Drag Story time

[Melissa Louise]

22 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I think my experience is such that women are vulnerable anywhere where men are near.....and that that vulnerability isn't necessarily any higher inside of bathrooms or locker rooms. I think I am more likely to be attacked by a man who identifies as male coming into a "female" bathroom than I am by any trans woman.

I think transwomen are more likely to be attacked in mens' rooms than in womens' rooms, and in my ideal "wave a wand" world, all bathrooms would be "all gender" individual or family rooms with lockable doors. But, where they are not, my preference is to allow people to choose bathrooms with however they identify than to exclude them from any bathroom at all.  

And, I hold enough space to also believe that the KS rules that have come out with re: to private spaces hurt a wide variety of people beyond just transgender persons. 

I don't know that I fall nicely into anywhere where I can say "your side" versus "my side".

Including males will exclude some females. 

Some females need (limited) same sex space in areas of particular vulnerability eg being in a state of undress.

The unkind response to those women is they should 'get therapy'. Many do. CPST takes a long time to.unravel. In the meantime, we self exclude. 

If people believe that is a justifiable price for the inclusion of males, they are free to argue it. Just don't argue there is no cost, because there is.  

Edited June 19, 2023 by Melissa Louise
Removed the tone

[prairiewindmomma]

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is an organization for pediatricians, has a policy statement that they adopted in 2018, and reaffirmed in 2022, which is from this document:

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for?autologincheck=redirected

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Yeah....doctors making policies on medicine, I'm okay with. 

That's now how things are playing out in the USA. Not at all. Not with abortion, not with trans care, not with much of anything, frankly. 

The only reason I could access psychotherapy for my kids without fear is because we had a conservative state government. 

Liberal people need to advocate for a moderate, evidence backed approach that balances rights and needs, and stop allowing cons to make it a political win for them. 

[bolt.]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

There is the American Medical Association, which publishes guidelines, and then each specialty also has an organizaiton that publishes guidelines. But they are not able to say, strip of a doctor of their credentials for going outside their guidelines. BUT doctors put themselves at risk of malpractice when they practice outside those guidelines. 

That sounds like the right tool for this job. I wonder what they are advising right now and/or which practices currently risk malpractice. Is it too hot of a topic for them to be being very vocal about right now? I can see problems developing if they are seen as 'taking sides' right now.

Would they have the capacity to create/implement a country-wide, "Treat 'em all, but try to be multi-disciplinary about it, and study 'em closely while we do it" protocol like the UK seems to be launching?

[prairiewindmomma]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

You don't care as much about that cost, is all. Because, only women. Probably the nasty cis/het kind dripping in privilege. 

This feels personal, just as the reference to "my side" versus "your side" that you made earlier. Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. I don't personally slam you, I ask that you give me the same courtesy. We can disagree in opinion without becoming nasty.

I'm going to step away from this for a bit, because I need to go make supper, not because you are driving me away.

[SanDiegoMom]

7 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Did it come from politicians who have no knowledge or understanding of the issue? Or nazi groups? Cause that's who we are dealing with here. Seriously. I wish I was joking. 

I had sort of assumed it came from people doing studies, presenting evidence at whatever medical conferences, etc - and that some of those people were those who had been through transition themselves  - people on the medical side but also people on the "personally effected" side. 

Not random nazis or politicians who legit don't know how babies are made,  let alone a thing about hormones or hormone blockers. 

 

The Tavistock clinic - the main clinic in Britain - has done internal reviews since I think 2006 with physicians raising concerns about the gender affirming model and about kids being rushed through transition without adequate evaluations or mental health counseling.  The Cass Review  and the Keira Bell lawsuit brought about the first changes, and the book Time to Think by Hannah Barnes tells the whole story of what happened. 

One reason why other European countries are changing course is because their medicine is socialized.  We have too many drug companies and private practices profiting off of this "newly developing industry".  One clinic (in Tennesee? Or Boston?) had someone on video speaking to the amount of money these complicated surgeries would bring in. 

With the Tavistock and with some of the other countries, there is one main gender clinic seeing these kids.  IF they are keeping data, then the trends are very clear.  (At the Tavistock they showed about a 35 percent rate of Autism.  There was also a very statistically high rate, from what I recall, of sexual trauma or a parent being a sexual offender.)

There is no benefit to private doctors here to keep records of outcomes,  many detransitioners don't want to follow up with them if they felt they had bad care, and there is very little recourse to be had with lawsuits with the way medical practices have protected themselves. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

This feels personal, just as the reference to "my side" versus "your side" that you made earlier. Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. I don't personally slam you, I ask that you give me the same courtesy. We can disagree in opinion without becoming nasty.

I'm going to step away from this for a bit, because I need to go make supper, not because you are driving me away.

