Athos
Well-Known Member
Including the very recent studies casting doubt on efficacy?
Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
Border Reiver
Active Member
A very small minority. The Royal Colleges formally support medical and surgical treatment of transgender persons when consented and appropriate in the view of the practitioner.
Border Reiver
Active Member
A medical practitioner may engage in surgical or medical intervention with a patient who is transgender so long as they believe it to be appropriate and to have consent of the patient or parent.
OK looking at that quickly. There's no control group there, so it's not comparative with a group who didn't take blockers. From the psychological side, all it's saying is that this group of highly gender dysphoric children did not see psychological improvements on blockers. The blockers may or may not have prevented psychological deterioration - the study doesn't say. It also reports that the participants reported that they were happier (although maybe without the blockers they would have been even happier, you can't tell from the data).
Should also note that for the majority the physical effects were minor for up to 24 months of treatment.
My sympathy is with the researchers on this. Small numbers and ethical restrictions are going to severely hamper any study like this.
I do get the feeling that this is a study that has been seized on because it seems to confirm certain political predispositions. I wish that wouldn't happen from either "side" of this debate.
Should also note that for the majority the physical effects were minor for up to 24 months of treatment.
My sympathy is with the researchers on this. Small numbers and ethical restrictions are going to severely hamper any study like this.
I do get the feeling that this is a study that has been seized on because it seems to confirm certain political predispositions. I wish that wouldn't happen from either "side" of this debate.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's not the be-all-and-end-all of medical ethics. Not least of all because Royal Colleges can and do change their positions!
Border Reiver
Active Member
So far as medicine and the law are concerned, that is a fact. The law allows clinical decisions to be made by clinicians except in a few very exceptional cases (termination of pregnancy being the major exception which is legally restricted by law; end of life decisions are also legally restricted at times).
Border Reiver
Active Member
It is full of meaning. It defines the rights of a doctor to treat patients.
bimble
floofy
You mean.. these treatments and procedures are (within certain parameters, age etc) completely legal? Do you think you’re imparting startling new knowledge to us with this ?
You’ve not described an ethical but a legal situation. Why you’d say ‘there’s no ethical bar’ when in fact you mean to express something so mundane that it’s not worth saying at all does remain a mystery.
I’m on your ignore list.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Don't go thinking that makes you special - there's a shitload of us!
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I think the ignore list needs re-setting every so often due to server space issues.
Apparently there are not
Border Reiver
Active Member
Because medical ethics are determined by the appropriate Royal Colleges. "Ethics" here means the agreed professional rules on appropriate behaviour. "Ethics" can also mean the study of the morality, right or wrongness if an action. But medical ethics is specifically about rules on treatment. So when a practitioner considers what is lawful and ethical, that is a matter of medical ethics.
Now there is a wider debate, but that has no effect on what treatment a person should expect from a doctor. I am mainly concerned about supporting the rights of the
transgender person, not some theoretical consideration of the morality of persons other than the clinician and client.
Personally, I wouldn't expect puberty blockers to reduce dysphoria (or associated psychological problems) in cohort studies (key word there is cohort). They're blocking puberty, not performing any sort of hormonal transition. These teenagers are worried about going through puberty as a gender they don't identify with, they're worried about their mental health deteriorating. Things not getting worse is a win, surely?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Not going to do anything about dysphoria, but putting the brakes on that train that’s coming down the track has to be some relief.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I agree largely. You're placing them in a developmental limbo, and nobody thinks puberty blockers are an end in themselves.
It is stated that they're intended to provide space for reflection/exploration but the near 100% progression to transition doesn't really support that idea. Maybe, as Spack claims, they're just really good at identifying 'really' trans kids at a very early age. Or maybe that break in development acts in a more general way and it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
There is also an alternative possibility - that the dysphoria may be eased by the onset of puberty in at least some cases, leading to different conclusions about their self, gender and perhaps also sexuality as they grow up. That's one of the problems here. We're talking about very young, immature minds.
