This Post Has 3 Comments

1. 

   Erich Vieth August 6, 2020 Reply

   It is very difficult to have measured factual conversations on this topic. To illustrate, here is a FB post I made yesterday:

   From Aug 5, 2020 article at Quillette: “At the NHS and BBC, Important Steps Toward Restoring Balance in the Gender Debate”:
   “BBC Woman’s Hour has reported that much of the language on the NHS website referring to gender dysphoria was removed or entirely reworded last week, so as to more accurately reflect science instead of ideology. Crucially, the NHS no longer repeats the fiction that puberty blockers such as Lupron are “reversible,” since there are few studies on the physical or psychological effects. (It has been known since 2017 that trials of peripubertal GnRHa-treatment, i.e., hormone blockers, in sheep reveal “permanent changes in brain development [and] raises particular concerns about the cognitive changes associated with the prolonged use of GnRHa-treatment in children and adolescents.”) Also removed from the NHS site: Emotionally loaded references to suicide, which had previously served to terrify parents into seeking rapid treatment, lest any delay lead a child to end their lives. The association of “gender identity” with regressive stereotypes also is gone. And the website no longer suggests that sex itself can be changed. Instead, we get more accurate language to the effect that “some people may decide to have surgery to permanently alter body parts associated with their biological sex.” That the NHS now uses the term “biological sex” at all is itself a huge win, even if such language is obviously appropriate on the level of science and medicine. . . .
   As with so many other things, the campaign for trans rights began with good intentions. For some people, dysphoria is very real—the feeling of being in the wrong body. It’s a problem that has to be managed, and people who suffer from this condition should get the help they need. But rather than urge that dysphoria be treated in a humane and realistic way, many activists prefer to cast it as a vestige of an invented inner spirit called “gender identity,” which universally suffuses us all, like a spark of the divine.
   Such fantasies are the basis of religion, and it is fine for people to believe in them. But over the last decade, this particular fantasy has been encoded into law—which is very much not fine. And it was only a matter of time before ordinary people realized that a fraud had been perpetrated on them under cover of human rights. . .
   Of course, it’s taken too long, and much damage has been done in the interim. But for the sake of the many women and children who remain at risk, better late than never.”

   I fully expected to receive ad hominem attacks instead of factual discussion. I immediately received a triple ad hominem attack from a person I know in real life, someone who prides himself on being scientifically rigorous:

   I notice the source (Quillette) is a for-profit blog that was set up by a college drop out in 2015 to publish “scientific” commentary that no reputable publication would touch.
   I notice that this is about UK web sites. The death penalty for being gay in the UK was struck down in 1967. Just to get an idea of how open the country is for people’s self identity when it is not traditional.

   My response:

   Looks like I hit a nerve. Are you saying that the factual statements about policy reversals by the U.K. NHS are false? You didn’t say a single word about the facts asserted in this article. Are you really and truly stooping to an ad hominem attack against someone based on the fact that they are a “college dropout”? Do you know any college dropouts? I have friends who have dropped out of college who are incredibly accomplished. One of them is the author of NINE science fiction books. Other friends of mine who never finished college (I never call them that pejorative term “college dropout”) are highly accomplished in other ways. Do you know any people who are “college dropouts”? Do you tell them that they don’t have any opinions worth listening to because they are “college dropouts”? Aren’t you concerned that, due to the prevailing ideology amplified by social media, young girls are being encouraged to engage in life-changing surgeries and injected hormones without thorough and vigorous discussion of the risks and benefits, including discussion about whether they are more or less prone to suicide and depression as a result of these dramatic interventions? Are you really attacking a 2020 change in policy by the NHS by referring to a U.K. law that existed in 1967? That sounds like ad hominem attack directed at an entire COUNTRY? The U.K. has done many good things over the past 50 years too, but are those relevant to THIS issue? Shouldn’t we focus better and discuss THIS issue? You also launched an ad hominem attack on an entire publication (Quillete), dismissing it out of hand, just because you call it not “reputable.” Have you ever taken the time to read any of the articles in Quillette? I think you would find many of them well written, well considered, pro-science, and with a classically liberal perspective. Dan, I thought you were self-critical and that you valued vigorous and open discussion of thorny issues. That person is not apparent in your comment. It appears that you have bought into ideology that this is merely a “civil rights” issue, and by making this single simple move you have given yourself license to ignore the fact that this is also a pressing issue of public health. Maybe if you had daughters (as I do) you would think of this issue differently. I posted this article from Quillete because I’m highly concerned about the health and welfare of many thousands of young girls. They deserve real discussion of these issues and they are not getting it from many traditional sources of “news.” The mere discussion of many viewpoints has been deemed off-limits via social pressure. I’d recommend that you hold your nose (if necessary) and take a deep dive into territory that seems to scare you. I was once where you are now, but I made myself take a much harder look at both the pro’s and con’s. Here’s a good place to start. I challenge you to invest 15 minutes of your time watching this discussion by Abigail Shrier and Joe Rogan:

