When asked how he would respond if a transgender athlete said the decision was unfair, Lord Coe told Sky News: "We don't have any transgender athletes in international competition
As usual, Chill is lying, by cutting bits of what was said to suit his manifesto
All the bold stuff is what Chill deliberately cut to mislead
When asked how he would respond if a transgender athlete said the decision was unfair, Lord Coe told Sky News: "We don't have any transgender athletes in international competition, that day may come.
"But until we understand a great deal more about the science around this, which we don't, we have to fall back on a fundamental principle and that is that we are here charged with the responsibility of defending the female category, and that is what we have done."
As usual, Chill, what exactly in what has been said (the true version, not your headline) do you object to specifically and why do you object to it?
The sporting bodies and amateur clubs also need to go back now, and recognise every female who was cheated out of awards, recognition and prize money, because men were given, and willingly took, from the women.
Paris Lees, Laverne Cox, Caitlyn Jenner, Hunter Shafer, India Willoughby can you hear me, India Willoughby can you hear me, your boys took a helllll of a beating!
There are plenty of men competing in female sports below this level. Of course it's sensible to address the issue before it comes up at the elite level. All that has to happen is one bloke to say he's a woman and it becomes the main story. As a governing body it would be crazy not to address it you loon.
Although, I'm guessing that this sort of preemptive clarification must frustrate the hell out of you, what with your martyr complex. I mean, where's the mileage in letting people know in advance what the rules are! It's much more satisfying for you and your mob to wait until a trans person is subjected to intense and distressing public scrutiny, so that you can proclaim, with glee, how very horrid the world is, and then go get yourself off to your version of misery porn.
oh but - to be clear - this one isn’t a disappointment (sorry thought this was the sir keir thread)
sports are sports - they’re constructed competitions
if one says “we’re going to allocate competitors based on their testosterone levels” or one says “we’re going to do it based on whether you’ve gone through puberty” or one says “we’re going to categorize on weight levels” or “arm length” or “do you have a prostate” it makes no difference
it’s a sport - those are the rules and you compete on that level
if someone created an ironman just for red-headed people - well, that’s the competition rules and if you win, you’re the best red-haired ironman and well done you
it’s all social distinctions
as long as you follow the rules they’ve set, well done to you
i’m not hehing at the decision, i’m hehing at the fact they admit they’ve made it when there are no trans athletes competing
its a dog whistle
i’ve made this same point three times now and you keep trying to pretend i’m making a different one
again - i don’t have an issue with the decision, it’s sports, they can determine their competition rules however they want and then athletes can compete on those terms
no trans person is entitled to be able to compete in the world athletics
I see you're being as obtuse on this thread as on the other one (the one where you don't understand the father Ted meme, despite or perhaps because of being the board's modern equivalent of the witchfinder general)
eg if the faa tomorrow says “we’ll allow women to play on men’s teams as long as they’re over 6 foot 5 in height, and we’ll allow men to play on women’s teams as long as they’re under 5 foot 3 in height”
that would be stupid of course but those would be the rules and well done to any men/women that made them work for them and were on a winning team
this is what i said many times when posters were shouting abuse at lia thomas - she followed the rules as they were, if you don’t like it get the rules changed
world athletics has - they say they’re waiting for the science which is fine
in the show, father ted does a bunch of stuff that appears racist (but isn’t, but the community doesn’t know that) and then the chap pops up saying “should we all be racists now, father? is that the church’s line? except i have a lot on my plate and don’t have time for a lot of racism” etc
Chill have you changed your long term view then? I thought you'd said that you thought long term Team Chill will win?- which is my probably my view as well.
think that mostly depends on what you mean by “long term” tbf clive
trans rights are human rights and the trend of europe (and history) will be on their side
but section 28 was very popular in this country within my lifetime (and a very popular poster on this board has advocated for children not to be taught about gender) so it’s not like regression can never happen
rubbing yourself furiously to thoughts of glinner being vindicated i’m sure big boy
Most of the times were while I was at university and smoking with my flat mates between 1998 and 2001, and I didn’t know who “Glinner” was never mind care about his vindication. The times since I’ve watched it with my wife I haven’t even thought about him. It’s quite impressive how you’re wrong so often. On everything.
Meh, it's a fair and reasonable accommidation to restrict women who have a material advantage in a particular sport through experiencing biological male puberty from competition. Just goes to emphasise the importance of helping trans people to avoid the terrible effects of having to experience puberty as a biological sex that does not match their gender. As the medical community continue and expand their good work, this sort of issue will largely solve itself.
The casual mis-gendering from scum like Rumpole and Tom Fun of course betray the fact that they don't really care about fairness or anything like it, this issue is just another vehicle for their absurd irrational bigotry.
No-one wants to deprive trans people of their rights.
The questions are: do they have a right to force us to let them compete in women's sports? Is that a right they have? and; if they do have that right, how should we balance it against cis women's rights to exclude them from women's sports?
In my view, they don't have that right: nobody is able to unilaterally insist that they have rights that have never existed before, society as a whole has to decide whether it is a right. And if they do have the right, it must give way to cis women's rights to only compete only against cis women. Not everyone can have everything they want merely because they demand it.
Oh fvck off. I don’t believe in gender identities and I’m not going to be forced to use inaccurate language because other people do. All this sh1t started because it didn’t seem much to ask to pretend a man was a woman, and it ended up with rapists in women’s prisons and this debate about women having their own fair sport. Fvck right off.
just fwiw, puberty blockers don’t affect fertility
there’s some reports they affect sexual response but no studies on it (and ofc so do some antidepressants and many other medications that aren’t controversial)
this new civil service staff network is brilliant - and all of us in law firms where the narrative has been captured by stonewall looney tunes should take it as a model and set up an equivalent.
From the article "it is also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of factors like bone mineral density, brain development and fertility in transgender patients"
More lies from Chill, who knows there is an interim Cass Review report covering this very topic, as I have posted passages from it many times in response to lies like the above from him
From the Cass Review's interim report:
‘There has been research on the short-term mental health outcomes and physical side effects of puberty blockers for this cohort, but very limited research on the sexual, cognitive or broader developmental outcomes.
In the short-term, puberty blockers may have a range of side effects such as headaches, hot flushes, weight gain, tiredness, low mood and anxiety, all of which may make day-to-day functioning more difficult for a child or young person who is already experiencing distress. Short-term reduction in bone density is a well-recognised side effect, but data is weak and inconclusive regarding the long-term musculoskeletal impact.
The most difficult question is whether puberty blockers do indeed provide valuable time for children and young people to consider their options, or whether they effectively ‘lock in’ children and young people to a treatment pathway which culminates in progression to feminising/ masculinising hormones by impeding the usual process of sexual orientation and gender identity development. Data from both the Netherlands and the study conducted by GIDS demonstrated that almost all children and young people who are put on puberty blockers go on to sex hormone treatment.
A closely linked concern is the unknown impacts on development, maturation and cognition if a child or young person is not exposed to the physical, psychological, physiological, neurochemical and sexual changes that accompany adolescent hormone surges. It is known that adolescence is a period of significant changes in brain structure, function and connectivity.
During this period, the brain strengthens some connections (myelination) and cuts back on others (synaptic pruning). There is maturation and development of frontal lobe functions which control decision making, emotional regulation, judgement and planning ability. Animal research suggests that this development is partially driven by the pubertal sex hormones, but it is unclear whether the same is true in humans. If pubertal sex hormones are essential to these brain maturation processes, this raises a secondary question of whether there is a critical time window for the processes to take place, or whether catch up is possible when oestrogen or testosterone is introduced later.
An international interdisciplinary panel has highlighted the importance of understanding the neurodevelopmental outcomes of pubertal suppression and defined an appropriate approach for investigating this further. However, this work has not yet been undertaken.’
rumpole your quote (as usual) has nothing to do with anything i’ve posted
anna’s 11.15 is simply lies about the effects of puberty blockers (i think she may have been mixing them up with hormone treatments, which can affect fertility, which she kind of nods at in her 13.17)
Some of the adverse health events reported in children given such gonadotropine releasing hormone analogs:
Damage to the hypothalamus, pituatary gland and gonads, bone fractures, blood disorders, height and body mass decreases, permanent loss of bone mineral density, early menopause, fatigue, chronic pain, mood swings, hot flashes, infertility, seizures, brittle bones, depression, anxiety, osteoporosis, decreased IQ, and impairment to cognitive functions such as linguistic ability, short-term memory capacity, mental flexibility, and inhibitory control
One of the issues raised in these proceedings is the non-existent or poor evidence base, as it is said to be, for the efficacy of such treatment for children and young persons with GD.
In that context, we note that though this research study was commenced some 9 years ago, at the time of the hearing before us the results of this research had yet to be published. Dr Carmichael says in her witness statement dated 2 February 2020 that a paper is now being finalised for publication. At the hearing we were told that that this paper had been submitted for peer-review but that Professor Viner, one of the authorsof it, had yet to respond to issues raised by the reviewers, as he has been otherwise engaged in working on issues relating to the coronavirus pandemic.