Regarding this study, I would think further follow up is needed of the 43 who continued into hormone treatment at the end of their period of developmental limbo.
A quick note on Keira Bell and Posey Parker.
We've seen the very worst of PP, "armed men in women's toilets" and reaching out to not just the conservative right but the far right as well, but that leaves the impression that she is some sort of fringe figure. I see her as just a particularly hard line, monomaniacal advocate of the "gender critical" position. I believe she's alienated a lot of likeminded activists, but she also gets a lot of instinctive support eg. on mumsnet. Most of what she says is standard fair.
Keira Bell certainly appears very reasonable when she talks about her own experiences. But she's very cagey when it comes to questions about whether her experiences apply to others. She's actually quite adept at giving politician's change-the-subject answers in interviews when this question arises. She's very careful to appear that she's just talking about herself, but with her praise of PP, (whom she sees as a key influence in her de-transition), I think it's reasonable to infer that she thinks transgender identity is nothing more than a combination of ideology and (curable) psychopathology, not just in her case but in all cases (at least female to male).
This morning* I watched PP's interview with KB on PP's Biological Woman's Hour (yeah). Most of what was said was fairly innocuous but towards the end there was an analogy between transgenderism and anorexia, and a desire to prohibit the promotion of positive trans messages on social media. And that came from KB not PP.
My gut feeling is that KB might well grow out of these views (which is not the same thing as deciding she's now trans, of course). But at present she's a problematic figure to put it politely.
*Yeah I know, what am I doing with my life...
We've seen the very worst of PP, "armed men in women's toilets" and reaching out to not just the conservative right but the far right as well, but that leaves the impression that she is some sort of fringe figure. I see her as just a particularly hard line, monomaniacal advocate of the "gender critical" position. I believe she's alienated a lot of likeminded activists, but she also gets a lot of instinctive support eg. on mumsnet. Most of what she says is standard fair.
Keira Bell certainly appears very reasonable when she talks about her own experiences. But she's very cagey when it comes to questions about whether her experiences apply to others. She's actually quite adept at giving politician's change-the-subject answers in interviews when this question arises. She's very careful to appear that she's just talking about herself, but with her praise of PP, (whom she sees as a key influence in her de-transition), I think it's reasonable to infer that she thinks transgender identity is nothing more than a combination of ideology and (curable) psychopathology, not just in her case but in all cases (at least female to male).
This morning* I watched PP's interview with KB on PP's Biological Woman's Hour (yeah). Most of what was said was fairly innocuous but towards the end there was an analogy between transgenderism and anorexia, and a desire to prohibit the promotion of positive trans messages on social media. And that came from KB not PP.
My gut feeling is that KB might well grow out of these views (which is not the same thing as deciding she's now trans, of course). But at present she's a problematic figure to put it politely.
*Yeah I know, what am I doing with my life...
Yes that occurred to me as a possibility as well.
I wouldn't hold your breath if it there is a follow up. You're not likely to get much out of a small cohort study.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Can I ask some of you: what is the point in this thread? I don't mean the OP because whatever - I mean engaging in it.
We did a massive bit on it in the past and it heavily and permanently fucked our community and we should have some basic guilt about that for a start. The only good thing about that was that it eventually ended. Then I look at this one, a load of what appear to be mostly cis men arguing against or on behalf of some apparently absent group, it seems to be an incredibly bad look for all involved, and I wonder what the fuck it's all for. What are you getting out of it?
Perhaps it's because I work with a bunch of trans people who aren't theoretical, but I can't imagine in any circumstance it seeming like a good idea to argue about either the politics or detail of their existence like you're on a zoo trip, regardless of whatever it is I might personally believe. In fact I can't imagine really feeling like it's OK to do anything at all on the subject that isn't massively centred around supporting actual people as they exist, predominantly by shutting the fuck up and listening. All this good-people-on-both-sideism is irrelevant bullshit, we're not moderating Twitter.
I can put this thread and its one-note OP on ignore for sure but I can't kid myself that it's gone and like many more before me, I'm left pretty uncomfortable with this whole emphasis.