Your opinion feels very dismissive of female survivors of male violence. I find that upsetting. 

I apologise for the tone, and letting personal upset get the better of me. 

I am disappointed at women not having the backs of female survivors of male violence. That's not personal to you, but if it includes you, that makes me sad. 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[SanDiegoMom]

16 minutes ago, bolt. said:

In the USA, do you have any type of nation-wide Doctor's Association, or licensing organization, or whatever, that creates treatment policies that doctors are expected to abide by (or risk censure from that organization)? Like, *other* than legislators, what body or board is making these kind of unified oversight type of decisions for other conditions. Like, who decides what's a responsible course of care for bowel cancer, and what's out of bounds? Anybody?

For Gender, the only thing they have had to go by is WPath's Standards of Care.  And the latest version is VERY problematic, as is it's history.  But there has been nothing else. 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, SanDiegoMom said:

The Tavistock clinic - the main clinic in Britain - has done internal reviews since I think 2006 with physicians raising concerns about the gender affirming model and about kids being rushed through transition without adequate evaluations or mental health counseling.  The Cass Review  and the Keira Bell lawsuit brought about the first changes, and the book Time to Think by Hannah Barnes tells the whole story of what happened. 

One reason why other European countries are changing course is because their medicine is socialized.  We have too many drug companies and private practices profiting off of this "newly developing industry".  One clinic (in Tennesee? Or Boston?) had someone on video speaking to the amount of money these complicated surgeries would bring in. 

With the Tavistock and with some of the other countries, there is one main gender clinic seeing these kids.  IF they are keeping data, then the trends are very clear.  (At the Tavistock they showed about a 35 percent rate of Autism.  There was also a very statistically high rate, from what I recall, of sexual trauma or a parent being a sexual offender.)

There is no benefit to private doctors here to keep records of outcomes,  many detransitioners don't want to follow up with them if they felt they had bad care, and there is very little recourse to be had with lawsuits with the way medical practices have protected themselves. 

 

Tavi changes relied on whistleblowers taking concerns public.

They were not dealt with in house until whistleblowers had gone to court. 

Tavi is an example of providers being pushed into change, not of providers being proactive. 

Concerns had been raised internally for many years before that, and stamped down. 

[SanDiegoMom]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I did not say they were harmless - I said they, like many medication, can have serious side effects. And they ARE physically reversible. Saying they may have long term side effects is not the same as saying they are not reversible. 

they are not permanent, as was being stated in the post I responded to. that does not mean I am claiming they are a good or bad idea. Just correcting the idea that they are permanent. 

As for if they are a good idea, that is a medical decision that should be made on a case by case basis (as it is now in the UK) and not a political/legal one made by people who know nothing about medicine or the human body, with a flat ban with no exceptions. 

WIlliam Malone is an endocrinologist who has written for SEGM (society for evidenced based gender medicine) about the potential harm for females taking puberty blockers -- apparently adolescence is the period for increasing the most bone density, and taking puberty blockers doesn't just delay that period. It reduces the time period in which the bone density is increasing by a few years. This can lead to osteopenia and osteoporosis later in life.  

Precocious puberty blockers, by the way, haven't been through trials -- they are prescribed off label.  

The other issue is that if the gender dysphoria is due to sexuality (which is common to gender dysphoric kids), then puberty is where kids discover their sexuality.  Puberty blockers do not allow them to do that.  98 percent of kids put on puberty blockers go on to cross sex hormones, yet in previous (before ROGD) studies watchful waiting for gender dysphoria led to an 80 percent desistance rate with two thirds of desisters realizing they were gay or lesbian. With puberty blockers a one way route, the kids never get a chance to understand their own sexuality. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

At that point, you stop taking them and you do go through puberty, although delayed. Again, I get that there can be side effects that persist, but the puberty itself does happen when you stop. 

Let's not pretend away the social effects of having gone through such drastic changes and delays during some of the most important developmental years of one's life.

[BronzeTurtle]

18 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Tavi changes relied on whistleblowers taking concerns public.

They were not dealt with in house until whistleblowers had gone to court. 

Tavi is an example of providers being pushed into change, not of providers being proactive. 

Concerns had been raised internally for many years before that, and stamped down. 

but those whistleblowers, as far as I can think of, were called the same slurs that people in this thread are using...nazi's, transphobes, right-wing extremists, etc. along with the te*fs.

it's almost as if the names people get called are based on their positions and not based on actual policy or rhetoric.

