fruitvilla Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 Just now, Stevo985 said: Not really That is being offensive. Please desist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 7 VT Supporter Share Posted July 7 2 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: That is being offensive. Please desist. The adults are talking mate 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: The adults are talking mate You have clearly said you don't get my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 1 Author VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 The BMA has decided to undertake a review and evaluation of the Cass Report. Which is a good thing. Obviously the Terfs now think this means all the doctors are women hating ideological zealots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 21 minutes ago, Chindie said: The BMA has decided to undertake a review and evaluation of the Cass Report. Which is a good thing. Obviously the Terfs now think this means all the doctors are women hating ideological zealots. Why is it a good thing? Just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 4 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Why is it a good thing? Just asking Personally, I think there was a lot of political heat and culture wars and perhaps not much headroom for thinking when decisions have been made. There have been bad outcomes for people, but bad outcomes can mean having medical assistance or being refused medical assistance. There is no one size fits all. Any change will also create bad outcomes for some people, if someone has been awaiting treatment for a few years and is told there is a blanket ban on treatment this can have an impact. So perhaps a bit of a calm neutral review will allow more medical assessment and less politics. A return of the expert? Not guaranteed, but worth a shot. The correct answer will always be far more complicated than a blanket yes or a blanket no. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Personally, I think there was a lot of political heat and culture wars and perhaps not much headroom for thinking when decisions have been made. There have been bad outcomes for people, but bad outcomes can mean having medical assistance or being refused medical assistance. There is no one size fits all. Any change will also create bad outcomes for some people, if someone has been awaiting treatment for a few years and is told there is a blanket ban on treatment this can have an impact. So perhaps a bit of a calm neutral review will allow more medical assessment and less politics. A return of the expert? Not guaranteed, but worth a shot. The correct answer will always be far more complicated than a blanket yes or a blanket no. My initial post was going to be “stop the world I want to get off” but I’m trying to understand this but it’s hard and as you say I’m not sure most people know what’s for the best . Individual cases are different I suppose, it just doesn’t seem right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 1 Author VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 28 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Why is it a good thing? Just asking The report was criticised by various groups for flaws in its methodologies and how it approached it's review into the situation. It's therefore a good thing for medical professionals to actually review what the report says and what it's recommendations actually do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted August 1 Popular Post Share Posted August 1 31 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: My initial post was going to be “stop the world I want to get off” but I’m trying to understand this but it’s hard and as you say I’m not sure most people know what’s for the best . Individual cases are different I suppose, it just doesn’t seem right to me. On a flippant level, you don’t need to understand it, any more than you need to understand psychology or operations to separate conjoined twins. It’s something that really needs experts and a heavy load of data and research and peer review. Not the opinion of Nigel Farage or Grayson Perry. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 From a medical perspective this is the right thing to do - this is how science advances. My concerns here have always been that all the rage around the issue means that doctors can't make sensible medical decisions about the topic, so if we can have some respected and impartial scientists and doctors look at the evidence then that's great. I'd also like to think that if a new batch of experts review all the available evidence and conclude Cass was broadly correct (or incorrect) then people would accept those findings, but I feel like I'm possibly being a bit naive there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 10 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said: Why is it a good thing? Just asking Because it’ll piss Wes Streeting off for staters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, bickster said: Because it’ll piss Wes Streeting off for staters Not sure God will be too happy either . Man and woman are sacred. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 2 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Not sure God will be too happy either . Man and woman are sacred. As you can imagine, I really couldn’t give a toss about the hurt feelings of an imaginary deity But as he's supposedly omnipresent and everything ever is at his will, then I guess he both knows and doesn’t give a shit because he created everyone and everything. If he’s angry, it'll be with himself 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, bickster said: As you can imagine, I really couldn’t give a toss about the hurt feelings of an imaginary deity You’ll get there one day I’m sure of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted Friday at 12:53 VT Supporter Share Posted Friday at 12:53 Conflicted about bringing this thread back to page 1 but I think this looks interesting and I hope will change some opinions on the subject. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted Friday at 13:32 Share Posted Friday at 13:32 I’d like to know why he decided to do it. Did he just wake up one day and say I fancy being a woman or does it go deeper than that? Probably the latter . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuwabatake Sanjuro Posted Friday at 13:42 Share Posted Friday at 13:42 46 minutes ago, choffer said: Conflicted about bringing this thread back to page 1 but I think this looks interesting and I hope will change some opinions on the subject. Even if it helps people think twice about misgendering it will be welcome. Netflix has done a lot of harm with the number of bigoted over the hill comedians they have platformed in recent times so they should not get too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted Friday at 15:10 VT Supporter Share Posted Friday at 15:10 1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said: I’d like to know why he decided to do it. Did he just wake up one day and say I fancy being a woman or does it go deeper than that? Probably the latter . I suspect if you only watch the trailer, you’d get a sense of what the answer is. I don’t think anyone in any scenario just wakes up one day and decides to make a major change to their lives without any prior thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts