gay Paul thing. I’m not sure why that was posted in the trans thread anyway)

But people were offended on her behalf. Which is wrong.

Anyway wrong thread yeah.

[fruitvilla]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Just because the person it’s directed to doesn’t find it offensive, doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive. 

Do we choose to be offended or are we programmed to be offended? 

I presume you have seen Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on TV?

[Stevo985]

17 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

But people were offended on her behalf. Which is wrong.

Anyway wrong thread yeah.

Like I said, I was making a general point. It wasn’t a comment on that incident. 
 

But I disagree that being offended on somebody’s behalf is necessarily wrong. Just because that person isn’t offended doesn’t mean what has been done/said isn’t offensive

Edited July 7 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Do we choose to be offended or are we programmed to be offended? 

I presume you have seen Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on TV?

Nope, never heard of it

[fruitvilla]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

Nope, never heard of it

And the first question ...

[Stevo985]

Just now, fruitvilla said:

And the first question ...

Both