 

also, I don't understand this extremely libertarian take on only doctors making policy and standards of care and such. has no one ever been to a bad doctor? or had an experience in the hospital where you knew more than the hospitalist making rounds? also, who licenses doctors? there's all kind of state laws and policies that determine who can even *be* a doctor. What if doctors are wrong and say something is safe and effective and it turns out not to be after a generation?

also puberty does not start back up as normal after blockers, for whomever said that. the human body works so that puberty is supposed to happen at around a certain age given some specific hormonal processes. if you block it in an individual when that individual would have otherwise started, when you stop taking blockers it doesn't start normally then and the person may not ever go through normal sexual development to maturity. it is not a pause button, those many *doctors* will say that it is. they are empirically wrong.

[Danae]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yeah, therapy and treating co-morbidities have a better profile re reducing suicidality, which is why I find the conflation of conversion with exploratory therapy in discourse and in law just so objectionable. 

Blockers are cheaper and easier to get, of course, damn the consequences. 

 

I wonder how much this is complicated by a shortage of trained providers.  I live in a state that has declared itself a “sanctuary state” for transgender healthcare.  And I happen to have had a conversation today with a person who is a therapist at the University’s Gender Creative Children and Adolescents program.  (Side-note, I love that that’s what they call it.)  It doesn’t seem to me that kids in that program are being rushed into transitioning, or even steered in that direction.  But it’s pretty staff intensive.  The intake process is multiple appointments with kids and parents over the course of a month. At the end of that process a treatment plan is developed which is often behavioral/therapeutic with no medical intervention.  Testing and support for ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and other mental health diagnoses are available.  If a kid does want to present more masculine or feminine non-invasive and reversible options are offered first.  For example there is a vocal therapist who’s a trained opera singer that will help extend vocal range higher or lower without damaging vocal cords.  
 

For families that want to explore medical options there is then another set of three appointments 2 weeks apart with a physician.  The first is informational only, about puberty blockers or hormones, depending on the age of the child/teen.  Apparently many (most?  I don’t remember if he said many or most, so let’s go with many) families stop after the first appointment.  They get the info and decide to stick to therapy and not proceed with medication at that time.  
 

I don’t know if there is a specialized definition that you mean when you say “exploratory therapy,” but what was described to me was exploring why the child/teen is unhappy with or has concerns about their gender.  Separating out issues with gendered roles or expectations from discomfort with body parts, that sort of thing.
 
But, you know, public University, not a for-profit clinic. 

[KSera]

48 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yeah, therapy and treating co-morbidities have a better profile re reducing suicidality, which is why I find the conflation of conversion with exploratory therapy in discourse and in law just so objectionable.

Yes, so much. Which is what made the other thread's discussion of therapy yesterday and the accusations of conversion therapy so very and personally upsetting to me. I care about doing the things that actually help people the most, not just what I think makes me look like a good liberal person. Maybe if this wasn't personal it would be easier to have not paid much attention and just followed along with what everyone said was right and best. I think there are a fair number of people here with enough history with me to know that I'm a follow the science person though, and I go to the studies and research when I want to make decisions and know what's what.

 

18 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I think transwomen are more likely to be attacked in mens' rooms than in womens' rooms, and in my ideal "wave a wand" world, all bathrooms would be "all gender" individual or family rooms with lockable doors. But, where they are not, my preference is to allow people to choose bathrooms with however they identify than to exclude them from any bathroom at all. 

I'm ready for the individual rooms asap as well. For whatever reason, people seem to think least of all about the transman situation, but I can't say it feels really safe to me to have a small transgender guy changing in male locker rooms. Cis guys are way, way more risky to him than he is ever going to be to anyone else. As a mom, that scares me. Sue me.

14 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

What kills me about the bathroom thing is that if you say transwomen have to use the mens room, that means transmen have to use the women's room. And that is going to be UGLY because women will freak out when they see what to them is clearly a man entering the women's restroom. But worse, if that happens, women get used to it, then men who are just cis men could walk in, SAY they are transmen, and do the things everyone is afraid of. Seems it makes it EASIER for men to access the women's room because at that point, they don't even have to look feminine at all, and women have to just hope that whatever man walks in actually has a vagina?

Basically, it's lose/lose either way. 

I get where you're going, but this seems circular to me, because isn't the whole point that bathroom and locker room use shouldn't have anything to do with genitals or what someone looks like, in which case it doesn't matter if someone comes in with a penis rather than a vagina? And we don't want to be policing that only people who pass can use the opposite gender room and everyone has to be gender conforming so that they will conform to the gender of the room they are using. That's a different kind of disaster. There's really no good way to do it all the way around, honestly. We need private areas at this point.

14 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is an organization for pediatricians, has a policy statement that they adopted in 2018, and reaffirmed in 2022, which is from this document:

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for?autologincheck=redirected

I can say some things about some of the research used, but I'm getting tired frankly and I'll only do so if anyone cares, because it will take looking things up. The short of it that pretty much all the official medical group policy statements are based on evidence rated "low" or "very low" certainty

This is actually a well balanced piece from Reuters and includes this quote (but I encourage reading the whole thing for a bigger picture):

Quote

In its latest Standards of Care, released in September, WPATH notes the paucity of research supporting the long-term effectiveness of medical treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria. As a result, the guidelines say, “a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible.” The Endocrine Society, in its own guidelines, acknowledges the “low” or “very low” certainty of evidence supporting its recommendations.