Finally, so many years later, it was made available and makes for bleak reading, hence them being so reluctant to report anything about it presumably Lifelong changes to the bodies of children, needless harm caused
-No significant effect on the psychological health of the children (thoughts of self-harm or body image - no change)
They literally stop the body from going through the natural process to become fertile in the first place, and the NHS now acknowledges that it is not known what the effects on fertility might be if a child stops taking puberty blockers in the hope of their body returning to its natural state. (It is of course clear that a child who stops taking puberty blockers and continues on to cross sex hormones and potentially surgery will never become fertile.)
fine - i wouldn’t agree with your obvious biased phrasing, but if you’d said that anna i wouldn’t have had to correct you
but what you said was
He means putting them on puberty blockers, which means they'll never orgasm, never have children of their own,
I find it extremely hard to imagine you ever went to university, given the depths of your ignorance, your total disregard for decent sources of info, and your chilling response to clear harm having been caused to children who will now live with lifelong effects of that needless harm caused.
You recently didn't know the difference between a sworn affidavit and an interview in your-fav-celeb-juice.
Is this "I'm a solicitor" thing all a lark to you?
Recently even the pioneer ‘gender affirming’ surgeons in the US have spoken out about the risks of putting children onto puberty blockers. Marci Bowers, who transitioned at the age of 38, admitted that children who undergo transition before puberty will never have adult sexual function or experience orgasm.
‘”An observation that I had,” said Bowers, “every single child who was, or adolescent, who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2,” which is the beginning of physical development, when hormones begin their work of advancing a child to adulthood, “has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it’s really about zero.”‘
‘Bowers said that an additional concern is that when a boy child undergoes this process, the penis does not grow, which makes it hard to take that genital material and surgically give it the appearance of the genital area of the opposite sex.’
If they stay on them (and the associated sex hormones to maintain their chosen gender identity), that's true, isn't it? I mean, you cannot both be on puberty blockers / hormone treatment AND be fertile in the only way that your natal sex allows you to be, isn't that right? And there is still not a great deal of evidence about the potential long term effects on fertility, is there?
Re sexual pleasure - I'm actually not sure how one measures that - yes, the blockers inhibit the hormones that contribute to orgasm, but I can believe that, if your head really was in severe turmoil because you didn't recognise the sex you were born with as yours, the sense of freedom from not having to deal with the physicality of that sex would, I imagine, actually make you sexually freer and more comfortable, and far more likely to enjoy sex (after all, orgasm isn't the only point of sex).
Still can't shake my sense that there is something deeply muddleheaded about allowing a child to make a decision to so completely screw with his / her own biology in this way, it requires us to just ignore the truth of how human beings work, both physically and mentally.
I can't see the rationale behind someone being able to choose to legally make such a life changing decision about their body before they are legally able to vote, or smoke a cigarette, or drive a car.
I may be missing an important part in the whole discussion here but permanently changing one's gender seems a much more important decision than the other three and so presumably should require at least an equal level of maturity
"I may be missing an important part in the whole discussion here but permanently changing one's gender seems a much more important decision than the other three and so presumably should require at least an equal level of maturity".
You'd think so...
But, to balance the discussion, none of those three decisions are, by definition, front loaded with years of the sort of emotional damage that, we are told, comes with having to continue to live as the "wrong" sex. Damage which, you can understand, is very likely to be exacerbated by having to live through and see the physical development into that "wrong" sex that puberty brings.
Still don't think it makes it anything other than a very, very bad idea though.
If chill could just admit to being a bit of a dick in the first place for scoffing at the timing of the World Athletics announcement, and try basing his assumptions of good or bad faith on something other than Stonewall's Twitter output, then I for one would be happy to leave it at that...
Heh. Great thread. The usual pattern of trolling, pwning, running away. Can't wait for this evenings round of double down, drunken centrist duds popping in to shout at a woman, thread deletion.
yes i have to agree this thread is symptomatic of my least favorite bits of rof
for example, this from anna at 14.10:
if you wait until their frontal cortex is fully developed then they will most likely have grown out of it
there’s no real excusing this - it’s just bigoted, hateful anti-trans rhetoric. the inference is that trans kids aren’t “really” trans, it’s just a phase, or they’re not mentally developed enough to understand that they’re cis
but everyone let’s it slide (yes i’m calling out the centrists and “soft-gc” posters who know actual trans people), and it’s left to me to take the inevitable abuse that anna will now try to deliver
why?
when did we decide we were ok with a board where open transphobic rhetoric was allowed (and often celebrated, tcv)?
i remember when posters would pop up with homophobic of racist language they’d be shot down mercilessly
anna’s post above has nothing to do with “women's rights” - it’s just implying trans people aren’t “really” trans
just fwiw...It's a bit tricky for you to take the high ground in a thread where you've posted that puberty blockers "do not effect fertility" and that "the effects are reversible", only to post a link to a wiki page which explicitly states that the latter is in fact unknown.
