mooli
u/mooli
Feed options
Hot
New
Top
View
Card
Compact
-
You said "were never" so this is an irrelevant point
-
GRCs changed the mechanism by which this operated, with prisoners taken to the female estate at first instance until a case review could take place. It also meant the resulting risk assessment started from the presumption that the prisoner was female, and could only be removed to the male estate if you would ordinarily move any other female prisoner to the male estate under that circumstance, thus fundamentally skewing the risk assessment in favour of inclusion. So yes, a GRC granted access in a way that not having a GRC did not.
Trans people are protected from harassment and discrimination on the basis of "gender reassignment".
What this clarifies is that in the equality act, sex means sex, not certificated sex, or self-identified gender identity or any such thing. Man means a male of any age. Woman means a female of any age.
This means that the protections for sexual orientation also operate on sex - so "same-sex attracted" means two people of the same actual sex, not certificated sex or self-declared gender identity.
It means that lesbians are female and gay men are male and bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, and that associations that are restricted for, say, lesbian-only groups are lawful, and don't have to include male individuals who carry a gender recognition certificate saying they are female, or male individuals self-identifying as women.
It means that services which are advertised as single-sex must exclude the opposite sex. It means that jobs which are advertised as women-only are indeed for women. It means that the Scottish Government's attempt to create 50/50 "gender" balance on public boards (the legislation that kicked this particular legal battle off in 2018) must actually operate on the basis of sex.
And none of that means trans people are discriminated against. It just means that women and LGB people retain their rights as intended in the Equality Act, and not as lobbyists have fought to dismantle them to turn sex and sexual orientation protections into meaningless categories anyone can self-identify into.
Sure, its this one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936352/
For an example of how this was reported: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-05-04/most-transgender-children-stick-with-gender-identity-5-years-later-study
"The main takeaway here is that gender identity, for binary transgender children, appears to be quite stable," he said.
The researchers focused their study on children who socially transitioned, and not those who began physical transitions using medications like hormones and puberty blockers. Those medications — which are only temporary and are sometimes used in older kids to delay unwanted physical changes that do not match their gender identity — have been the target of anti-trans legislation in states like Texas, Arkansas and Alabama, which have restricted access for trans kids. Major medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have said that gender-affirming medical care is a medically-necessary service for transgender kids. And multiple studies have shown that allowing access to puberty blockers improved the mental health of trans kids and lowered their risk of suicide.
Dispelling transphobic misconceptions
many politicians and pundits at the moment who are attacking gender-affirming care and even simple discussions over gender identity among young people are pointing to “old research” that suggests that transgender youth will ultimately “identify as cisgender.”
The reality that transgender and nonbinary youth face elevated levels of stress, discrimination, anxiety, bullying, and negative mental health outcomes like suicidal ideation and suicide are well documented. [...] “Refusing to allow a child to undergo a social transition risks instilling shame in the child, which can drive anxiety, depression, and relationship difficulties within the family.”
So: trans kids know who they are and rarely change their minds and even if they do it isn't traumatic and transitioning them is lifesaving or else they'll commit suicide and questioning any of this is anti-trans.
So what does the study actually say?
124 of 317 kids in this study were socially transitioned under the age of 6, at an average age of 4.3. They're followed up an average of 5.4 years after initial transition, so on average they aren't even 9 yet.
2/3 of their sample are boys and the boys were on average transitioned a year younger than the girls.
Then this tidbit:
This study did not assess whether participants met criteria for the DSM-5 diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria in Children. Many parents in this study did not believe that such diagnoses were either ethical or useful and some children did not experience the required distress criterion. Based on data collected at their initial visit, we do know that these participants showed signs of gender identification and gender-typed preferences commonly associated with their gender, not their sex assigned at birth. Further, parent report using the Gender Identity Questionnaire for Children, indicated that youth showed significant “cross-sex” identification and preferences (when scored based on sex at birth).
Consider that again: "gender-typed preferences commonly associated with their gender, not their sex assigned at birth". In a 4-year old.
If you step away from the language of "trans children", and consider that these are invariably boys who play with dolls and wear dresses, whose parents have told them that makes them a girl, and have been calling them a girl between the ages of 4 and 9. And now this is being trumpeted as a success and evidence that trans identities are stable and few people will detransition, because if parents tell their 4-year-old boys they are girls, that these kids still believe their parents at age 9?
Of that sample of 317, only 70 are over the age of 14 by the end of the study. But 92 are on puberty blockers and 98 are on cross-sex hormones. So 2/3 of the sample are already on a medical pathway within 5 years of being socially transitioned by their parents.