This is the link for the Reuters deep dive that came from: Across the United States, thousands of youths are lining up for gender-affirming care. But when families decide to take the medical route, they must make decisions about life-altering treatments that have little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy.

 

11 minutes ago, bolt. said:

That sounds like the right tool for this job. I wonder what they are advising right now and/or which practices currently risk malpractice. Is it too hot of a topic for them to be being very vocal about right now? I can see problems developing if they are seen as 'taking sides' right now.

Yes.

[maize]

Re: bathrooms--what I see here is a PERFECT excuse to finally, finally address the perennial problem of NOT ENOUGH WOMEN'S BATHROOMS by requiring that at least 1/3rd of bathroom stalls be designated for females and 1/3rd be gender neutral.

Bingo--bathrooms for everyone who needs one, and no more crazy long lines waiting for the women's loo because we can use the gender neutral ones as well (but any woman or girl who only feels safe in a female-only bathroom has that option available.)

It solves the problem. Doesn't even require more bathrooms be built where they aren't affordable because you can change the men's to gender neutral; get rid of urinals and put in more stalls if need be.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by maize

[SKL]

It's not like doctors are so trustworthy when it comes to the opportunity to make money or play God.

The other day, a facebook friend posted an old ad for tonsilectomies.  "Have you had your tonsils out yet?"  They used to do this procedure on practically every kid who came in with a sore or froggy throat.  That's just one of so many examples, not just in the US but in other countries too.

There are doctors in the USA (and probably every other country represented here) who regularly perform female circumcision, despite it being illegal.

Sorry, but I don't agree that doctors need to have carte blanche to do whatever anyone will pay them to do.

I would be very much in favor of the medical profession policing its own, but that isn't working either.

I am a fan of personal liberty, but I think you need informed consent, and you have to be a certain age to be able to legally consent.

It would be different if the data showed that medical transition is clearly best a high percent of the time, but that is far from the case.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Danae said:

I wonder how much this is complicated by a shortage of trained providers.  I live in a state that has declared itself a “sanctuary state” for transgender healthcare.  And I happen to have had a conversation today with a person who is a therapist at the University’s Gender Creative Children and Adolescents program.  (Side-note, I love that that’s what they call it.)  It doesn’t seem to me that kids in that program are being rushed into transitioning, or even steered in that direction.  But it’s pretty staff intensive.  The intake process is multiple appointments with kids and parents over the course of a month. At the end of that process a treatment plan is developed which is often behavioral/therapeutic with no medical intervention.  Testing and support for ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and other mental health diagnoses are available.  If a kid does want to present more masculine or feminine non-invasive and reversible options are offered first.  For example there is a vocal therapist who’s a trained opera singer that will help extend vocal range higher or lower without damaging vocal cords.  
 

For families that want to explore medical options there is then another set of three appointments 2 weeks apart with a physician.  The first is informational only, about puberty blockers or hormones, depending on the age of the child/teen.  Apparently many (most?  I don’t remember if he said many or most, so let’s go with many) families stop after the first appointment.  They get the info and decide to stick to therapy and not proceed with medication at that time.  
 

I don’t know if there is a specialized definition that you mean when you say “exploratory therapy,” but what was described to me was exploring why the child/teen is unhappy with or has concerns about their gender.  Separating out issues with gendered roles or expectations from discomfort with body parts, that sort of thing.
 
But, you know, public University, not a for-profit clinic. 

Sounds like the clinic my son went to.

Yes, exploring the unhappiness from the perspective that such unhappiness can be multi-causal, and not from the perspective that the only explanation is is 'trans child'. Knowing that resolution can take many forms, and that an ideal outcome is resolution of dysphoria with the minimum intervention possible.

Even at the time we were there, ds' psychiatrist was expressing to me that she had significant concerns about medical over-reach in this area. She also had significant concerns about families who were unwilling to slow things down and do some exploration, often when family dynamics were implicated.

That clinic (children's hospital) is now in line with Norway, Sweden etc. I was very grateful we were lucky enough to access this type of care at a very difficult time in our lives. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

12 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

but those whistleblowers, as far as I can think of, were called the same slurs that people in this thread are using...nazi's, transphobes, right-wing extremists, etc. along with the te*fs.

it's almost as if the names people get called are based on their positions and not based on actual policy or rhetoric.

 

 

Yes, they were.