Your original assertion is dangerous and reckless if you did not know whether the effects were reversible or not.
Puberty blockers clearly do effect fertility (whether this is a permanent thing is unknown)
That's just bullsh1t, chill, more of you giving in, as so often, to your apparently insatiable need to claim victim status by proxy - it's just you finding yet more reasons to ferociously clutch your pearls and fall on the fainting couch that you carry around with for just such an occasion.
Anna is disputing whether a pre-pubescent child is likely to be emotionally developed enough to make life changing decisions of this nature, given that there is a very decent chance that, as he/she grows and matures, he/she might no longer feel the need to go down that path.
You might disagree with that, you might be of the opinion that children under 16 are able to decide such things (and to fully appreciate and assess the potential impact of their decision), but there is nothing fvcking anti-trans about "Anna's" position
I mean, she literally says this, in her comment to me:-
"If you're an adult and you've spent your entire life feeling that you should have been born the opposite sex, and you understand that you can never actually change sex but still feel that you would find it easier to live your life if you take cross sex hormones and have surgery and present as much as possible as though you were the opposite sex, that's a different matter."
But, of course, you can't possibly acknowledge that, because then what would you wail and whine about? How ever would you validate your position as one of The Oppressed, where would you get your emotional jollies?
Anna is disputing whether a pre-pubescent child is likely to be emotionally developed enough to make life changing decisions of this nature, given that there is a very decent chance that, as he/she grows and matures, he/she might no longer feel the need to go down that path.
no she’s not cru
here - this is what she said (again):
He means putting them on puberty blockers, which means they'll never orgasm, never have children of their own
if you wait until their frontal cortex is fully developed then they will most likely have grown out of it
i mean this is what i’m calling out - unarguably anti-trans rhetoric
of course if you pretend she said something else, or pick and choose more qualified things she says, you can agree with it (i might even agree with it!)
"Eleven studies have been conducted looking at whether gender dysphoria persists throughout childhood. On average 80% of children change their minds and do not continue into adulthood as transgender. Some of these studies are very old, the first being published in 1968 and others in the 1980s. This was during a time when being transgender was not accepted as widely in society as it is now so it can be argued that this may have influenced many to change their minds"
If you believe that having concerns about children taking life-changing decisions is fundamentally "anti-trans", then not "lol @ you", more "wtf @ you, and could someone please make sure that this fool is never allowed sole care of any child, because he is not capable".
0
0
Heh
0
0
i had to heh @ this tbf
so… just a dog whistle then 🙄
0
0
How are they planning to verify that a woman athlete has not been through male puberty?
10
0
As usual, Chill is lying, by cutting bits of what was said to suit his manifesto
All the bold stuff is what Chill deliberately cut to mislead
When asked how he would respond if a transgender athlete said the decision was unfair, Lord Coe told Sky News: "We don't have any transgender athletes in international competition, that day may come.
"But until we understand a great deal more about the science around this, which we don't, we have to fall back on a fundamental principle and that is that we are here charged with the responsibility of defending the female category, and that is what we have done."
As usual, Chill, what exactly in what has been said (the true version, not your headline) do you object to specifically and why do you object to it?
9
0
It’s a good start. It needs to be extended down past elite levels.
13
0
The sporting bodies and amateur clubs also need to go back now, and recognise every female who was cheated out of awards, recognition and prize money, because men were given, and willingly took, from the women.
7
0
Great idea, Rumpole.
0
0
Chill? Chill? You there?
3
0
Paris Lees, Laverne Cox, Caitlyn Jenner, Hunter Shafer, India Willoughby can you hear me, India Willoughby can you hear me, your boys took a helllll of a beating!
1
0
what you talking about rumpole?
my point is there are no transgender athletes, as he said
they’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t currently exist
dunno what your bolded portion adds (other than a hypothetical “but what if trans people start competing?”)
7
0
There are plenty of men competing in female sports below this level. Of course it's sensible to address the issue before it comes up at the elite level. All that has to happen is one bloke to say he's a woman and it becomes the main story. As a governing body it would be crazy not to address it you loon.
1
0
Hopefully the UCI will come to their senses.
1
0
Sorry, you think they shouldn't rule on this until it adversely affects someone already competing ?
0
0
they can rule on whatever they want eeyore
i’m just hehing that the problem they’re worrying about doesn’t actually exist
9
0
God help your clients if you scoff at them for anticipating issues in a similar way.
9
0
What eeyore said.
