Suddenly we’re back to racists. Was CS banned from competing because she was black trisher?
Starmer’s plan to ban under 16’s from social media
Have you got to this stage of life ?
McVitie's Marketing White Chocolate HobNobs?
Gransnet forums
Health
Transgender people who start hormones as teenagers rather than adults 'have better mental health’
(493 Posts)Transgender people who start their hormones as teenagers have “far better” mental health than if they wait until adulthood, new research says.
Experts have found that transgender people who begin hormone treatment in adolescence had fewer suicidal thoughts, were less likely to experience major mental health disorders and had fewer problems with substance abuse than those who started hormones later in life.
The study, which was led by the Stanford University School of Medicine, gathered data from the largest-ever survey of US transgender adults where 27,715 people responded in 2015.
Researchers found that, as well as fewer mental health concerns when taking the drugs as teenagers, those who took the drugs at any age had better mental health than those who wanted them but had never received them.
Of the people surveyed, 21,598 reported they had received the hormones they wanted. Of these people, 119 began hormones at age 14 or 15; 362 at age 16 and 17 and 12,157 following their 18th birthday.
Some 8,860 people surveyed said they wanted but never received hormone therapy and acted as the control group for the study.
Odds of severe psychological distress were reduced by 222 per cent, 153 per cent and 81 per cent for those who began hormones in early adolescence, late adolescence and adulthood, respectively.
Odds of feeling suicidal in the previous year were 135 per cent lower in those who began hormones in early adolescence, 62 per cent lower in those who began in late adolescence and 21 per cent lower in those who began as adults, compared with the control group.
Dr Jack Turban, lead author on the study and expert in paediatric and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford Medicine, said: “This study is particularly relevant now because many state legislatures are introducing bills that would outlaw this kind of care for transgender youth.
“We are adding to the evidence base that shows why gender-affirming care is beneficial from a mental health perspective.”
In the UK, hormone drugs can only be given to people from the age of 16 who have been on puberty blockers for at least 12 months.
Last September, the UK Court of Appeal overturned a judgment that children under the age of 16 considering gender reassignment were unlikely to be mature enough to give informed consent to be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs.
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/transgender-hormones-teenager-mental-health-b1991724.html
Doodledog you have tried, lord knows.
I am not au fait enough on this subject to get into it deeply but I do strongly object to being labelled anti trans and a canceller just because I don’t fall into line with the OP’s views.
As I said earlier, but no reply came, how are those who harass JK Rowling and various university lecturers not bullies ?
If I’m not supposed to call myself a woman, are men not allowed to call themselves men ?
I want children with gender dysphoria to have the best treatment, currently many countries are saying this may not be puberty blockers at a young age. Asking questions about this is not anti trans. Exactly the opposite I would have thought.
trisher
Doodledog can you explain to me why it is OK for you to target one poster with your remarks and yet pull in another posters comments when it suits you?.
Why not insead look at the discussion as a whole? So for the question of cis women you have been asked "what do you want?" It seems you want the impossible, well you really can't blame the rest of us if you don't get it. And that's really shutting it down isn't it. No one can give you the impossible so just try focusing what is posssible and perhaps there is compromise somewhere. But the idea that woman has always just meant people who were born women is just wrong, it never has, it never will. No matter how much you legislate (and there have been societies who have attempted to eliminate what they saw as deviant) there will always be people whose birth gender doesn't match their chosen gender. They are simply now more open about it.
Whatever I'd done would have been wrong. I can do the same with the whole thread if you like, but maybe not today - I have chores to do.
I don't want the impossible. The notion that TWAW is in your head, and the heads of others who want to change nature. It is not true that no-one can 'give me' recognition of that.
I don't want to eliminate deviance - not at all. Please don't spin my words into suggestions that I am intolerant, particularly in the light of my post above.
It is not 'an idea' that women just means people born as women'. It is a fact. That doesn't mean that transwomen can't 'live as' women, taking into account that these days women can live in many different ways. The idea that there is somehow a lifestyle that encapsulates womanhood is one I struggle with, so 'living as a woman' doesn't really compute for me; but I understand the gist of it.
