|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive.
My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that.
Also I'm highly doubtful that you're cross-referencing random BBC comments on women's sports with their comments on trans women in women's sports. I'm guessing your disposition is more along the lines of "this random person is probably a bigot that doesn't care about women's sports anyway... oh but I know Jimmi... he's cool..."
It turns out that even women in competitive sports that object to trans women in competitive sports get trashed online so the excuse of "they probably don't care about women's sports anyway" is just the most convenient one to throw out. Obviously one couldn't claim professional female athletes don't care about women's sports so people will just move onto the next one of them being TERFs or whatever.
|
On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that.
Jimmi isn't on your side of the trans debate lol. You seem so desperate to have a good point, I have a solution for you: change your beliefs so that they start matching reality. There's nothing stopping you except yourself.
|
On May 01 2025 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Jimmi isn't on your side of the trans debate lol. You seem so desperate to have a good point, I have a solution for you: change your beliefs so that they start matching reality. There's nothing stopping you except yourself.
Oh right, I forgot trans activists also want to exclude trans women from sports and gender-affirming surgeries from adolescents. Silly me.
|
On May 01 2025 02:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Jimmi isn't on your side of the trans debate lol. You seem so desperate to have a good point, I have a solution for you: change your beliefs so that they start matching reality. There's nothing stopping you except yourself. Oh right, I forgot trans activists also want to exclude trans women from sports and gender-affirming surgeries from adolescents. Silly me.
Excluding trans women from sports, as it is right now, would be wrong, so it doesn't break your streak of being wrong about everything. What he said on trans adolescent care is very different from what the right would say.
We also know from having been on this forum for a while that he obviously doesn't agree with the far right on trans rights, what are we doing here
|
On May 01 2025 01:22 Uldridge wrote:
Sooooo what do you do? Nothing and let teenagers keep killing themselves, because they said it may be inconclusive as of yet?
I think I've been quite clear that treatment should be provided as part of research.
On May 01 2025 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 01:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 00:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's the *normal* way to evaluate new treatments (or old repurposed ones) with weak evidence.
The treatment that Kwark describes for cis kids with early puberty issues is from 1980s, but the puberty blockers have been used for trans kids since the early 1990s. Apologies if you knew that, your posts read as if you think it just started, it didn't. All I need to know is that an independent Swedish agency with an excellent track record of reviewing evidence thinks the current level of research is uncertain. If the treatment has been done for 35 years that just proves my point. Weak evidence means that we don't know if the treatment does what we think it does. There are individual studies that show success but they have different kinds of bias or the measured effects were small or very likely that the sample size (number of patients) were small. All the more reason for aggregating all patients into research centers. If the number is low it will also give them better care and it will be logistically feasible. There is nothing wrong with doing it in research centers, except on a logistical scale in that the gender clinics are already backed up as things are right now and those research centers aren't operational right now in Europe (or at least they weren't when Turban and Mike talked about it some time ago), so it might cause some loss of access to care. In the UK and in the US the focus is on banning care currently, so generally the topic is discussed in this way.
All of the above confuses me a bit.
It seems like the prefered outcome measure is prevention of suicide and the treatment is very effective.
If it's very effective then it's easy to measure (only need a small sample size, it's going to be very statistically significant).
It also seems like it's a big problem with lots of people needing care if availability is a problem. Once again, lots of patients = good evidence.
Finally it seems like it's been done for a long time = long follow ups = good evidence.
If this is true, then why is the level of evidence described as uncertain and weak? Has there been a lot of treatment without scientific studies? If so, why, and shouldn't we correct that immediately?
It's worth noting that this is the UK politics thread.
NHS usually requires both high levels of evidence AND a pretty strict cost/benefit to provide any kind of treatment. So you not only need to know your treatment works as you think it does (and is safe of course) you also need studies on QALYs per £.
Are you arguing that care should be provided even if the scientific levels of evidence is weak in general, or only for this kind of care?
|
On May 01 2025 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:25 BlackJack wrote:On May 01 2025 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Jimmi isn't on your side of the trans debate lol. You seem so desperate to have a good point, I have a solution for you: change your beliefs so that they start matching reality. There's nothing stopping you except yourself. Oh right, I forgot trans activists also want to exclude trans women from sports and gender-affirming surgeries from adolescents. Silly me. Excluding trans women from sports, as it is right now, would be wrong, so it doesn't break your streak of being wrong about everything. What he said on trans adolescent care is very different from what the right would say. We also know from having been on this forum for a while that he obviously doesn't agree with the far right on trans rights, what are we doing here
So his view that trans women shouldn't compete in women's competitive sports and we shouldn't give gender-affirming surgeries to adolescents... is... not... in agreement with those that think trans women shouldn't compete in women's competitive sports and we shouldn't give gender-affirming surgeries to adolescents...? I think you're struggling with reality alright.
|
On May 01 2025 02:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 01:22 Uldridge wrote:
Sooooo what do you do? Nothing and let teenagers keep killing themselves, because they said it may be inconclusive as of yet? I think I've been quite clear that treatment should be provided as part of research. Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 01:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 00:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's the *normal* way to evaluate new treatments (or old repurposed ones) with weak evidence.