Although, I'm guessing that this sort of preemptive clarification must frustrate the hell out of you, what with your martyr complex. I mean, where's the mileage in letting people know in advance what the rules are! It's much more satisfying for you and your mob to wait until a trans person is subjected to intense and distressing public scrutiny, so that you can proclaim, with glee, how very horrid the world is, and then go get yourself off to your version of misery porn.
0
0
i don’t have any particular issue with the decision cru (I’ve said this many many times)
i’m hehing cause they’ve invented a solution to an issue that they admit doesn’t exist
its a 🐶😗
5
0
Chill mate get used to these kinds of disappointments
0
0
um have you seen what’s happening in america occam?
i’m very used to them and expect the teaching of gender and gender affirmative healthcare to be banned in the uk in the next three to five years
u don’t have to worry about how i see the trend of lgbt rights going!
1
0
oh but - to be clear - this one isn’t a disappointment (sorry thought this was the sir keir thread)
sports are sports - they’re constructed competitions
if one says “we’re going to allocate competitors based on their testosterone levels” or one says “we’re going to do it based on whether you’ve gone through puberty” or one says “we’re going to categorize on weight levels” or “arm length” or “do you have a prostate” it makes no difference
it’s a sport - those are the rules and you compete on that level
if someone created an ironman just for red-headed people - well, that’s the competition rules and if you win, you’re the best red-haired ironman and well done you
it’s all social distinctions
as long as you follow the rules they’ve set, well done to you
3
0
As long as they don't decide those rules until you've already started to compete. That's your point, right ? That's what you're scoffing at ?
0
0
they can decide on any rules they want eeyore
as can the ioc or any sports body
i’m not hehing at the decision, i’m hehing at the fact they admit they’ve made it when there are no trans athletes competing
its a dog whistle
i’ve made this same point three times now and you keep trying to pretend i’m making a different one
again - i don’t have an issue with the decision, it’s sports, they can determine their competition rules however they want and then athletes can compete on those terms
no trans person is entitled to be able to compete in the world athletics
3
0
Except they are. Entirely entitled to
4
0
I see you're being as obtuse on this thread as on the other one (the one where you don't understand the father Ted meme, despite or perhaps because of being the board's modern equivalent of the witchfinder general)
0
0
eg if the faa tomorrow says “we’ll allow women to play on men’s teams as long as they’re over 6 foot 5 in height, and we’ll allow men to play on women’s teams as long as they’re under 5 foot 3 in height”
that would be stupid of course but those would be the rules and well done to any men/women that made them work for them and were on a winning team
this is what i said many times when posters were shouting abuse at lia thomas - she followed the rules as they were, if you don’t like it get the rules changed
world athletics has - they say they’re waiting for the science which is fine
those are now the rules of that competition
0
0
eeyore tbh i don’t know how to explain myself any further - i’ve done it four times now in different ways
i don’t think you understood what i was hehing at tbh
0
0
well occam used the meme incorrectly (or to be exact, in a way contrary to his own position)
it’s meant to be used when people are portraying racism/homophobia/bigotry and you’re ironically agreeing with them
not when someone’s doing something you actually agree with
0
0
you post it to suella braverman when she says something super racist but is pretending she’s not, for example
4
0
Do you even watch Father Ted bro?
0
0
Amazing
0
0
yes occam
do you know what a meme is?
1
0
Could you PERHAPS extend the application to someone saying something DEFINITELY IS RACIST and then reverse-ferreting and saying it is?
Asking for tens of thousands of people on the internet who have used this meme in this way.
0
0
*definitely isn’t
4
0
Down with this sort of thing !
0
0
Heh @ Eeyore!
2
0
What’s the penalty for an incorrect use of a meme according to Chill? Do I have to have bottom surgery?
0
0
eh?
how does the meme work there?
(i’m not saying you’re wrong tbh occam i just can’t parse that easily)
father ted says something that isn’t racist then “reverse-ferrets” and says it is, then the chap agrees with him?
how does that relate to world athletics?
0
0
in the show, father ted does a bunch of stuff that appears racist (but isn’t, but the community doesn’t know that) and then the chap pops up saying “should we all be racists now, father? is that the church’s line? except i have a lot on my plate and don’t have time for a lot of racism” etc
0
0
how does that apply to what keir or world athletics have said?
0
0
i don’t really care tbh - it’s just a kittens use of the meme
1
0
Chill type “TERF now Father” into Twitter and feel free to debate it with the thousands of people available to you as interlocutors.
0
0
so… you haven’t watched the show, you just got it from terf twitter and decided to repost it
ok then 👌
1
0
Lol @ never watched the show. Thousands of times Chill old boy. Thousands.