The names are interesting. I'm not a Nazi, or a right wing extremist, nor am I particularly transphobic in terms of feeling hatred or disgust for trans people. The only one I currently have in my life I'm more likely to be cooking for than genociding. But I'm not even a T*RF - I'm not practicing radical feminism, and I think transmen and their needs falls under feminism, so not even particularly excluding. But it seems like caution over child transition and believing females as a class have needs and rights distinct, at times, from males, is enough for people to actually believe that a left wing, Greens voting mother of gender dysphoric kids, gay kids and mother-out-law to a transwoman who comes over for tea is a functional equivalent of a fascist. It's fascinating. 

 

 

 

[BronzeTurtle]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, they were.

The names are interesting. I'm not a Nazi, or a right wing extremist, nor am I particularly transphobic in terms of feeling hatred or disgust for trans people. The only one I currently have in my life I'm more likely to be cooking for than genociding. But I'm not even a T*RF - I'm not practicing radical feminism, and I think transmen and their needs falls under feminism, so not even particularly excluding. But it seems like caution over child transition and believing females as a class have needs and rights distinct, at times, from males, is enough for people to actually believe that a left wing, Greens voting mother of gender dysphoric kids, gay kids and mother-out-law to a transwoman who comes over for tea is a functional equivalent of a fascist. It's fascinating. 

the argument is that well the US has actual nazi's arguing for X so we can't trust the position itself. *shrug* it's just standard poisoning the well, or whatever that fallacy is.

[Eos]

10 hours ago, ktgrok said:

the UK and other European countries doctors are, given time and experience, adapting their treatment guidelines, without any political interference. 

There is a strong political movement which has been helping to inform the discussion in UK, namely the so-called TERFs.  They've been publishing and networking for years, their efforts should not be overlooked. 

As far as the OG post: I don't like drag shows, I don't want them banned, and it's the same rhetorical position for me as abortion: don't like drag shows or story hour?  Don't go or take your kids.

Editing to add: since I don't want drag shows banned or gender/sexual minorities oppressed and terrorized, I give money, make phone calls, vote, and protest in support.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Eos

[BronzeTurtle]

can someone give me an example of where drag has been banned? like the law itself.

i am only coming up with places that are classifying it as adult entertainment, like 18+. which i've never seen little kids at a drag show, so ????

 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

but those whistleblowers, as far as I can think of, were called the same slurs that people in this thread are using...nazi's, y are empirically wrong.

To be VERY clear - when I used the term Nazi is being used to describe actual self proclaimed nazis. With swastikas and everything. 

 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

 

also puberty does not start back up as normal after blockers, for whomever said that. the human body works so that puberty is supposed to happen at around a certain age given some specific hormonal processes. if you block it in an individual when that individual would have otherwise started, when you stop taking blockers it doesn't start normally then and the person may not ever go through normal sexual development to maturity. it is not a pause button, those many *doctors* will say that it is. they are empirically wrong.

If that is the case, can you point me to evidence about it, because everything I'm finding says that puberty blockers are temporary and when you stop puberty will kick in. Those are the medical websites, etc. I'm open to hearing otherweise, but am not finding medical websites with that. 

11 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

can someone give me an example of where drag has been banned? like the law itself.

i am only coming up with places that are classifying it as adult entertainment, like 18+. which i've never seen little kids at a drag show, so ????

 

The issue in the adult designation is that it makes businesses liable, so that many pride events are being canceled because if a kid is there at some outdoor venue and some people show up in drag, the business could get in trouble. 

[KSera]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

If that is the case, can you point me to evidence about it, because everything I'm finding says that puberty blockers are temporary and when you stop puberty will kick in. Those are the medical websites, etc. I'm open to hearing otherweise, but am not finding medical websites with that. 

My understanding is that you’re correct, puberty is expected to kick in when they are stopped. Now, the issue is that they very rarely ever end up being used that way because almost everyone goes on to cross sex hormones if they take blockers. And then there’s the issue with bone density and the impact on brain development and other things. But, you’re correct that it should be that the individual continues on to complete puberty if they go off them. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, KSera said:

My understanding is that you’re correct, puberty is expected to kick in when they are stopped. Now, the issue is that they very rarely ever end up being used that way because almost everyone goes on to cross sex hormones if they take blockers. And then there’s the issue with bone density and the impact on brain development and other things. But, you’re correct that it should be that the individual continues on to complete puberty if they go off them. 

Thank you. Again, I'm not saying they are a good idea. Just trying to clarify what is what. 

[ktgrok]

Nazis protesting Drag Brunch (not a kid story hour, it was at a brewing company) https://www.advocate.com/news/ohio-neo-nazi-drag-brunch

They also attempted to firebomb and burn down a church that hosted a Drag Queen Story hour. 