2. 

   Erich Vieth August 7, 2020 Reply

   I’ve compared in detail. So much ideology and outright false information has been stripped out of the NHS statement. The new version will allow parents and their children to make critical decisions based on facts (and known unknowns) instead of social pressure and false urgency (such as the fear of suicide). Excerpt:

   Surgery

   GONE are the claims that surgery has a high rate of satisfaction:

   “After surgery, most trans women and men are happy with their new sex and feel comfortable with their gender identity. One review of a number of studies that were carried out over a 20-year period found that 96% of people who had genital reconstructive surgery were satisfied.”

   “Despite high levels of personal satisfaction, people who have had genital reconstructive surgery may face prejudice or discrimination because of their condition.”

   GONE also are the suggestions that hormones and surgery actually change your sex:

   “For some people, support and advice from a clinic are all they need to feel comfortable in their gender identity. Others will need more extensive treatment, such as a full transition to the opposite sex.”

   “Once you’ve completed your social gender role transition and you and your care team feels you’re ready, you may decide to have surgery to permanently alter your sex.”

   NEW is this more accurate statement:

   “Some people may decide to have surgery to permanently alter body parts associated with their biological sex.”

   NEW also is an acknowledgment of the reality, the risks and the limitations of surgery:

   “You’ll need lifelong monitoring of your hormone levels by your GP.”

   “As with all surgical procedures there can be complications. Your surgeon should discuss the risks and limitations of surgery with you before you consent to the procedure.”

3. 

   Erich Vieth August 7, 2020 Reply

   Check out this excerpt from the “About” statement of the website “Transgender Trend.”

   Over the past few years there has been a global rise in the number of children referred to gender clinics. There is no reliable scientific basis for the diagnosis of transgender, nor long-term research on the outcome of treatments. Setting children off on a path towards medicalisation with irreversible life-long effects is an experiment which has no precedent.

   Transgender Trend – Who Are We?

   We are an organisation of parents, professionals and academics based in the UK who are concerned about the current trend to diagnose children as transgender, including the unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly self-identifying as ‘trans’ (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria or ROGD). We are also concerned about legislation which places transgender rights above the right to safety for girls and young women in public toilets and changing rooms along with fairness for girls in sport.

   We have no religious or political affiliation. We come from diverse backgrounds, and our team includes teachers and safeguarding professionals, academics and parents, some of whom were themselves extreme gender non-conforming children and adolescents, some whose own children have self-diagnosed as ‘trans’ and some who know supportive trans adults who are also questioning recent theories of ‘transgenderism.’ Unfortunately because of the current climate our team members have to remain anonymous for the protection of their children or their jobs.

   Why ‘Transgender Trend’?

   Parents were telling us that this was the search term they were using to find alternative information about the sudden phenomenon of ‘transgender children’, as the only information they could find online came from transgender lobby groups. Our goal was to collate evidence-based research and studies to help explain the sudden upwards trend of referrals of children and adolescents to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), a trend which is reflected in the US, Canada, Australia and throughout Europe.

   We are concerned that the increased public awareness of transgender issues has led to parents worrying unnecessarily about normal childhood behaviours. We wanted to create a site which balanced the sudden slew of cheerleading media stories with some research and facts which challenge the prevailing acceptance of an ideology which is new, untested, and invariably based on personal belief systems.