0
0
heh
rubbing yourself furiously to thoughts of glinner being vindicated i’m sure big boy
0
0
Chill have you changed your long term view then? I thought you'd said that you thought long term Team Chill will win?- which is my probably my view as well.
0
0
think that mostly depends on what you mean by “long term” tbf clive
trans rights are human rights and the trend of europe (and history) will be on their side
but section 28 was very popular in this country within my lifetime (and a very popular poster on this board has advocated for children not to be taught about gender) so it’s not like regression can never happen
0
0
(and there isn’t really any “winning” imo - it’s just a debate about human rights with fluctuate all the time)
0
0
Most of the times were while I was at university and smoking with my flat mates between 1998 and 2001, and I didn’t know who “Glinner” was never mind care about his vindication. The times since I’ve watched it with my wife I haven’t even thought about him. It’s quite impressive how you’re wrong so often. On everything.
0
0
Meh, it's a fair and reasonable accommidation to restrict women who have a material advantage in a particular sport through experiencing biological male puberty from competition. Just goes to emphasise the importance of helping trans people to avoid the terrible effects of having to experience puberty as a biological sex that does not match their gender. As the medical community continue and expand their good work, this sort of issue will largely solve itself.
The casual mis-gendering from scum like Rumpole and Tom Fun of course betray the fact that they don't really care about fairness or anything like it, this issue is just another vehicle for their absurd irrational bigotry.
0
0
Can we go back to when Kathy Smallwood was cheated out of medals, including gold, by Soviet and Soviet satellite athletes?
2
0
No-one wants to deprive trans people of their rights.
The questions are: do they have a right to force us to let them compete in women's sports? Is that a right they have? and; if they do have that right, how should we balance it against cis women's rights to exclude them from women's sports?
In my view, they don't have that right: nobody is able to unilaterally insist that they have rights that have never existed before, society as a whole has to decide whether it is a right. And if they do have the right, it must give way to cis women's rights to only compete only against cis women. Not everyone can have everything they want merely because they demand it.
5
0
“Casual misgendering”
Oh fvck off. I don’t believe in gender identities and I’m not going to be forced to use inaccurate language because other people do. All this sh1t started because it didn’t seem much to ask to pretend a man was a woman, and it ended up with rapists in women’s prisons and this debate about women having their own fair sport. Fvck right off.
0
0
Did you see this, Anna?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-staff-networks…
Interesting development.
1
0
You can sign up to their mailing list without being a member.
Imagine the HR gonks at the remaining Stonewall-captured HMG departments seeing that get set up.
"But what about our Stonewall ranking?"
I wonder if their mere existence will be a black mark on each HMG department. Minus 1,000 points for allowing TERFs to have a club.
2
0
Just checking in to see if Warren is getting clapped as usual. Quite happy to see he is.
2
0
"helping trans people to avoid the terrible effects of having to experience puberty as a biological sex that does not match their gender"
By trans people in this context, do you mean children Warren?
0
0
Is this with or without parental consent and a specialist medical assessment?
0
0
just fwiw, puberty blockers don’t affect fertility
there’s some reports they affect sexual response but no studies on it (and ofc so do some antidepressants and many other medications that aren’t controversial)
2
0
“discussing” this stuff with chill & warren & co is like trying to engage with jehovah’s witnesses or scientologists - prisoners of an irrational gatekeeping belief that prevents rational engagement.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-staff-networks…
this new civil service staff network is brilliant - and all of us in law firms where the narrative has been captured by stonewall looney tunes should take it as a model and set up an equivalent.
0
0
Heh
0
0
All Trans should compete in a new category in the Paralympics with other individuals that have physical, genetic and mental conditions.
3
0
Puberty blockers don't effect fertility is peak troll. Get that man a bridge.
0
0
the effects are reversible tcv
look i’m not interested in having a fight, just correcting anna’s misinformation above in case anyone believed it
1
0
is the inability to experience orgasm irreversible chill slippery as a bucket of eels?
0
0
my understanding is that neither are “reversible” but do feel free to prove me wrong
0
0
I don't know how puberty blockers work.
Does the phrase "effects are reversible" mean that someone could change their mind and therefore go through puberty as an adult at a later date?