The treatment that Kwark describes for cis kids with early puberty issues is from 1980s, but the puberty blockers have been used for trans kids since the early 1990s. Apologies if you knew that, your posts read as if you think it just started, it didn't. All I need to know is that an independent Swedish agency with an excellent track record of reviewing evidence thinks the current level of research is uncertain. If the treatment has been done for 35 years that just proves my point. Weak evidence means that we don't know if the treatment does what we think it does. There are individual studies that show success but they have different kinds of bias or the measured effects were small or very likely that the sample size (number of patients) were small. All the more reason for aggregating all patients into research centers. If the number is low it will also give them better care and it will be logistically feasible. There is nothing wrong with doing it in research centers, except on a logistical scale in that the gender clinics are already backed up as things are right now and those research centers aren't operational right now in Europe (or at least they weren't when Turban and Mike talked about it some time ago), so it might cause some loss of access to care. In the UK and in the US the focus is on banning care currently, so generally the topic is discussed in this way. All of the above confuses me a bit. It seems like the prefered outcome measure is prevention of suicide and the treatment is very effective. If it's very effective then it's easy to measure (only need a small sample size, it's going to be very statistically significant). It also seems like it's a big problem with lots of people needing care if availability is a problem. Once again, lots of patients = good evidence. Finally it seems like it's been done for a long time = long follow ups = good evidence. If this is true, then why is the level of evidence described as uncertain and weak? Has there been a lot of treatment without scientific studies? If so, why, and shouldn't we correct that immediately? It's worth noting that this is the UK politics thread. NHS usually requires both high levels of evidence AND a pretty strict cost/benefit to provide any kind of treatment. So you not only need to know your treatment works as you think it does (and is safe of course) you also need studies on QALYs per £. Are you arguing that care should be provided even if the scientific levels of evidence is weak in general, or only for this kind of care?
I think the research that shows that this is beneficial for trans kids is pretty good, which is why the guidelines for medicine recommend doing it. If you want you can also consider that just about every single trans person out there thinks that we should continue doing it, which they probably wouldn't in these proportions if it was bad for them, at least that's my assumption.
Why there aren't more clinical trials or more evidence, I don't know? Probably they think that what they have currently is enough? Just because you think that doesn't mean that you're going to be opposed to more studies, more studies is always good, even if you deem that the current amount of studying is sufficient.
What's argued in the video I pulled out for you is also important in terms of the weakness of the evidence. The quote goes like this: "Because [the Cass report] is not very consistent in how it applies language in differentiating technical language from lay use of words. So, for instance, in the systematic reviews for puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, they actually rate a lot of studies on the mental health benefits as moderate, some even as high quality. But then in the non peer-reviewed 388 page report, it says it's low quality, it's poor quality, all these different terms that are both not exactly what the systematic reviews say and... those words of quality of evidence, using these rating scales for medical interventions, those are terms of art. There are many medical interventions that have low or moderate quality on these very technical rating scales that we offer routinely, like, almost all neonatal ICU care falls into that category."
|
On May 01 2025 02:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 02:25 BlackJack wrote:On May 01 2025 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Jimmi isn't on your side of the trans debate lol. You seem so desperate to have a good point, I have a solution for you: change your beliefs so that they start matching reality. There's nothing stopping you except yourself. Oh right, I forgot trans activists also want to exclude trans women from sports and gender-affirming surgeries from adolescents. Silly me. Excluding trans women from sports, as it is right now, would be wrong, so it doesn't break your streak of being wrong about everything. What he said on trans adolescent care is very different from what the right would say. We also know from having been on this forum for a while that he obviously doesn't agree with the far right on trans rights, what are we doing here So his view that trans women shouldn't compete in women's competitive sports and we shouldn't give gender-affirming surgeries to adolescents... is... not... in agreement with those that think trans women shouldn't compete in women's competitive sports and we shouldn't give gender-affirming surgeries to adolescents...? I think you're struggling with reality alright.