Closer to home, in my part of Florida, were Nazis protesting Disney, which goes back to Disney being too big a proponent of LGBTQ rights. https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/watch-protesters-wave-nazi-flags-outside-disney-world-entrance/

I'm not using the term as a general slur. I'm not using hyperbole. 

[Melissa Louise]

17 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

To be VERY clear - when I used the term Nazi is being used to describe actual self proclaimed nazis. With swastikas and everything. 

 

We have them here too.

They turned up to protest women at a  Speaking For Women event, and their counter protest presence has been spun as if the women invited the Nazis. So I am very used to the rhetorical leap which goes T*RF = Nazi.

I didn't think you meant that though, I assumed you meant actual Nazis. 

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

We have them here too.

They turned up to protest women at a  Speaking For Women event, and their counter protest presence has been spun as if the women invited the Nazis. So I am very used to the rhetorical leap which goes T*RF = Nazi.

I didn't think you meant that though, I assumed you meant actual Nazis. 

Ok, just wanted to clarify, because it IS insane that actual Nazis are an issue. Sigh. It woujld make MORE sense in my head for it to be hyperbole. Sadly, not so. 

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

The only reason I could access psychotherapy for my kids without fear is because we had a conservative state government. 

Liberal people need to advocate for a moderate, evidence backed approach that balances rights and needs, and stop allowing cons to make it a political win for them. 

Be happy to, as soon as conservatives stop trying to criminalize public expression of non-cis/het norms.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Sneezyone

[katilac]

4 hours ago, bolt. said:

Capitalism runs your country.

Yes, and that's actually why leave the  medical decisions to the doctors is not as simple as it seems; profit drives many medical decisions. 

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, katilac said:

Yes, and that's actually why leave the  medical decisions to the doctors is not as simple as it seems; profit drives many medical decisions. 

And political decisions 

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

We have them here too.

They turned up to protest women at a  Speaking For Women event, and their counter protest presence has been spun as if the women invited the Nazis. So I am very used to the rhetorical leap which goes T*RF = Nazi.

I didn't think you meant that though, I assumed you meant actual Nazis. 

my point is that just because the nazis are against x, y, or z, doesn't mean that political activism on x, y, z is all from nazis. nor does it mean that any effort to end, say, drag shows for kids is being led or even has anything to do with nazis.

if you're just saying, "look we can't even discuss this (in the US) because you don't understand.... nazi's" then again...poisoning the well. because if you take a look around, everyone is being called fascist and nazis.

it's like godwin'ing a thread to shut people up but in real life. 

[BronzeTurtle]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

My understanding is that you’re correct, puberty is expected to kick in when they are stopped. Now, the issue is that they very rarely ever end up being used that way because almost everyone goes on to cross sex hormones if they take blockers. And then there’s the issue with bone density and the impact on brain development and other things. But, you’re correct that it should be that the individual continues on to complete puberty if they go off them. 

What I have found is that it is difficult to disentangle the effects of blockers vs. hormones because blockers almost guarantee someone will be put on hormones as you said. 

side effects of blockers are easily found all over, some temporary, some not though, including bone loss and increase in incidence of diabetes. gnrh has been used for different things over the years and side effects are not great.

there is a specific animal study out that says brain development never does its normal thing even when gnrh is discontinued. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453016307922

i happen to think that retarding a kid's growth during such a crucial period and thinking it will have no side effects is one of those human hubris things where we don't actually know all the crucial things that happen during this time and why it happens at the age it does. i think given the larger and larger group we're getting to study we will find out though. especially since almost all of this cohort doesn't ever go through natural puberty.

and aside from medical, there is a social aspect of going through puberty at 13 instead of 16 or 18. that cannot be reversed in any way. we get to adulthood through puberty socially, emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. the fact that it is a difficult time of struggling with identity may be a feature rather than a bug, evolutionarily speaking.

but every generation that goes through a kind of upending of norms, especially on this scale where we're talking about redifining the very notion of male and female to the point of preventing natural human development in kids...has casualties before things get smooth. you can't have a (gender) revolution without some people getting hurt all around.

 

[Terabith]

I’m not a big fan of medical treatments towards transition for minors, and I think social transition should be done with care.  I see significant issues with the narrowing of approved gender expression and the trend towards transition as a response.  
 

And at the same time I know there are individual kids whose distress and dysphoria is so severe that transition as a minor is deemed by their families and medical team to be the best and safest approach.  I would very much like to see that be rarer than it is, but outlawing it doesn’t serve kids well.  And neither, honestly, does the current situation in which in groups of parents of trans kids, you get shouted down if you want to try other ways of alleviating dysphoria, like working with a personal trainer to increase muscle mass or a voice coach for vocal dysphoria or waiting a beat.  Neither of those options (immediate medical and social transition or absolute banning of transition) are good ones, imo, and it really stinks that it seems like those are the choices. 
 

