I discussed previously that I didn't think spectrum was a good description, and nor do I think continuum is, as they may mislead to think that gender-sex correspondence is evenly distributed
You appear to be the only person suffering from this misapprehension in this discussion. Neither spectrum nor continuum mean or imply "even" distribution.
If you will look at this illustration from your link, you will see that light is not evenly distributed. So even if one were to wish a one to one correlation, even distribution is not a valid one.
Also from your link:
A spectrum is a condition that is not limited to a specific set of values but can vary, without steps, across a continuum
Nothing about even distribution.
I'm not seeing the point of challenging terminology that not only fits, but is accepted by the communities that it addresses.
There is a high court bid to stop puberty blockers being given to under 18s. As far as I can see, the main target is the Tavistock Clinic.
Of course, this would stop treatment of young trans people, the whole point of which is to prevent puberty, which is experienced as traumatic by some kids.
If this succeeds, I dread to think what would happen, certainly, kids will get drugs online.
Well that seems like a clever move. Instead of receiving their treatment from a reputable medical source, vulnerable young people are thrown onto their own resources to search the internet for whatever they can find. Surely the hallmark of a caring society.
Isn't the suicide rate for young trans people high enough already?
I think it involves Gillick competence, whereby children can consent to treatment. So if the high court agrees to this claim, they will override Gillick. I think this is unlikely.
Overturn Gillick and presumably access to contraception for young women then comes into question? I'm old enough to remember Victoria Gillick and the damage she did. The attacks on trans people are bad in themselves and bad enough, but people should also understand that it will never stop with just attacking the trans folk. We've been here before.
(Young woman overheard in the pub last night - 'I met one of those non-binary people the other day' - <pause for giggles> - 'she was a really nice girl actually' ).
There is a high court bid to stop puberty blockers being given to under 18s. As far as I can see, the main target is the Tavistock Clinic.
Of course, this would stop treatment of young trans people, the whole point of which is to prevent puberty, which is experienced as traumatic by some kids.
If this succeeds, I dread to think what would happen, certainly, kids will get drugs online.
As I read it, the high court bid is to stop puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones being given to under 18s.
As Doc Tor points out, it would make no sense to prescribe puberty blockers after the age of 18, and I don't think that the prescription of puberty blockers alone is being challenged. It's the combination of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones prior to 18 that is being targeted.
The woman bringing the case, Keira Bell, transitioned female to male in her teens and is now transitioning back to female at the age of 23.
I can recall that many years ago, a shipmate then called Zwingli (not sure if he's still on board under another name) had a rant about transgender operations. A woman in Victoria had undergone the necessary surgery as a part of transitioning from male to female. The rant was that the surgery had been done without proper investigation at all. In fact, as Zwingli was told at the time, an enormous amount of work is done even before starting the transitioning started - counselling, questioning, spending a lengthy period, more than a year from memory, living as if she were in fact a woman, more counselling and so forth. No doubt very similar steps were taken with Keira Bell. I suppose that the lesson is that there will be some, hopefully very few,`who decide that they made a mistake. Is that a reason to overturn the whole procedure? I'd say not. Perhaps refine the process after each case - but that probably happens in any event.
Somebody detransitioning is irrelevant. It's an anecdote. I don't think practise at the Tavistock is based on anecdote. This is an assault on treatment for trans kids, and would see self-harm and suicide figures climb.
Somebody detransitioning is irrelevant. It's an anecdote. I don't think practise at the Tavistock is based on anecdote. This is an assault on treatment for trans kids, and would see self-harm and suicide figures climb.
I would not say that it's either irrelevant or an anecdote. Each case informs our knowledge and gives guidance for cases to follow. But the possibility of its occurring is no reason to stop the treatment of trans kids.
Detransitioning is the latest weapon by right wing groups, trying to stop treatment for trans people, especially kids. The US is full of Christian groups trying to do this, supported by Republicans. Not as prevalent in the UK, although here there are the feminist anti-trans groups, [redacted], plus Mumsnet.