No, his view that trans women shouldn't compete in women's competitive sports today does align with the right, and much like the rest of the rightwing views, it is wrong and has no steel in it. On the rest he very clearly doesn't align with the right. I think you're just really angry that we wiped the floor with your argument so you're grasping at straws, it's quite sad really, can't imagine debasing myself like this.
|
Northern Ireland25353 Posts
On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Also I'm highly doubtful that you're cross-referencing random BBC comments on women's sports with their comments on trans women in women's sports. I'm guessing your disposition is more along the lines of "this random person is probably a bigot that doesn't care about women's sports anyway... oh but I know Jimmi... he's cool..." It turns out that even women in competitive sports that object to trans women in competitive sports get trashed online so the excuse of "they probably don't care about women's sports anyway" is just the most convenient one to throw out. Obviously one couldn't claim professional female athletes don't care about women's sports so people will just move onto the next one of them being TERFs or whatever.
I am guessing, which I alluded to by saying ‘bet’ rather than ‘can conclusively prove’.
You seem just so desperate to prove that the left is hysterical and shut people down that you’re inventing pushback here, and seemingly can’t concede that there’s plenty of old-fashioned bigotry that drives a lot of it.
Enlightened centrism in a nutshell really.
Yeah I don’t think British Olympian swimmer cum presenter Sharon Davies [sic?] doesn’t care about women’s sports because she quite obviously does and that influences her position.
Whereas somebody else who’s not shown an inkling of interest, or r hell active contempt for women’s sports, unless trans people are involved, I will be skeptical of their true motivations.
It’s not that complicated a concept. I’ll consider a voice that has consistently spoken out against sexual harassment and assault more genuine than that of someone who only cares about the topic when it involves brown people.
|
On May 01 2025 02:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Also I'm highly doubtful that you're cross-referencing random BBC comments on women's sports with their comments on trans women in women's sports. I'm guessing your disposition is more along the lines of "this random person is probably a bigot that doesn't care about women's sports anyway... oh but I know Jimmi... he's cool..." It turns out that even women in competitive sports that object to trans women in competitive sports get trashed online so the excuse of "they probably don't care about women's sports anyway" is just the most convenient one to throw out. Obviously one couldn't claim professional female athletes don't care about women's sports so people will just move onto the next one of them being TERFs or whatever. I am guessing, which I alluded to by saying ‘bet’ rather than ‘can conclusively prove’. You seem just so desperate to prove that the left is hysterical and shut people down that you’re inventing pushback here, and seemingly can’t concede that there’s plenty of old-fashioned bigotry that drives a lot of it. Enlightened centrism in a nutshell really. Yeah I don’t think British Olympian swimmer cum presenter Sharon Davies [sic?] doesn’t care about women’s sports because she quite obviously does and that influences her position. Whereas somebody else who’s not shown an inkling of interest, or r hell active contempt for women’s sports, unless trans people are involved, I will be skeptical of their true motivations. It’s not that complicated a concept. I’ll consider a voice that has consistently spoken out against sexual harassment and assault more genuine than that of someone who only cares about the topic when it involves brown people.
Of course I can concede that there is a lot of old-fashioned bigotry regarding trans debate online. The point is your first course of action regarding an online rando opposing trans women in sports is to assume they are a bigot that doesn't actually care about women's sports because you've seen a lot of BBC comments from other randos that don't care about women's sports. But if JimmiC makes the same argument against trans women in competitive sports it's cool because you know he's a cool dude. The point is if the same argument hits different based on whose mouth it's coming out of then you are clearly less concerned about the merit of the argument itself and a lot more concerned about how you can use ad hominem to attack the person making it.
|
On May 01 2025 02:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 01:22 Uldridge wrote:
Sooooo what do you do? Nothing and let teenagers keep killing themselves, because they said it may be inconclusive as of yet? I think I've been quite clear that treatment should be provided as part of research. Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 01:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 00:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's the *normal* way to evaluate new treatments (or old repurposed ones) with weak evidence.
The treatment that Kwark describes for cis kids with early puberty issues is from 1980s, but the puberty blockers have been used for trans kids since the early 1990s. Apologies if you knew that, your posts read as if you think it just started, it didn't. All I need to know is that an independent Swedish agency with an excellent track record of reviewing evidence thinks the current level of research is uncertain. If the treatment has been done for 35 years that just proves my point. Weak evidence means that we don't know if the treatment does what we think it does. There are individual studies that show success but they have different kinds of bias or the measured effects were small or very likely that the sample size (number of patients) were small. All the more reason for aggregating all patients into research centers. If the number is low it will also give them better care and it will be logistically feasible. There is nothing wrong with doing it in research centers, except on a logistical scale in that the gender clinics are already backed up as things are right now and those research centers aren't operational right now in Europe (or at least they weren't when Turban and Mike talked about it some time ago), so it might cause some loss of access to care. In the UK and in the US the focus is on banning care currently, so generally the topic is discussed in this way. If this is true, then why is the level of evidence described as uncertain and weak? Has there been a lot of treatment without scientific studies? If so, why, and shouldn't we correct that immediately?
In Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat ed. 2019, in chapter regarding intersexuality, hermaphroditism etc. author mentions that there is really no hard statistical data on those issues. There are various estimates but given the fact those are very private issues, it's very difficult to get a clear picture, especially concerning entirety of population. Other causes for transsexuality are also difficult to study for similar reasons.
Now this book is several years old, so perhaps that has changed, but I imagine the political volatility of this topic doesn't help it to be studied properly.
|
On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Also I'm highly doubtful that you're cross-referencing random BBC comments on women's sports with their comments on trans women in women's sports. I'm guessing your disposition is more along the lines of "this random person is probably a bigot that doesn't care about women's sports anyway... oh but I know Jimmi... he's cool..." It turns out that even women in competitive sports that object to trans women in competitive sports get trashed online so the excuse of "they probably don't care about women's sports anyway" is just the most convenient one to throw out. Obviously one couldn't claim professional female athletes don't care about women's sports so people will just move onto the next one of them being TERFs or whatever.
Assuming your talking about me, you nailed absolutely nothing. It is however hilarious that you claim people are doing, exactly what you are doing, to you and you wish it would stop. You are actively derailing good conversation to get into a internet fite because that is what you like to do. It is really sad because if you were not permanently trying to be an asshole to start fights you would bring a unique perspective to conversations. Instead you actively use bad faith arguing, sarcasm, out right deceit and so on it is very disappointing.
It is also extremely laughable that you are trying to make the point that wombat and neb are somehow giving me the benefit of the doubt because they like me. These two have personally insulted me more times than I can count. It was surprising and refreshing that they did not and good conversation happened. Maybe you should try it sometime. And maybe the moderator who protects you should hold you accountable when you pull this bullshit because it ruins it for basically everyone.
|
On May 01 2025 02:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 01:22 Uldridge wrote:
Sooooo what do you do? Nothing and let teenagers keep killing themselves, because they said it may be inconclusive as of yet? I think I've been quite clear that treatment should be provided as part of research. On May 01 2025 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 01:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 00:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's the *normal* way to evaluate new treatments (or old repurposed ones) with weak evidence.
The treatment that Kwark describes for cis kids with early puberty issues is from 1980s, but the puberty blockers have been used for trans kids since the early 1990s. Apologies if you knew that, your posts read as if you think it just started, it didn't. All I need to know is that an independent Swedish agency with an excellent track record of reviewing evidence thinks the current level of research is uncertain. If the treatment has been done for 35 years that just proves my point. Weak evidence means that we don't know if the treatment does what we think it does. There are individual studies that show success but they have different kinds of bias or the measured effects were small or very likely that the sample size (number of patients) were small. All the more reason for aggregating all patients into research centers. If the number is low it will also give them better care and it will be logistically feasible. There is nothing wrong with doing it in research centers, except on a logistical scale in that the gender clinics are already backed up as things are right now and those research centers aren't operational right now in Europe (or at least they weren't when Turban and Mike talked about it some time ago), so it might cause some loss of access to care. In the UK and in the US the focus is on banning care currently, so generally the topic is discussed in this way. All of the above confuses me a bit. It seems like the prefered outcome measure is prevention of suicide and the treatment is very effective. If it's very effective then it's easy to measure (only need a small sample size, it's going to be very statistically significant). It also seems like it's a big problem with lots of people needing care if availability is a problem. Once again, lots of patients = good evidence. Finally it seems like it's been done for a long time = long follow ups = good evidence. If this is true, then why is the level of evidence described as uncertain and weak? Has there been a lot of treatment without scientific studies? If so, why, and shouldn't we correct that immediately? It's worth noting that this is the UK politics thread. NHS usually requires both high levels of evidence AND a pretty strict cost/benefit to provide any kind of treatment. So you not only need to know your treatment works as you think it does (and is safe of course) you also need studies on QALYs per £. Are you arguing that care should be provided even if the scientific levels of evidence is weak in general, or only for this kind of care? I think the research that shows that this is beneficial for trans kids is pretty good, which is why the guidelines for medicine recommend doing it. If you want you can also consider that just about every single trans person out there thinks that we should continue doing it, which they probably wouldn't in these proportions if it was bad for them, at least that's my assumption. Why there aren't more clinical trials or more evidence, I don't know? Probably they think that what they have currently is enough? Just because you think that doesn't mean that you're going to be opposed to more studies, more studies is always good, even if you deem that the current amount of studying is sufficient. What's argued in the video I pulled out for you is also important in terms of the weakness of the evidence. The quote goes like this: "Because [the Cass report] is not very consistent in how it applies language in differentiating technical language from lay use of words. So, for instance, in the systematic reviews for puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, they actually rate a lot of studies on the mental health benefits as moderate, some even as high quality. But then in the non peer-reviewed 388 page report, it says it's low quality, it's poor quality, all these different terms that are both not exactly what the systematic reviews say and... those words of quality of evidence, using these rating scales for medical interventions, those are terms of art. There are many medical interventions that have low or moderate quality on these very technical rating scales that we offer routinely, like, almost all neonatal ICU care falls into that category."