I also think adults who have spent time on the decision should be able to do what they want with their bodies, because bodily autonomy is important.  And I know a whole heck of a lot of trans adults who transitioned in the 90’s, before the increase, who would not have survived if it hadn’t been an option.  Transitioning solved their mental health issues pretty much entirely.  

Edited June 20, 2023 by Terabith

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

And I know a whole heck of a lot of trans adults who transitioned in the 90’s, before the increase, who would not have survived if it hadn’t been an option.  Transitioning solved their mental health issues pretty much entirely

I think I’ve asked you this and you said these are people of both biological sexes? The resolution of mental health distress appears more common in transwomen. But then again our transman (and non-binary) population currently has a pretty different presentation than what was seen in people who transitioned decades ago. 

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think I’ve asked you this and you said these are people of both biological sexes? The resolution of mental health distress appears more common in transwomen. But then again our transman (and non-binary) population currently has a pretty different presentation than what was seen in people who transitioned decades ago. 

I agree it is a different population, but yes, my friends my age who transitioned are of both biological sexes.  

[Terabith]

Frankly, the whole non binary thing is so new, I really don’t know what to do with it. My kid chose a new name that is still pretty feminine (Lyrium), is happy to wear skirts, is not particularly bothered by their period.  Their sole source of distress has been the presence of boobs.  And they want they/ them pronouns and say they aren’t a girl.  They have a haircut that is kinda gender neutral, but they change it frequently.  

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Frankly, the whole non binary thing is so new, I really don’t know what to do with it. My kid chose a new name that is still pretty feminine (Lyrium), is happy to wear skirts, is not particularly bothered by their period.  Their sole source of distress has been the presence of boobs.  And they want they/ them pronouns and say they aren’t a girl.  They have a haircut that is kinda gender neutral, but they change it frequently.  

I think this is a not uncommon non binary presentation. How are they recovering? 

[Terabith]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think this is a not uncommon non binary presentation. How are they recovering? 

Well!  I have been impressed.  We will all be relieved when they get drains out and can shower again. 

[Melissa Louise]

25 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I’m not a big fan of medical treatments towards transition for minors, and I think social transition should be done with care.  I see significant issues with the narrowing of approved gender expression and the trend towards transition as a response.  
 

And at the same time I know there are individual kids whose distress and dysphoria is so severe that transition as a minor is deemed by their families and medical team to be the best and safest approach.  I would very much like to see that be rarer than it is, but outlawing it doesn’t serve kids well.  And neither, honestly, does the current situation in which in groups of parents of trans kids, you get shouted down if you want to try other ways of alleviating dysphoria, like working with a personal trainer to increase muscle mass or a voice coach for vocal dysphoria or waiting a beat.  Neither of those options (immediate medical and social transition or absolute banning of transition) are good ones, imo, and it really stinks that it seems like those are the choices. 
 

I also think adults who have spent time on the decision should be able to do what they want with their bodies, because bodily autonomy is important.  And I know a whole heck of a lot of trans adults who transitioned in the 90’s, before the increase, who would not have survived if it hadn’t been an option.  Transitioning solved their mental health issues pretty much entirely.  

A very different cohort in the 90's. And a whole lot more gatekeeping.

I'm unsurprised that childhood onset population + psychological assessment for suitability + adult transition = better outcomes. 

 

 

[KSera]

30 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Well!  I have been impressed.  We will all be relieved when they get drains out and can shower again. 

Oh, good. Yes, drains out is a very good milestone. Not fun. 

[LMD]

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

We have them here too.

They turned up to protest women at a  Speaking For Women event, and their counter protest presence has been spun as if the women invited the Nazis. So I am very used to the rhetorical leap which goes T*RF = Nazi.

I didn't think you meant that though, I assumed you meant actual Nazis. 

Yep, my dearest friend of 20+ years was called a literal nazi/nazi adjacent. She was physically assaulted by a pro-trans protester that day. And slandered in the press that evening. The violent men on all sides made damn sure the women were silenced.

[Melissa Louise]

33 minutes ago, LMD said:

Yep, my dearest friend of 20+ years was called a literal nazi/nazi adjacent. She was physically assaulted by a pro-trans protester that day. And slandered in the press that evening. The violent men on all sides made damn sure the women were silenced.

I'm so sorry. I read about that. I hope she is doing ok. 

 

[LMD]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

I'm so sorry. I read about that. I hope she is doing ok. 

 

Thanks. She is bloody angry and fierce. They have kicked a hornets nest.

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, LMD said:

Thanks. She is bloody angry and fierce. They have kicked a hornets nest.

It's crazy to me that the actual Nazis said they came to protest the women, and crash a high-visibility event, and yet without fail, all media misreported it as an alliance. 