...so because it didn't work out for her, she wants to stop anyone else?
That seems odd.
That seems to be the logic of the women at anti-abortion rallies carrying signs that say "I regret my abortion."
Yes, I think it's the same logic, but I'd represent it as more like "I didn't know what I was doing, and somebody should have stopped me."
It is, perhaps, human nature to look for a scapegoat when you make a mistake, or a choice you regret. People want to have an excuse. It's reasonable and normal for people who think they have made a mistake to caution other people in a similar situation from making the same mistake. People who are finding a scapegoat for their behaviour, rather than taking responsibility for their bad choice are likely to want to actively prevent other people from making the same choice - after all, if you think that someone else should have stopped you doing X, it's logically consistent to think that you should stop people from doing X.
The truth is, of course, that most people who have abortions do not regret it, and most people who have transitioned do not regret it, and that you shouldn't let statistical outliers drive your argument.
It's reasonable and normal for people who think they have made a mistake to caution other people in a similar situation from making the same mistake. People who are finding a scapegoat for their behaviour, rather than taking responsibility for their bad choice are likely to want to actively prevent other people from making the same choice - after all, if you think that someone else should have stopped you doing X, it's logically consistent to think that you should stop people from doing X.
It’s equally logically consistent, and more respectful of individual autonomy, after one’s regretted decision to do X, to think that people should be provided with more information and counseling so they can make a fully-informed decision before deciding to do (or not do) X. Thinking that people should be prevented in all instances from doing X implies that one thinks one’s regretted decision was not only wrong for oneself, but is wrong for everybody.
It's reasonable and normal for people who think they have made a mistake to caution other people in a similar situation from making the same mistake. People who are finding a scapegoat for their behaviour, rather than taking responsibility for their bad choice are likely to want to actively prevent other people from making the same choice - after all, if you think that someone else should have stopped you doing X, it's logically consistent to think that you should stop people from doing X.
It’s equally logically consistent, and more respectful of individual autonomy, after one’s regretted decision to do X, to think that people should be provided with more information and counseling so they can make a fully-informed decision before deciding to do (or not do) X. Thinking that people should be prevented in all instances from doing X implies that one thinks one’s regretted decision was not only wrong for oneself, but is wrong for everybody.
And that one has the right to impose one's beliefs about right and wrong on others who may not share those beliefs.
Thinking that people should be prevented in all instances from doing X implies that one thinks one’s regretted decision was not only wrong for oneself, but is wrong for everybody.
Yes, it does. And I think that's what the "somebody should have stopped me" brigade does think. It's "I shouldn't have been allowed to do that, because I was a stupid kid, therefore all kids are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to do it."
Because if you think "I shouldn't have been allowed to do X" you're not just thinking that you wish you'd had better advice before you chose to do X (because that would involve accepting some responsibility for your choice). The only way to obviate your responsibility is to cast the blame elsewhere, which means you can't think you were competent to make the choice, and by extension nobody else in a similar position can be competent to make such a choice.
You're right - this does not respect individual autonomy. That's the point - the people making these claims don't want individual autonomy, because that requires them to be responsible for their choices.
mousethief - not just the morality of transitioning being right or wrong, but wrong for that person in the sense that they were wrong in thinking that they should transition. I assume that there are all sorts of tests to guide them, and to try to prevent errors, but there will inevitably be some mistakes.
mousethief - not just the morality of transitioning being right or wrong, but wrong for that person in the sense that they were wrong in thinking that they should transition. I assume that there are all sorts of tests to guide them, and to try to prevent errors, but there will inevitably be some mistakes.
I don't know what I said that you're responding to?
mousethief - not just the morality of transitioning being right or wrong, but wrong for that person in the sense that they were wrong in thinking that they should transition. I assume that there are all sorts of tests to guide them, and to try to prevent errors, but there will inevitably be some mistakes.
I don't know what I said that you're responding to?
I had picked up on this:
And that one has the right to impose one's beliefs about right and wrong on others who may not share those beliefs.