Just reading up on it quickly shows a very different picture.
![[image loading]](https://nyheter.ki.se/sites/nyheter/files/styles/article_full_width/public/qbank/Illustration_MattiasKarlngenderdysphoria_custom20230418134143.jpg)
https://nyheter.ki.se/systematisk-oversikt-av-effekter-vid-hormonbehandling-av-konsdysfori-hos-unga
Systematic review from 2023
9900 abstracts checked, no randomized trials, 24 observational studies, no long term data.
Describes the treatments as experimental, recommends only doing them in a research setting. Identifies clear problems in bone growth, no clear benefits in psychic health.
https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/om-socialstyrelsen/pressrum/press/uppdaterade-rekommendationer-for-hormonbehandling-vid-konsdysfori-hos-unga/
Updated Swedish recommendations because there was inadequate follow up on the performed treatments and new research showed that currently the risks are bigger than the benefits. Also recommends only performing treatments in a research setting.
Another interesting point that is pointed out by both sources is that the number of people with gender dysphoria has exploded from 2008 to 2018 but not in all age groups. It's especially prevalent between 13-17 and then fades very rapidly in older groups. There is a lack of research on if gender dysphoria fades naturally over time above this age group and a lack of predictors for which patients it wouldn't. They seem to think that if it's present at a young age that seems to be a predictor but it's not as common.
If anything reading up on the subject has reaffirmed that my initial thoughts seem to be completely correct.
|
Northern Ireland25353 Posts
On May 01 2025 03:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:55 WombaT wrote:On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Also I'm highly doubtful that you're cross-referencing random BBC comments on women's sports with their comments on trans women in women's sports. I'm guessing your disposition is more along the lines of "this random person is probably a bigot that doesn't care about women's sports anyway... oh but I know Jimmi... he's cool..." It turns out that even women in competitive sports that object to trans women in competitive sports get trashed online so the excuse of "they probably don't care about women's sports anyway" is just the most convenient one to throw out. Obviously one couldn't claim professional female athletes don't care about women's sports so people will just move onto the next one of them being TERFs or whatever. I am guessing, which I alluded to by saying ‘bet’ rather than ‘can conclusively prove’. You seem just so desperate to prove that the left is hysterical and shut people down that you’re inventing pushback here, and seemingly can’t concede that there’s plenty of old-fashioned bigotry that drives a lot of it. Enlightened centrism in a nutshell really. Yeah I don’t think British Olympian swimmer cum presenter Sharon Davies [sic?] doesn’t care about women’s sports because she quite obviously does and that influences her position. Whereas somebody else who’s not shown an inkling of interest, or r hell active contempt for women’s sports, unless trans people are involved, I will be skeptical of their true motivations. It’s not that complicated a concept. I’ll consider a voice that has consistently spoken out against sexual harassment and assault more genuine than that of someone who only cares about the topic when it involves brown people. Of course I can concede that there is a lot of old-fashioned bigotry regarding trans debate online. The point is your first course of action regarding an online rando opposing trans women in sports is to assume they are a bigot that doesn't actually care about women's sports because you've seen a lot of BBC comments from other randos that don't care about women's sports. But if JimmiC makes the same argument against trans women in competitive sports it's cool because you know he's a cool dude. The point is if the same argument hits different based on whose mouth it's coming out of then you are clearly less concerned about the merit of the argument itself and a lot more concerned about how you can use ad hominem to attack the person making it.
Yes. You get an ear for it. It’s not that hard to distinguish. Similarly those who have concerns over immigration for x y or z reason, and folks who don’t like brown foreigners.
Because your default position is that the left are hysterical wokesters who shout down dissent, you’re attributing to hypocrisy what for many of us is simply making an obvious distinction. So you can’t seem to parse how some of us might look at Billy’s post as an earnest attempt to parse a tricky issue, and thus give him more rope than we might someone else who evidently isn’t being earnest.
And, for the record I myself somewhat agree with a degree of segregation of elite level sport, provided it’s rigorous and evidence-based. So I disagree with Neb on this I imagine.