I have complicated and largely non-positive thoughts about PP, but I know many ordinary women like your friend have found the space to speak invaluable. There's a lot of anger out there. 

 

[LMD]

All media, the premier & opposition leader (now being sued & rightly so). My friend is about the most compassionate person you will ever meet, I could tell stories for weeks, but she is not to be trifled with and they vastly underestimated her.

PP is a blunt instrument for sure, but she gets people talking, and she doesn't deserve the violence she's met with. 

But, like a previous poster said, we can debate and disagree but this issue is so polarised and so hyped up that any legitimate discussion = hate/genocide. It is so disheartening.

And I'm sure someone will reply with how their whipped up panic is justified. I am not getting into it any more. You all can see for yourselves now... or not.

*hugs* Melissa, I hope you know that I am rooting for all the best for you & yours!

[Melissa in Australia]

8 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

 

I think transwomen are more likely to be attacked in mens' rooms than in womens' rooms, and in my ideal "wave a wand" world, all bathrooms would be "all gender" individual or family rooms with lockable doors. But, where they are not, my preference is to allow people to choose bathrooms with however they identify than to exclude them from any bathroom at all.  

 

Believe me you don't want this at all. this is what they are doing here. No more female public toilets. Instead they are gender free. which means they have ripped off the seats on the toilets and there is no back splash either. there is just a metal toilet bowel completely covered in urine the floors are covered in urine and the walls. and while they are at it they removed the sanitary disposal from most remaining female public toilets and just have one in the central area because they wouldn't want to offend any person who identifies as female but doesn't have periods.

 

Now men are allowed to loiter around the toilets, before they weren't  , but now they can. I have heard in the city this is becoming a real problem , with some women not feeling safe to go to a toilet near their church or train station.

 But lets pander to the very small  minority and exclude women from feeling safe to go to a public toilet.

[Eos]

2 hours ago, LMD said:

issue is so polarised and so hyped up that any legitimate discussion = hate/genocide. It is so disheartening

Yes, and I'm genuinely floored as to why.  Is it specifically because parents have lost teens?  This is the most gut-wrenching, heart-breaking situation that I can well see leaving the need to be outraged and loud, possibly to the point of demonizing "the other side."  And so when many on the "other side" keep telling you they are not anti-trans, not aligned with the right wing, not coming for your children's rights then this level of grief will keep families/allies from believing them?  This is how I imagine it but I could be wrong. It's hard for me to understand that anything less than distraught grief and anger could produce the barrier that is currently across the conversation. 

Nazis and the anti-trans right wing are just garbage in the road.  Sorry, Rosie.

 

[Melissa Louise]

24 minutes ago, Eos said:

Yes, and I'm genuinely floored as to why.  Is it specifically because parents have lost teens?  This is the most gut-wrenching, heart-breaking situation that I can well see leaving the need to be outraged and loud, possibly to the point of demonizing "the other side."  And so when many on the "other side" keep telling you they are not anti-trans, not aligned with the right wing, not coming for your children's rights then this level of grief will keep families/allies from believing them?  This is how I imagine it but I could be wrong. It's hard for me to understand that anything less than distraught grief and anger could produce the barrier that is currently across the conversation. 

Nazis and the anti-trans right wing are just garbage in the road.  Sorry, Rosie.

 

I think parents fear losing teens. Having teens who are self harming or suicidal is a scary thing (though good psychological support can make all the difference).  Dealing with social or mental health issues in this whirlwind of extremism is hard. There's a lot of pressure on families to 'go along', and that pressure is often coming from the teens and their peer groups.

Some parents feel there is an existential threat to their loved ones, and have an attitude of 'if you're not with us 100%, you're against us.'

I think some of it can be explained by the narcissism of small differences - differences between people closer in values can be experienced as greater and more offensive than differences between people whose values are far apart to begin with. After all, you don't expect solidarity from the Nazi, but you do expect it from fellow parents who vote much the same way you do.

I find the whole vexed issue immensely troubling from many perspectives. 

 

 

 

 

[LMD]

1 hour ago, Eos said:

Yes, and I'm genuinely floored as to why.  Is it specifically because parents have lost teens?  This is the most gut-wrenching, heart-breaking situation that I can well see leaving the need to be outraged and loud, possibly to the point of demonizing "the other side."  And so when many on the "other side" keep telling you they are not anti-trans, not aligned with the right wing, not coming for your children's rights then this level of grief will keep families/allies from believing them?  This is how I imagine it but I could be wrong. It's hard for me to understand that anything less than distraught grief and anger could produce the barrier that is currently across the conversation. 

Nazis and the anti-trans right wing are just garbage in the road.  Sorry, Rosie.

 

Just fyi - parents on both 'sides' have lost teens. That also happens when one side of a debate paints the other side as a genocidal enemy.