On a 4th read, I'm not so sure that I read you right.
I think the point about competence is probably important for some anti-trans people, as treatment for trans kids may involve Gillick competence, the understanding that under 18s should be able to agree to treatment, without parental say-so. I think this is a red rag for some right wingers, and the headlines are fairly lurid, kids allowed to mutilate themselves, and so on. "They really are coming for your kids", is a recent headline.
...so because it didn't work out for her, she wants to stop anyone else?
That seems odd.
That seems to be the logic of the women at anti-abortion rallies carrying signs that say "I regret my abortion."
Yes, I think it's the same logic, but I'd represent it as more like "I didn't know what I was doing, and somebody should have stopped me."
....
I think you're being overly generous. If it was just personal regret, there would be no need for protest. The logic is actually "You don't know what you're doing either, and I'm going to stop you."
It could be, ‘I didn’t feel adequately advised/protected when I went through this process (with this organisation) which I now regret. I don’t want others to be put in the same situation.’
It could be, ‘I didn’t feel adequately advised/protected when I chose to do X which I now regret. I don’t want others to be put in the same situation so I will remove their ability to make that choice .’
If it were truly about advice/protection, such advice/protection could be provided without removing the possibility of choice.
It could be, ‘I didn’t feel adequately advised/protected when I went through this process (with this organisation) which I now regret. I don’t want others to be put in the same situation.’
Well, not really. Leaf has spelled it out. Because of my experiences, I want to take away your choice. If we are talking about trans kids, even if they are in anguish, self-harming, and with suicidal thoughts, I know best.
Looking at this from a distance it looks like Tavistock is suffering from a serious shortage of resources in relation to demand. This can’t be good for quality of care, or outcomes. But I don’t see how revisiting Gillick competence is a solution to that problem.
I think you're being overly generous. If it was just personal regret, there would be no need for protest. The logic is actually "You don't know what you're doing either, and I'm going to stop you."
Sure, but I think that's a result of the excuse-seeking. You can't have just personal regret if you're not prepared to own your choices. If it's somebody else's fault, and you shouldn't have been allowed to make that decision, then clearly nobody else can be allowed to make the decision.
But I think we're getting sidetracked into exactly how the pathologically stupid are stupid.
Is the UK's "The Telegraph" a reasonable news source? If it is, then what's this about: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/12/childrens-transgender-clinic-hit-35-resignations-three-years/
35 resignations of psychologists sounds like a lot, but how many do they employ and what positions and where were the psychologists who quit going to? Perhaps there are many job opportunities for psychologists so they just moved along? Or are the concerns the article states actually issues?
If it isn't, is there something amiss or not at clinics there? I have no idea what exactly the status and role of these clinics within your medicare / NHS system is there, and what a "trust" is when it comes to healthcare in the UK.
The nhs is divided into organisational units called trusts, that are then commissioned by clinical commissioning groups to provide multiple specific services (e.g. 7000 hip replacement per year, 1900 episodes of care for depression etc). Over aching that is NHS England which is responsible for nationally commissioned specialist services (basically paying for very rare things, where there may be just a few national centres, or very expensive things like secure mental health care)
GID clinics would be nationally commissioned by NHS England, from specific NHS Trusts like the Tavistock & Portman. So the trust will have agreed to do x amount of episodes of care for y amount of money. If the amount of patients needing/wanting there services exceeds x per year then it is likely a backlog will build up.
There is a national shortage of clinical psychologists - so they’d easily be able to find other jobs. But it’s possible the figures conflate assistant psychologists (usually on 12month fixed term contracts and expected to move on), trainee psychologist on 6mth or 1yr placements and qualified psychologists.
There are currently 5 qualified psychologists listed on their website as part of their team. So if they each took an average of one trainee a year and had 5 assistants between them, that’s ten staff a year moving on routinely.
(I note that is 35 over three years, of whom 6 are said to be unhappy with how the clinic is run.)