For competitive activities that are segregated more for cultural than physiological reasons, I’m not so much in favour there. A chess, or a snooker or a darts, or eSports I don’t think there’s a great argument to them being segregated to begin with, so there’s less reason to exclude trans people accordingly.
On May 01 2025 03:16 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 21:14 WombaT wrote:On April 30 2025 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 09:55 Billyboy wrote:
For me the only issues I have with navigating the world where Trans people are more common and in the open are the competitive sports one and then the puberty blockers and surgical solutions for children.
The sports one I think my take will be unpopular. I think women's competitive sports should be for CIS women. It does seem unfair and I don't think that competing in these high level events is a right and maybe a sacrifice you just have to make if you are going to make the transition. I think perhaps calling the men's sports open instead of mens would help and at the highest levels, if a cis women or trans women could compete in say the NHL they would be allowed too. At lower level sports participation for all is a must and I think the only issue there is hate not fairness. Most sports are mixed in non competitive, especially in small towns where girls teams just don't always exists. The dressing room thing is so easy to solve it is not worth mentioning, but if anyone wants to know how we do it for hockey when girls play with the boys let me know.
The surgical intervention for minors seems pretty clear to me as well at no. Just wait until your an adult, so much can change while your brain is still developing it seems premature. That being said I'll probably make my kids wait on Tattoo's.
The puberty's blockers are more complicated to me, partly because I just don't know enough. Like if someone chooses to get off it what are the consequences. Because this is something that needs to happen at a young age to even work so waiting to take them is not an option. But I also feel really uncomfortable if there is long term issues created by using them.
My positions on all these issues is still very malleable because I really just do not know enough and it seems really difficult if not impossible to a have a non emotional, logical discussion about it because anytime I've tried, I just get hate from both of the political sides. Ok... but have you considered that the reason you're against trans inclusivity in competitive sports and "life-saving" gender affirming surgeries for adolescents is because you just want to rage against trans people and strip their rights away? I don't believe for a minute that you actually care about cis-women's sports. Read any article with comments enabled on say, the BBC sport’s page, and if it’s about women’s sport you’ll have a slew of comments bashing it, ‘why is my license fee paying for coverage’, ‘the standard is rubbish’, ‘wokesters are ramming it down my throat’, ‘why do we have female presenters for male sport now?’ yadda yadda yadda. I’d bet the house that there’s quite the overlap between people who actively take time out of their day to denigrate women’s sport publicly, and those who are happy to use it as a vector to attack trans folks. As Billy here hasn’t been doing the former he hasn’t had people jumping in and criticising their motives, bar you sarcastically doing so. Funny how that works eh? Write a thoughtful, earnest post where you confess you’re not 100% sure on everything and voila, people are more receptive. My sarcastic post was for Nebuchad's benefit who said there's nothing of "steel" to any point from people on the other side of the trans debate. If you think there is earnestness and merit in Jimmi's points about denying trans women the ability to compete in sports and trans adolescents the right to life-saving surgeries then you're basically in agreement with me how this torpedo's Nebuchad's worldview. So thanks for that. Also I'm highly doubtful that you're cross-referencing random BBC comments on women's sports with their comments on trans women in women's sports. I'm guessing your disposition is more along the lines of "this random person is probably a bigot that doesn't care about women's sports anyway... oh but I know Jimmi... he's cool..." It turns out that even women in competitive sports that object to trans women in competitive sports get trashed online so the excuse of "they probably don't care about women's sports anyway" is just the most convenient one to throw out. Obviously one couldn't claim professional female athletes don't care about women's sports so people will just move onto the next one of them being TERFs or whatever. Assuming your talking about me, you nailed absolutely nothing. It is however hilarious that you claim people are doing, exactly what you are doing, to you and you wish it would stop. You are actively derailing good conversation to get into a internet fite because that is what you like to do. It is really sad because if you were not permanently trying to be an asshole to start fights you would bring a unique perspective to conversations. Instead you actively use bad faith arguing, sarcasm, out right deceit and so on it is very disappointing. It is also extremely laughable that you are trying to make the point that wombat and neb are somehow giving me the benefit of the doubt because they like me. These two have personally insulted me more times than I can count. It was surprising and refreshing that they did not and good conversation happened. Maybe you should try it sometime. And maybe the moderator who protects you should hold you accountable when you pull this bullshit because it ruins it for basically everyone.
Can confirm. Sometimes I think fairly, on other occasions not so and I let myself down.