The fact that transpeople have always been with us is true, but not relevant to whether or not they are women in the true sense of the word.
I'm not sure how I can compromise. I mean, I am happy to accept transwomen as they are. If one joined the WI or the NWR, or the Ladies' knitting circle (assuming I belonged to any of these things) I would happily include her. I would use her preferred name and gender and lend her my lipstick if I wore it. None of that is meant to sound flippant - I just don't grasp the 'live as a woman' thing in that sense. Nevertheless I am not phobic or anti-trans. I can't prove that on here, but it is true.
What I can't accept is that someone with male gametes is a woman, or that they should be able to compete with women in sport and so on, or insist that the language should change to accommodate them, as doing so eradicates women. That is simply not fair, and I don't understand why that compromise can't come from the TRAs?
Galaxy
No CS cant compete in womens sports because she has one of five specific conditions that exclude them from womens sport. It would apply to anyone who had that condition.
The reason given for banning is specifically her high level of testosterone. She has been told that taking drugs to lower this would enable her to compete. Unfortuantely the WHO advises medical practitioners not to administer such drugs. She is undoubtedly a black woman, raised as a woman who competed as a woman until she began to win medals then she was challenged. The real anomaly is that there is absolutely no evidence that high levels of natural testosterone have any influence on performance.
theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448
*So black female athletes aren't worth supporting, they should
"stop putting themselves forward for testing". Accept that becaiuse they look different and are physically superior, white female athletes will constantly challenge their right to run, and they will be forced to be tested every time they want to compete and to take compulsory medication because their body does not conform with an unsupported medical belief.
Honestly it's just short of KKK stuff.*
trisher, please stop doing this?
I was very careful to say that I have every sympathy with CS. I also said that there is no reason why she shouldn't live her life as she wishes. However, as things stand, that stance will mean that she is subject to testing, which is, apparently (I have no knowledge of this area) deeply unpleasant. If that is the situation, and if there is no other way of testing (which these days seems unlikely) then there is a choice. An unfair choice, but that is the situation.
I am nowhere near the KKK in anything I think or do, and if you are honest with yourself, I am sure you know this. Posting accusations like that is offensive and frankly ridiculous.
Doodledog
trisher
Doodledog can you explain to me why it is OK for you to target one poster with your remarks and yet pull in another posters comments when it suits you?.
Why not insead look at the discussion as a whole? So for the question of cis women you have been asked "what do you want?" It seems you want the impossible, well you really can't blame the rest of us if you don't get it. And that's really shutting it down isn't it. No one can give you the impossible so just try focusing what is posssible and perhaps there is compromise somewhere. But the idea that woman has always just meant people who were born women is just wrong, it never has, it never will. No matter how much you legislate (and there have been societies who have attempted to eliminate what they saw as deviant) there will always be people whose birth gender doesn't match their chosen gender. They are simply now more open about it.Whatever I'd done would have been wrong. I can do the same with the whole thread if you like, but maybe not today - I have chores to do.
I don't want the impossible. The notion that TWAW is in your head, and the heads of others who want to change nature. It is not true that no-one can 'give me' recognition of that.
I don't want to eliminate deviance - not at all. Please don't spin my words into suggestions that I am intolerant, particularly in the light of my post above.
It is not 'an idea' that women just means people born as women'. It is a fact. That doesn't mean that transwomen can't 'live as' women, taking into account that these days women can live in many different ways. The idea that there is somehow a lifestyle that encapsulates womanhood is one I struggle with, so 'living as a woman' doesn't really compute for me; but I understand the gist of it.
The fact that transpeople have always been with us is true, but not relevant to whether or not they are women in the true sense of the word.
I'm not sure how I can compromise. I mean, I am happy to accept transwomen as they are. If one joined the WI or the NWR, or the Ladies' knitting circle (assuming I belonged to any of these things) I would happily include her. I would use her preferred name and gender and lend her my lipstick if I wore it. None of that is meant to sound flippant - I just don't grasp the 'live as a woman' thing in that sense. Nevertheless I am not phobic or anti-trans. I can't prove that on here, but it is true.