This study is touted as proof it is safe to transition kids, and that fears kids will grow up to regret are all unfounded, and anti-trans. But what it actually shows is an absolute wild west in this area, with a complete lack of sensible controls and oversight, and vulnerable kids caught believing what their parents have told them.
I mean, this ACLU film won an Emmy, and the kid went on to be a celebrity, touted by the Biden admin, appearing in Netflix shows etc, but check this out: https://youtu.be/cuIkLNsRtas?si=n4msWXzGoEzKc17-&t=450
I remember even thinking before Kai was three that I think this kid might be gay. And I thought that that could not happen and that would not happen. We started praying fervently. Prayers turned into Googling "conversion therapy" and how can we implement these techniques at home to make Kai not be like this. Putting her in time-out for acting like a girl, putting her in time-out for stealing girl toys, spanking her-- really spanking her every time she would say, "You know I'm a girl." No matter what the consequences, she's persisting in the fact that you should already know she's a girl. When Kai was about four years old, she prayed to go home and be with Jesus and never come back. My kid was praying to die.
This is what is being celebrated. The US has a new religion, and it is transitioning kids so they won't grow up gay.
Aside from the fact this is a blase attitude to take to destroying the adult sexual function of kids, the problem is that the research into this is hard an the political climate polarised and toxic.
Followup studies on transition are sparse and low quality, with a very high rate of those lost to followup (50-60%). Many of those who regret simply drop off the radar. Regret and dissatisfaction measures are all over the place, and those who advocate these procedures routinely cherrypick the best looking stats (eg. regret rates are <1%) without ever acknowledging the flaws (eg. we only asked people still attending the clinic).
What research has been done shows that those who do regret are invariably traumatised by it. They feel anger at the clinicians who did this to them, and want absolutely nothing to do with them. Or they don't want to talk to clinicians in case they get sucked back in again. Or they feel self-hatred and shame that this thing they told everyone they wanted is not what they thought. And many of those who do regret realise that they just needed to know it was okay to be gay. That they were struggling with internalised homophobia, and this was a way out.
But the researchers who have studied detransition and its reasons like Lisa Littman are routinely subject to reputational attacks, called "anti-trans" and so on.
Going from 90% desistance to 0.5% desistance while at the same time removing medical assessments and gatekeeping, medicalising irreversibly at younger ages, celebrating transition as "joy" everywhere in popular media, and demonising the people trying to generate research into whether any of this is having good outcomes is a recipe for a medical scandal that in a few years people will be pretending they never went along with.
No, this has long been an admission by clinicians - they could never tell who would desist and who would persist. Only time showed which children persisted into adulthood.
And this is compounded by a widespread shift away from any sort of medical gatekeeping into a more "affirmative" approach. See the Cass Review interim report, which informed this new service specification. You can't square clinicial assessments with "trans kids know who they are" rhetoric - they are incompatible. The Cass Review cautioned about this weaker "affirmative" model and the problems of diagnostic overshadowing when so many would simply grow up LGB, or have complex comorbidities like eating disorders and autism, and the need for proper psychotherapeutic assessment and intervention. WPATH released a statement condemning the review and the interim NHS service specification as "conversion therapy".
When you look at how things are in the US, the predominant model is basically "informed consent", and whether any sort of diagnostic gatekeeping takes place at all depends on the clinician - and the political climate is that questioning at all makes you a bigot or a conversion therapist. A recent, oft-cited study about how few kids detransition included parents who had socially transitioned their pre-school children with no medical oversight whatsoever, and clinicians who had subsequently affirmed that medically with no measure of whether the kids met the DSM-5 criteria for childhood gender dysphoria.
There's a massive split forming between the US and Europe, and the evidence is pointing towards a much, much more cautious approach.
That's how it is portrayed but it's not actually why - the rationale was to prevent development of secondary sex characteristics (predominantly in boys) so that they "pass" better as the opposite sex as adults.
The whole "time to think" angle was a later justification and one which isn't borne out by the evidence, since 99.5% of those placed on blockers go on to cross sex hormones, while 80-90% of those who aren't medicalised resolve their dysphoria through adolescence, with most growing up to be gay or bi. Animal trials show permanent cognitive changes resulting from blockers, so it is increasingly likely that medically fixating a cross sex identity in children prevents them from resolving it as they otherwise would.
And blocking kids at Tanner stage 2 and going on to hormones leads to infertility, possible anorgasmia, and all manner of other complications.