The problem BJ has is if you’re playing the perpetual devil’s advocate all the time, you’ve got to equally distribute your devil’s advocacy. Which he patently does not do, but expects to be treated as if he does.
|
On May 01 2025 04:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 02:44 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 02:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 01:22 Uldridge wrote:
Sooooo what do you do? Nothing and let teenagers keep killing themselves, because they said it may be inconclusive as of yet? I think I've been quite clear that treatment should be provided as part of research. On May 01 2025 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 01:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 01 2025 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2025 00:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's the *normal* way to evaluate new treatments (or old repurposed ones) with weak evidence.
The treatment that Kwark describes for cis kids with early puberty issues is from 1980s, but the puberty blockers have been used for trans kids since the early 1990s. Apologies if you knew that, your posts read as if you think it just started, it didn't. All I need to know is that an independent Swedish agency with an excellent track record of reviewing evidence thinks the current level of research is uncertain. If the treatment has been done for 35 years that just proves my point. Weak evidence means that we don't know if the treatment does what we think it does. There are individual studies that show success but they have different kinds of bias or the measured effects were small or very likely that the sample size (number of patients) were small. All the more reason for aggregating all patients into research centers. If the number is low it will also give them better care and it will be logistically feasible. There is nothing wrong with doing it in research centers, except on a logistical scale in that the gender clinics are already backed up as things are right now and those research centers aren't operational right now in Europe (or at least they weren't when Turban and Mike talked about it some time ago), so it might cause some loss of access to care. In the UK and in the US the focus is on banning care currently, so generally the topic is discussed in this way. All of the above confuses me a bit. It seems like the prefered outcome measure is prevention of suicide and the treatment is very effective. If it's very effective then it's easy to measure (only need a small sample size, it's going to be very statistically significant). It also seems like it's a big problem with lots of people needing care if availability is a problem. Once again, lots of patients = good evidence. Finally it seems like it's been done for a long time = long follow ups = good evidence. If this is true, then why is the level of evidence described as uncertain and weak? Has there been a lot of treatment without scientific studies? If so, why, and shouldn't we correct that immediately? It's worth noting that this is the UK politics thread. NHS usually requires both high levels of evidence AND a pretty strict cost/benefit to provide any kind of treatment. So you not only need to know your treatment works as you think it does (and is safe of course) you also need studies on QALYs per £. Are you arguing that care should be provided even if the scientific levels of evidence is weak in general, or only for this kind of care? I think the research that shows that this is beneficial for trans kids is pretty good, which is why the guidelines for medicine recommend doing it. If you want you can also consider that just about every single trans person out there thinks that we should continue doing it, which they probably wouldn't in these proportions if it was bad for them, at least that's my assumption. Why there aren't more clinical trials or more evidence, I don't know? Probably they think that what they have currently is enough? Just because you think that doesn't mean that you're going to be opposed to more studies, more studies is always good, even if you deem that the current amount of studying is sufficient. What's argued in the video I pulled out for you is also important in terms of the weakness of the evidence. The quote goes like this: "Because [the Cass report] is not very consistent in how it applies language in differentiating technical language from lay use of words. So, for instance, in the systematic reviews for puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, they actually rate a lot of studies on the mental health benefits as moderate, some even as high quality. But then in the non peer-reviewed 388 page report, it says it's low quality, it's poor quality, all these different terms that are both not exactly what the systematic reviews say and... those words of quality of evidence, using these rating scales for medical interventions, those are terms of art. There are many medical interventions that have low or moderate quality on these very technical rating scales that we offer routinely, like, almost all neonatal ICU care falls into that category." Just reading up on it quickly shows a very different picture. https://nyheter.ki.se/systematisk-oversikt-av-effekter-vid-hormonbehandling-av-konsdysfori-hos-ungaSystematic review from 2023 9900 abstracts checked, no randomized trials, 24 observational studies, no long term data. Describes the treatments as experimental, recommends only doing them in a research setting. Identifies clear problems in bone growth, no clear benefits in psychic health. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/om-socialstyrelsen/pressrum/press/uppdaterade-rekommendationer-for-hormonbehandling-vid-konsdysfori-hos-unga/Updated Swedish recommendations because there was inadequate follow up on the performed treatments and new research showed that currently the risks are bigger than the benefits. Also recommends only performing treatments in a research setting. Another interesting point that is pointed out by both sources is that the number of people with gender dysphoria has exploded from 2008 to 2018 but not in all age groups. It's especially prevalent between 13-17 and then fades very rapidly in older groups. There is a lack of research on if gender dysphoria fades naturally over time above this age group and a lack of predictors for which patients it wouldn't. They seem to think that if it's present at a young age that seems to be a predictor but it's not as common. If anything reading up on the subject has reaffirmed that my initial thoughts seem to be completely correct.