White people will have difficulty in writing black people if blackness* is a feature of the character. Same with gender, etc. That is not to say people cannot write across those boundaries or even that they cannot do it well. Just that there are things difficult to understand if one has not experienced.
There is some consternation among trans people, after a judge criticized police for warning someone over trans phobic tweets. For example, he had criticized the statement that trans women are women. But the police turned up at work, which seems heavy-handed.
This could well run and run, as transphobes come up with various clever ways of attacking trans people. Saying that women are biologically female sounds innocuous, but can be used as an attack.
These are recorded as non-crime hate incidents, which sounds confusing. No link, sorry, Google Harry Miller.
There is some consternation among trans people, after a judge criticized police for warning someone over trans phobic tweets. For example, he had criticized the statement that trans women are women. But the police turned up at work, which seems heavy-handed.
This could well run and run, as transphobes come up with various clever ways of attacking trans people. Saying that women are biologically female sounds innocuous, but can be used as an attack.
These are recorded as non-crime hate incidents, which sounds confusing. No link, sorry, Google Harry Miller.
One of the issues Harry Miller had was that the non-crime hate incidents could be reported on dbs checks.
To be clear Miller is an arse, but there are issues with the police practice
Maybe, but the right wing are positively salivating now, that they can get rid of protections for trans people, and defences against abuse and harassment. I doubt if they can actually do this, but they are gung ho.
Please don't link to hour long videos on potentially dubious Youtube channels. The side bar on that youtube link served me all kinds of far-right (eg. Sargon of Akkad) and nasty anti-trans stuff because of the way the Youtube algorithm works. People can't be expected to watch an hour of tendentious opinion (from whichever side) as the price of admission to debate on the thread and may not want youtube/google assuming that they want to watch extremist videos because they've clicked on your link. If someone says something interesting in the video please quote it or link to a transcript. I will add a warning to the link.
Comments
Also from your link: Nothing about even distribution.
I'm not seeing the point of challenging terminology that not only fits, but is accepted by the communities that it addresses.
Of course, this would stop treatment of young trans people, the whole point of which is to prevent puberty, which is experienced as traumatic by some kids.
If this succeeds, I dread to think what would happen, certainly, kids will get drugs online.
Isn't the suicide rate for young trans people high enough already?
As I read it, the high court bid is to stop puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones being given to under 18s.
As Doc Tor points out, it would make no sense to prescribe puberty blockers after the age of 18, and I don't think that the prescription of puberty blockers alone is being challenged. It's the combination of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones prior to 18 that is being targeted.
The woman bringing the case, Keira Bell, transitioned female to male in her teens and is now transitioning back to female at the age of 23.
That seems odd.
That seems to be the logic of the women at anti-abortion rallies carrying signs that say "I regret my abortion."
Indeed.
I would not say that it's either irrelevant or an anecdote. Each case informs our knowledge and gives guidance for cases to follow. But the possibility of its occurring is no reason to stop the treatment of trans kids.
Yes, I think it's the same logic, but I'd represent it as more like "I didn't know what I was doing, and somebody should have stopped me."
It is, perhaps, human nature to look for a scapegoat when you make a mistake, or a choice you regret. People want to have an excuse. It's reasonable and normal for people who think they have made a mistake to caution other people in a similar situation from making the same mistake. People who are finding a scapegoat for their behaviour, rather than taking responsibility for their bad choice are likely to want to actively prevent other people from making the same choice - after all, if you think that someone else should have stopped you doing X, it's logically consistent to think that you should stop people from doing X.
The truth is, of course, that most people who have abortions do not regret it, and most people who have transitioned do not regret it, and that you shouldn't let statistical outliers drive your argument.
And that one has the right to impose one's beliefs about right and wrong on others who may not share those beliefs.
Yes, it does. And I think that's what the "somebody should have stopped me" brigade does think. It's "I shouldn't have been allowed to do that, because I was a stupid kid, therefore all kids are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to do it."