0
0
um no thanks
0
0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker
0
0
From the article "it is also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of factors like bone mineral density, brain development and fertility in transgender patients"
2
0
That non-underlined t is going to haunt me for the rest of the day
2
0
More lies from Chill, who knows there is an interim Cass Review report covering this very topic, as I have posted passages from it many times in response to lies like the above from him
From the Cass Review's interim report:
0
0
rumpole your quote (as usual) has nothing to do with anything i’ve posted
anna’s 11.15 is simply lies about the effects of puberty blockers (i think she may have been mixing them up with hormone treatments, which can affect fertility, which she kind of nods at in her 13.17)
0
0
Some of the adverse health events reported in children given such gonadotropine releasing hormone analogs:
Damage to the hypothalamus, pituatary gland and gonads, bone fractures, blood disorders, height and body mass decreases, permanent loss of bone mineral density, early menopause, fatigue, chronic pain, mood swings, hot flashes, infertility, seizures, brittle bones, depression, anxiety, osteoporosis, decreased IQ, and impairment to cognitive functions such as linguistic ability, short-term memory capacity, mental flexibility, and inhibitory control
https://www.transgendertrend.com/puberty-blockers/
https://calgaryjournal.ca/2019/06/04/endometriosis-and-lupron/
https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-prob…
---
More adverse brain side effects observed in children given gonadotropine releasing hormone analogs
Six girls aged 5-12 have experienced tumor-like masses on their brains after being given them
The FDA has added "risk of pseudotumor cerebri" to labelling
https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/20636/Risk-of-pseudotumor-cer…
---
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Ju…
From the original Bell vs Tavistock judgment
One of the issues raised in these proceedings is the non-existent or poor evidence base, as it is said to be, for the efficacy of such treatment for children and young persons with GD.
In that context, we note that though this research study was commenced some 9 years ago, at the time of the hearing before us the results of this research had yet to be published. Dr Carmichael says in her witness statement dated 2 February 2020 that a paper is now being finalised for publication. At the hearing we were told that that this paper had been submitted for peer-review but that Professor Viner, one of the authorsof it, had yet to respond to issues raised by the reviewers, as he has been otherwise engaged in working on issues relating to the coronavirus pandemic.
Finally, so many years later, it was made available and makes for bleak reading, hence them being so reluctant to report anything about it presumably Lifelong changes to the bodies of children, needless harm caused
-No significant effect on the psychological health of the children (thoughts of self-harm or body image - no change)
-Reduced growth in height
-Reduced bone strength
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.02438…
Now Chill, I dare you to tell me again that the effects of puberty blockers are reversible.
0
0
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=do+puberty+blockers+affect+fertility
0
0
fine - i wouldn’t agree with your obvious biased phrasing, but if you’d said that anna i wouldn’t have had to correct you
but what you said was
3
0
I find it extremely hard to imagine you ever went to university, given the depths of your ignorance, your total disregard for decent sources of info, and your chilling response to clear harm having been caused to children who will now live with lifelong effects of that needless harm caused.
You recently didn't know the difference between a sworn affidavit and an interview in your-fav-celeb-juice.
Is this "I'm a solicitor" thing all a lark to you?
2
0
Day 1568 in the Rof Trans Threads and Chill is in a fighty mood.
0
0
Recently even the pioneer ‘gender affirming’ surgeons in the US have spoken out about the risks of putting children onto puberty blockers. Marci Bowers, who transitioned at the age of 38, admitted that children who undergo transition before puberty will never have adult sexual function or experience orgasm.
0
0
yeah i can feel this is turning into a personal abuse thread again jim so will tag out
good luck to those remaining!
1
0
If they stay on them (and the associated sex hormones to maintain their chosen gender identity), that's true, isn't it? I mean, you cannot both be on puberty blockers / hormone treatment AND be fertile in the only way that your natal sex allows you to be, isn't that right? And there is still not a great deal of evidence about the potential long term effects on fertility, is there?
Re sexual pleasure - I'm actually not sure how one measures that - yes, the blockers inhibit the hormones that contribute to orgasm, but I can believe that, if your head really was in severe turmoil because you didn't recognise the sex you were born with as yours, the sense of freedom from not having to deal with the physicality of that sex would, I imagine, actually make you sexually freer and more comfortable, and far more likely to enjoy sex (after all, orgasm isn't the only point of sex).
Still can't shake my sense that there is something deeply muddleheaded about allowing a child to make a decision to so completely screw with his / her own biology in this way, it requires us to just ignore the truth of how human beings work, both physically and mentally.
0
0
anna - just for my information, are you planning to fvck off again any time soon or are you back for good now?
0
0
oh straight to “trans affirming care is supporting paedophilia” are we?
jesus you’re an awful person
0
0
I'm glad you said the last bit.
I can't see the rationale behind someone being able to choose to legally make such a life changing decision about their body before they are legally able to vote, or smoke a cigarette, or drive a car.
I may be missing an important part in the whole discussion here but permanently changing one's gender seems a much more important decision than the other three and so presumably should require at least an equal level of maturity
0
0
At least ROF is a safe space for this kind of obsessiveness.