I don't think that there's anything in this post that isn't in what I linked but I could have missed something because I'm close to 2 liters in now, cheers
I have Inter wins first half and then Barca wins match at 9 to 1, looks pretty good (jinxed myself fml)
|
Norway28669 Posts
On April 30 2025 22:58 KwarK wrote:
Drone, entering puberty at the same time as your peers isn’t a good thing if it’s the wrong puberty.
If you identify as a boy then sure, I can see why you’d want your voice to break and facial hair to grow at the same time as the other boys. That makes sense. I can see why being delayed there may cause bullying.
But the argument you’re making about bullying is that the AFAB trans boy might be insecure about growing a mustache later than the other boys and so the best thing for them is a big set of tits. I don’t see how that’s going to help with the bullying.
Hormones at the right time assumes they’re also the right hormones. The argument you’re making is “the right hormones at the right time (which is around the same time everyone else gets them)”. I don’t disagree with that.
The issue trans people face is that they’re legally barred from having the right hormones during the normal age of puberty. The right hormones at the right time isn’t available to them. The second best option is then deferment, the right hormones at the wrong time. Later than their peers which, as you say, could cause bullying. It’s not ideal but whatever. But that’s still better than your proposed solution, the wrong hormones at the right time.
Estrogen and testosterone are not fungible. You can’t say “it’s important that they get hormones at the normal age of puberty” and handwave which ones are being referred to.
I entirely agree that puberty blockers are preferable to entering the wrong puberty, 100%. I'm just arguing against the idea that it has 0 negative side effects. That the positive side effects outweigh the negative side effects isn't something I am arguing against.
Then I'm saying there might be some legitimacy towards a 'let's be a bit careful with puberty blockers among teenagers that aren't really sure they're in the 'wrong sex'. Like - again - I have no issues with puberty blockers among trans kids - but my opinion is that much like how gender isn't entirely binary, neither is being trans. There are kids that might wonder whether they're trans. Maybe they eventually end up identifying as trans - and maybe they don't. If they end up going with no, then I think their puberty being delayed was probably negative. In the case that there are 0 negative effects, you might as well flip a coin about whether to use them for a regular kid with no sign of early puberty onset or gender incongruence, but you're obviously not arguing for that. Not trying to be facetious.
But basically I had the impression that we don't want to do anything irreversible to children because when we're dealing with children there's the idea that they might not be sufficiently informed and capable of making permanent, life-altering decisions. And then puberty blockers is a great stop-gap because it allows them to make the decision at a later point when they are more informed and more capable. If the follow-up rate of permanent, irreversible change is 100%, I imagine there's less need for the puberty blocker - but otherwise, for those who end up not going through with surgery and more significant hormonal treatment, using puberty blockers might actually have been a negative. Bullying was just an example - and honestly I think a better idea is to combat bullying in general (not just anti-trans/effeminate boy/masculine woman bullying), much like how we should combat all rape, not just prison rape or trans prison rape..
|
One study found 98% of children that started puberty blockers progressed onto hormone therapy. So it's not quite 100% but it's pretty darn close to the point where you could argue puberty blockers were doing more "delaying" than "pausing."
|
Northern Ireland25353 Posts
On May 01 2025 06:46 BlackJack wrote:One study found 98% of children that started puberty blockers progressed onto hormone therapy. So it's not quite 100% but it's pretty darn close to the point where you could argue puberty blockers were doing more "delaying" than "pausing."
Why is that innately any kind of problem?
|
I didn't say it was a problem. I'm offering information to Drone that's relevant to his post as he sounds undecided. If his problem with puberty blockers is it might have adverse effects on children that don't continuing on transitioning then he would be pleased to know it only applies to 2% of children on puberty blockers
|
United States42694 Posts
If anything it implies puberty blockers are being underprescribed. They're not being prescribed in cases outside of where the patient is already certain and in those cases waiting isn't optimal.
Part of the issue here is the idea that if they're young and not certain of anything then the correct course is to do nothing. That sounds reasonable because of the assumption that if you do nothing then nothing will happen. If you want to wait and see before anything happens then logically you should do nothing.
But for an adolescent doing nothing is subjecting them to very high and aggressive hormone doses that will irreversibly change their body. It isn't doing nothing, it is giving them secondary sexual characteristics that they may or may not want.
If the goal is to defer doing anything permanent until they're older, more mature, and better informed then the goal isn't to do nothing, it is to make nothing happen. To achieve nothing. And that's blockers.
There is an implicit contradiction in the anti blocker stance. If an AFAB trans boy requests testosterone therapy then a group of people insist he is too young to make that decision because he might regret getting hormones and should wait until he is older before he takes them. But that same group of people will force him to consume shitloads of estrogen. If he asks not to forced to take estrogen and instead to have no hormones at all until he is older they'll tell him that he's too young to be too young to decide and that he has to have the estrogen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