Because if you think "I shouldn't have been allowed to do X" you're not just thinking that you wish you'd had better advice before you chose to do X (because that would involve accepting some responsibility for your choice). The only way to obviate your responsibility is to cast the blame elsewhere, which means you can't think you were competent to make the choice, and by extension nobody else in a similar position can be competent to make such a choice.
You're right - this does not respect individual autonomy. That's the point - the people making these claims don't want individual autonomy, because that requires them to be responsible for their choices.
I don't know what I said that you're responding to?
I had picked up on this:
And that one has the right to impose one's beliefs about right and wrong on others who may not share those beliefs.
On a 4th read, I'm not so sure that I read you right.
I think you're being overly generous. If it was just personal regret, there would be no need for protest. The logic is actually "You don't know what you're doing either, and I'm going to stop you."
If it were truly about advice/protection, such advice/protection could be provided without removing the possibility of choice.
Well, not really. Leaf has spelled it out. Because of my experiences, I want to take away your choice. If we are talking about trans kids, even if they are in anguish, self-harming, and with suicidal thoughts, I know best.
Sure, but I think that's a result of the excuse-seeking. You can't have just personal regret if you're not prepared to own your choices. If it's somebody else's fault, and you shouldn't have been allowed to make that decision, then clearly nobody else can be allowed to make the decision.
But I think we're getting sidetracked into exactly how the pathologically stupid are stupid.
35 resignations of psychologists sounds like a lot, but how many do they employ and what positions and where were the psychologists who quit going to? Perhaps there are many job opportunities for psychologists so they just moved along? Or are the concerns the article states actually issues?
If it isn't, is there something amiss or not at clinics there? I have no idea what exactly the status and role of these clinics within your medicare / NHS system is there, and what a "trust" is when it comes to healthcare in the UK.
GID clinics would be nationally commissioned by NHS England, from specific NHS Trusts like the Tavistock & Portman. So the trust will have agreed to do x amount of episodes of care for y amount of money. If the amount of patients needing/wanting there services exceeds x per year then it is likely a backlog will build up.
There is a national shortage of clinical psychologists - so they’d easily be able to find other jobs. But it’s possible the figures conflate assistant psychologists (usually on 12month fixed term contracts and expected to move on), trainee psychologist on 6mth or 1yr placements and qualified psychologists.
There are currently 5 qualified psychologists listed on their website as part of their team. So if they each took an average of one trainee a year and had 5 assistants between them, that’s ten staff a year moving on routinely.
(I note that is 35 over three years, of whom 6 are said to be unhappy with how the clinic is run.)
Its nickname is the Torygraph, for good reason. I wouldn't trust it to be objective on any hot-button cultural issue.
TERFs allying themselves with far-right transphobes astonishes me.
White people will have difficulty in writing black people if blackness* is a feature of the character. Same with gender, etc. That is not to say people cannot write across those boundaries or even that they cannot do it well. Just that there are things difficult to understand if one has not experienced.
This has implications for trans people
This could well run and run, as transphobes come up with various clever ways of attacking trans people. Saying that women are biologically female sounds innocuous, but can be used as an attack.
These are recorded as non-crime hate incidents, which sounds confusing. No link, sorry, Google Harry Miller.
One of the issues Harry Miller had was that the non-crime hate incidents could be reported on dbs checks.
Link Hosting - Link to hour long Youtube video on channel which served a side-bar of far right and anti-trans videos
Maybe, but the right wing are positively salivating now, that they can get rid of protections for trans people, and defences against abuse and harassment. I doubt if they can actually do this, but they are gung ho.
Please don't link to hour long videos on potentially dubious Youtube channels. The side bar on that youtube link served me all kinds of far-right (eg. Sargon of Akkad) and nasty anti-trans stuff because of the way the Youtube algorithm works. People can't be expected to watch an hour of tendentious opinion (from whichever side) as the price of admission to debate on the thread and may not want youtube/google assuming that they want to watch extremist videos because they've clicked on your link. If someone says something interesting in the video please quote it or link to a transcript. I will add a warning to the link.
Thanks,
Louise
Epiphanies Host
hosting off