0
0
"I may be missing an important part in the whole discussion here but permanently changing one's gender seems a much more important decision than the other three and so presumably should require at least an equal level of maturity".
You'd think so...
But, to balance the discussion, none of those three decisions are, by definition, front loaded with years of the sort of emotional damage that, we are told, comes with having to continue to live as the "wrong" sex. Damage which, you can understand, is very likely to be exacerbated by having to live through and see the physical development into that "wrong" sex that puberty brings.
Still don't think it makes it anything other than a very, very bad idea though.
4
0
If chill could just admit to being a bit of a dick in the first place for scoffing at the timing of the World Athletics announcement, and try basing his assumptions of good or bad faith on something other than Stonewall's Twitter output, then I for one would be happy to leave it at that...
4
0
Chill taking an enormous pwning again today. Warren scarpered off again. You love to see it.
0
0
Heh. Great thread. The usual pattern of trolling, pwning, running away. Can't wait for this evenings round of double down, drunken centrist duds popping in to shout at a woman, thread deletion.
0
0
yes i have to agree this thread is symptomatic of my least favorite bits of rof
for example, this from anna at 14.10:
there’s no real excusing this - it’s just bigoted, hateful anti-trans rhetoric. the inference is that trans kids aren’t “really” trans, it’s just a phase, or they’re not mentally developed enough to understand that they’re cis
but everyone let’s it slide (yes i’m calling out the centrists and “soft-gc” posters who know actual trans people), and it’s left to me to take the inevitable abuse that anna will now try to deliver
why?
when did we decide we were ok with a board where open transphobic rhetoric was allowed (and often celebrated, tcv)?
i remember when posters would pop up with homophobic of racist language they’d be shot down mercilessly
anna’s post above has nothing to do with “women's rights” - it’s just implying trans people aren’t “really” trans
3
0
just fwiw...It's a bit tricky for you to take the high ground in a thread where you've posted that puberty blockers "do not effect fertility" and that "the effects are reversible", only to post a link to a wiki page which explicitly states that the latter is in fact unknown.
Your original assertion is dangerous and reckless if you did not know whether the effects were reversible or not.
Puberty blockers clearly do effect fertility (whether this is a permanent thing is unknown)
0
0
Trans is a choice. Fact.
0
0
except they don’t?
https://lmgtfy.app/?qtype=search&q=do+puberty+blockers+affect+fertility
0
0
ffs tcv
this board is like the worst of the daily mail comments section sometimes
3
0
That's just bullsh1t, chill, more of you giving in, as so often, to your apparently insatiable need to claim victim status by proxy - it's just you finding yet more reasons to ferociously clutch your pearls and fall on the fainting couch that you carry around with for just such an occasion.
Anna is disputing whether a pre-pubescent child is likely to be emotionally developed enough to make life changing decisions of this nature, given that there is a very decent chance that, as he/she grows and matures, he/she might no longer feel the need to go down that path.
You might disagree with that, you might be of the opinion that children under 16 are able to decide such things (and to fully appreciate and assess the potential impact of their decision), but there is nothing fvcking anti-trans about "Anna's" position
I mean, she literally says this, in her comment to me:-
"If you're an adult and you've spent your entire life feeling that you should have been born the opposite sex, and you understand that you can never actually change sex but still feel that you would find it easier to live your life if you take cross sex hormones and have surgery and present as much as possible as though you were the opposite sex, that's a different matter."
But, of course, you can't possibly acknowledge that, because then what would you wail and whine about? How ever would you validate your position as one of The Oppressed, where would you get your emotional jollies?
0
0
They obviously do.
Whilst people are taking them, for example.
0
0
no she’s not cru
here - this is what she said (again):
i mean this is what i’m calling out - unarguably anti-trans rhetoric
of course if you pretend she said something else, or pick and choose more qualified things she says, you can agree with it (i might even agree with it!)
that’s not what i’m talking about
0
0
i don’t believe you believe this cru, but if you do then lol @ you tbh
2
0
"Most likely have grown out of it"
Most likely. Let's fact check this.
"Eleven studies have been conducted looking at whether gender dysphoria persists throughout childhood. On average 80% of children change their minds and do not continue into adulthood as transgender. Some of these studies are very old, the first being published in 1968 and others in the 1980s. This was during a time when being transgender was not accepted as widely in society as it is now so it can be argued that this may have influenced many to change their minds"
0
0
link for that quote tcv?
we’ve done this before and that’s not true (unless there’s a new study from 2022)?
3
0
If you believe that having concerns about children taking life-changing decisions is fundamentally "anti-trans", then not "lol @ you", more "wtf @ you, and could someone please make sure that this fool is never allowed sole care of any child, because he is not capable".
Join the discussion