What I can't accept is that someone with male gametes is a woman, or that they should be able to compete with women in sport and so on, or insist that the language should change to accommodate them, as doing so eradicates women. That is simply not fair, and I don't understand why that compromise can't come from the TRAs?
Doodledog if you don't understand that the boat has sailed and standing on the quayside crying ain't gona make it turn round I don't know what you can do. Transwomen believe they are women, transmen believe they are men. You don't. They can't change their belief to suit you. So you may continue to call them transwomen if you wish. But if you want to be delineated as someone who was born a woman then you are going to have to come up with something, because if you use the term woman I will always regard transwomen as being part of that group. So will they, so will many other people. The language isn't changing as I said before they have always been there. The fact that you now know they are there doesn't change things. The fact that you reject the term they have given you -ciswoman is fine, you can use woman, you can even refer to them as transwomen if you wish, what you can't do is stop them, or any of us , referring to them as women. So whatever legislation is brought in they will still be women and transmen will still be men.
Doodledog
*So black female athletes aren't worth supporting, they should
"stop putting themselves forward for testing". Accept that becaiuse they look different and are physically superior, white female athletes will constantly challenge their right to run, and they will be forced to be tested every time they want to compete and to take compulsory medication because their body does not conform with an unsupported medical belief.
Honestly it's just short of KKK stuff.*
trisher, please stop doing this?
I was very careful to say that I have every sympathy with CS. I also said that there is no reason why she shouldn't live her life as she wishes. However, as things stand, that stance will mean that she is subject to testing, which is, apparently (I have no knowledge of this area) deeply unpleasant. If that is the situation, and if there is no other way of testing (which these days seems unlikely) then there is a choice. An unfair choice, but that is the situation.
I am nowhere near the KKK in anything I think or do, and if you are honest with yourself, I am sure you know this. Posting accusations like that is offensive and frankly ridiculous.
Dodledog if you don't understand that offering "sympathy" to a black person is equivalent to the most racist attitude in history that isn't my fault.
If you can't be bothered to find out about the discrimination that black women athletes suffer that isn't my fault. You only have to Google it. But here's one article www.salon.com/2021/07/06/shacarri-richardson-black-women-olympics-misogynoir/
I regard finding out about these things as part of my intersectional feminism, of recognising my white privilege, if you don't want to do that that's fine I suppose.
I'll withdraw my KKK accusation.
No one is standing anywhere and crying, we are fighting via the courts and frequently being successful. No one is sobbing honestly.
Debbie Hayton is a transwoman who understands that she is still male. There must be other transwomen with the same view. They are individuals the same as anyone else surely.
Racism is a HUGE diversion from the OP but since it has once again been raised by you, I’ll go with it and add my own diversion.
You’re right trisher, offering sympathy to black athletes when they’re not allowed to compete because of their colour could be considered racist. Offering sympathy to female athletes who’ve been pushed out of competing or lost medal chances because of male athletes competing as women is equally unfair don’t you think?
Yes there are a number of gender critical transwomen. I follow fionne orlander on twitter, lovely posts on art and just general whimsy. Probably my favourite person on Twitter. Very calm.
trisher it is an absolute falsehood to say that the word woman has always included men, and you make yourself look foolish or dishonest when you assert this. Why has the dictionary definition been "adult human female" since dictionaries have been published? There is a way back from the highjacking of our term by men. We refuse to concede our word without a fight.
You are doing it again.
It's not a case of 'can't be bothered', and there is bugger all I can do about CS's case (and in any case it is clear from Galaxy's post that there is more to it than meets the eye).
Further, the fact that someone is black does not mean that white people (intersections feminist or not) should automatically leap to their defence - doing so would be, in itself, racist.
I see CS's case, as far as this thread is concerned, as a diversion from the topic.
Wrt your post above this one - clearly there is going to be no compromise from your side. As far as you are concerned, because a minority has decided that they are something they (biologically) are not, everyone else has to believe them. You have decided, 'they' believe it, so therefore it is true.