We did a massive bit on it in the past and it heavily and permanently fucked our community and we should have some basic guilt about that for a start. The only good thing about that was that it eventually ended. Then I look at this one, a load of what appear to be mostly cis men arguing against or on behalf of some apparently absent group, it seems to be an incredibly bad look for all involved, and I wonder what the fuck it's all for. What are you getting out of it?
Perhaps it's because I work with a bunch of trans people who aren't theoretical, but I can't imagine in any circumstance it seeming like a good idea to argue about either the politics or detail of their existence like you're on a zoo trip, regardless of whatever it is I might personally believe. In fact I can't imagine really feeling like it's OK to do anything at all on the subject that isn't massively centred around supporting actual people as they exist, predominantly by shutting the fuck up and listening. All this good-people-on-both-sideism is irrelevant bullshit, we're not moderating Twitter.
I can put this thread and its one-note OP on ignore for sure but I can't kid myself that it's gone and like many more before me, I'm left pretty uncomfortable with this whole emphasis.
Aladdin
Well-Known Member
Are you a member of the RCP or RCS?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I’d guess a mixture of people trying to work stuff out in their own head seeing how the twitching remains of the left have got themselves in such a tizzy over this, and then there are people with specific agendas. Probably other reasons too tbf.
Not many left to listen to, which I guess lends itself to your point about how much use there is to the thread.
Last edited:
mauvais The reason I'm engaging is that Co-op looks determined to promote this stuff and it has some resonance on here unfortunately. I don't think it's just going to go away. I'm also aware that I may be causing more harm than good though, so I'll but out now.
The thread should have been binned and Co-op put on a warning if not permanently booted. I don't blame the mods for not doing that, because it would have created a storm. But there's no reason urban can't collectively be won over to a more trans accepting position and recognise something like the OP as a provocation. Also when people engage there's often a lot more nuance than there appears at first sight.
The thread should have been binned and Co-op put on a warning if not permanently booted. I don't blame the mods for not doing that, because it would have created a storm. But there's no reason urban can't collectively be won over to a more trans accepting position and recognise something like the OP as a provocation. Also when people engage there's often a lot more nuance than there appears at first sight.
Last edited:
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
It’s an honourable aim, but tbh, the fight was lost years ago when almost all our trans and non-binary posters left after it became painfully clear that the majority of posters either held trans-exclusionary/sceptical beliefs, or didn’t care enough to get involved in their defence.
In all that time, not one poster changed their mind. Active trans-inclusivity is a minority view on urban, and it will doubtless always be.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
You know this from a couple of threads involving a tiny minority of posters (maybe I misunderstood the term ‘active’ there)?
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Active like being actively anti racist instead of not a racist.
The tiny proportion of posters standing up on either side, even to start with, is the point. If you can sit back and see longstanding trans posters leave and never have spoken up in support of trans inclusion, you’re not actively trans inclusive. Seems pretty uncontentious to me.
I missed it at the time. I'd rather be seen to have said something now, than to look the other way. By the way, I actually think some views have softened since about a year ago. I think there is a growing awareness about the problems with the gender critical movement, if not all the views of that movement.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Fair point. Though I think maybe a lot of people see things like the OP, think ‘not this shit again’ and disengage so that it hopefully doesn’t result in another long-running toxic sludgefest.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Now, yes. Before it became a long-running toxic sludge fest, before treef and Steph and froggy and MDK and others left, before urban started to be talked about elsewhere as having the same gender politics as mumsnet - that’s the time it wouldn’t have been too late.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Cheers for clarifying. Just wasn’t clear (I mean I wasn’t clear - still hungover) on where you were referring to now and where you were referring to that bad time.
Last edited:
I engage because otherwise women will not be provided single sex spaces when they are most vulnerable- in prison, in hospital, in custody, under a section of the mental health act. And that there is enough historical evidence of that men can and do pose an ongoing threat of sexual violence to vulnerable women.