You seem happy that, as ever, men can tell women what to do. Move aside and let them dominate sport, let them touch us intimately without our necessarily even knowing that they are doing it, skew research figures so that there is less chance of a pushback, misinform stats on pay, make a nonsense of sex-based shortlists for appointments, demonise those who don't fancy them or want a same sex relationship that excludes those with male gametes and so on, and so on.
And yes, I know that there are transmen, but their situation is different as they (generally) are 'entering' the other sex from a position of weakness. They are unlikely to be able to beat most men at sport, there are fewer intimate examinations for most male patients than for most female ones, they have been socialised as female so are less likely to automatically dominate single sex gatherings than transwomen in a female space, they are less likely to have had preferential treatment in the workplace before transitioning and so on, and so on.
I am not 'standing on the Quayside crying' - not my style. I am not, however going to meekly defer to a narrative that pushes the patriarchy even further into women's lives and life chances.
The withdrawal of your KKK accusation is noted, thank you.
trisher me too, trans women are women and unless there is a medical need or they wish me to know for personal reasons, or we are discussing general issues faced due to transitioning... I don't see any reason for them or myself to differentiate.
Rosie51
trisher it is an absolute falsehood to say that the word woman has always included men, and you make yourself look foolish or dishonest when you assert this. Why has the dictionary definition been "adult human female" since dictionaries have been published? There is a way back from the highjacking of our term by men. We refuse to concede our word without a fight.
Probably because dictionary definitions are written mostly by white academic men who live restricted lives and who are trying to make everything definable. Unfortunately real life isn't. So amongst those living as women there have always been people who were identfied as male at birth and amongst those living as men there have always been some designated female at birth. No one bothered to examine these people to make sure they were "adult females" or indeed "adult males" they passed as women and men, which is exactly why this is a gender term and nothing to do with sex.
I don't think anyone actually lives in a dictionary.
VS saying transwomen are women when women are Adult Human Females is silly and wrong, but it’s your prerogative to say that, so go ahead. It won’t make it any more true.
Well no because in lots of situations we dont differentiate between the sexes, if I am having a conversation about what to make for tea with my brother and my sister I dont differentiate between their sexes. How people present is irrelevant frequently.
However If my brother says he would like to join a womans sports team then I would differentiate.
We think gender is deeply oppressive trisher. I reject gender. I think the phrases living like a woman are from the 1950s and as you mentioned were created by the very academic men you seem to have a problem with.
Hang on. So now it is not the case that the word 'woman' has always included men? But that's because men wrote the dictionaries.
Well, the second point is undoubtedly true, but the first point has taken a swift U turn since you insisted it had been used as a unisex word from the get go. Talk about blowing with the wind.
And 100% yes to your last post, Galaxy. 95% of the time (approximate number, based on purely anecdotal evidence ?) it really doesn't matter. But when it matters, it matters. And it usually matters far more to women than to men, which is why it is a feminist matter.
Sorry for all the matters?
Galaxy
We think gender is deeply oppressive trisher. I reject gender. I think the phrases living like a woman are from the 1950s and as you mentioned were created by the very academic men you seem to have a problem with.
Which of these people is 'presenting as a woman'?
The middle one looks like they are doing hard maths doodle so I think they are a man 
Galaxy
The middle one looks like they are doing hard maths doodle so I think they are a man
?
I actually understand that men have and continue to use gender as a box to put woman in that is labelled with definitions of how a woman should think and act in order to be one.
But woman for me is how I express myself and part of my individual whole, unboxed, defined by myself, not men.
Also it is important when we have those who want to identify as one gender or the other or, to not identify as any gender at all, to have the means to do so as a means to express their individuality.
Do away with gender and some men will still define us based on our sex, some men will still have expectations based on the organs under our clothes and actually it will make no difference but to reduce us further.
I have already seen many sexist men refer to women as "females", then continue to explain their sexual expectations of us, because they can get everything they need elsewhere and the only thing we are good for is sex. I'd point you to the forums that back this up but they have been removed, and thank goodness for that.
Whst you have described sounds like your personality violet. And probably you choose to express yourself differently to me. So how can what you seem to be talking about mean woman when it would only apply to you. Not sure I have expressed that clearly.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »