Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners - Archives of Sexual Behavior by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A new survey by Lisa Littman, who coined the term Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

GC: What percentage of people have DSDs and how do we know that percentage? by Yoyall11 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I just got this on my inbox (because I banned them again):

But this is my hobby. My hobby is getting you to pay attention to me. Please pay attention to me senpai :v

How bored have you to be to find this entertaining...?

GC: What percentage of people have DSDs and how do we know that percentage? by Yoyall11 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Get a hobby.

GC: Do DSDs follow the binary? What percentage of people have DSDs and how do we know that percentage? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Do you really think we can't tell you're the same person who keep asking the same question under different names by now?

GC: Do DSDs follow the binary? What percentage of people have DSDs and how do we know that percentage? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

OP is the same spammer who keep asking the same questions about sex that were answered dozen of times already.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I'm upset, but the things Flippy keep saying are so absurd, and in this precise thread not less, that I'm laughing, too.

even if you banned masks we’d just get a CMoV3 because we all always come back even if it’s just to lurk lol

Tell me about it. I lost count of how many times I banned certain spammer who kept asking us what sex is...

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, you see, I didn't ban circling. So, that means I protecting circling, you know? Nevermind that I asked houseplant if she wanted circling baned. Or that I told circling to stop trying to explain away the victim blaming if circling didn't want to get baned. But you know, details...

Oh, but it gets better. Apparently if I don't ban circling, then I should ban Flippy because the latter don't want to be in the same group than circling...

I swear this whole thread feels like a comedy movie by now.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Do I have to spell it for you? The rule about no personal attacks. Why did you think I mentioned that comments gets deleted and warnings are made once once the insults and personal attacks starts?

I did not start this. You're the one who started it by accusing me of protecting circling just because I did not do the exact thing you wanted. And you expect I stay quiet while you keep saying ourageous things about me? And you have put me in a position where if I mod against you now for your nonsense you would use against me to "prove" I'm "protecting" circling. And you expect I stay quiet? How more ridiculous are you going to get? And based on your past behaviour it's likely you're going to keep bringing up the "BIR protected a rape apologist" bullshit, anyway. So, why should I stay quiet?

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What the heck?! Dude, seriously you're being as ridiculous as circling! How am I protecting circling when I deleted circling's comments and made circling shut up about the issue under the threath of banning circling?!

And I called you out because you were breaking other rules. Again I cannot make special exeptions for some people. Why do you think I didn't called out u/loveSloane, u/MarkTwainiac or u/Omina_Sentenziosa, none of whom had any good thing to say about circling's victim blaming?

but when Circling invites people to go back and look at the original posts that is reenacting the original offenses. What will happen when they go back and read them? The same offense that happened originally will happen each time someone reads the original posts, so how is that not repeating the offense?

LoL That is completely farfetched! However absurd circling's perception of what said back then is, someone reading circling's offensive comments from months ago is not circling's repeating the offense. Under that stupid logic you're circling's accomplice because you kept bring up the issue and gave circling an excuse to keep talking about it. And I guess I must be an accomplice too because I was the one who linked the original conversation. Ridiculous!

Anyway, what is you plan here? Do you plan to keep making an spectacle of yourself and saying outrageous things about me until I either ban circling or I ban you with the latter likely resulting in you keep saying elsewhere that I protected a rape apologist? How are you any but a bully?

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The last part was not only about you, but thanks to prove my point, anyway. You're singling me out because I was the one who intervened. You didn't think of complainig to either u/grixit or u/peakingatthemoment about circling's recent behaviour even though both of them were mods when circling's original comments happened months ago. And peaking it's not absentee, at least.

And again, you're ignoring I didn't call out all the other users who called out circling for circling's shitty behaviour. You're ignoring the circling's comments that I deleted. You're ignoring I gave circling an ultimatum. You're ignoring I asked u/Houseplant whether she wanted circling banned for all the horrible things circling said to her and that she rejected my offert and that she said circling was useful as an example of how GC is right.

Anyway, it's funny you are complaing about how I'm allowing this place to be a cesspool in the very same thread where circling argued I was unfit to be a mod. I guess you two do agree on something.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The lie is claiming a man is a woman or viceversa. Pronouns just happen to be used to keep that lie, i.e when a man gets called "she" or a woman, "he".

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Males who identify as trans, in fact, DID take everything from women. You didn't share anything because neither of you cared to ask women whether we liked any of this. You all just decided to invade women's spaces while putting a lot of excuses to pretend you all had any right to be there. However, you all don't have any right to be there because you don't become a woman just by saying you are one. And not, taking exogenous hormones or undergoing several body modifications doesn't make you a woman, either.

If you all don't want to share spaces with men who don't say they are women, then you all can build your own spaces. On you own. Women don't owen males who identify as trans nothing.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Details vary depending on country or region, but the following are some of things males who identify as trans have gained for themselves (although some of these things apply to females who identify as trans, too):

Being able to able to falsify their documents with the approval of the State.

Distorting statistics because some males are counted as women now.

Newspapers lying about "trans" issues in the form of "prefered pronouns", "inclusive language" or pseudoscientific beliefs like "sex is a spectrum" or "puberty blockers are reversibles".

Accessing formerly women-only spaces like toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges, prisons, etcetera. All of this without any regard on what women think of this or the harm many women have suffered on the hands of males who identify as trans as consequence of those "inclusive" policies.

Getting mediocre male athletes in the top levels of women's sports just because said males claim to be "women" without any regards on fairness or safety for actual women.

Forcing other people to lie in the form of "prefered pronouns" or "inclusive language" when talking about males who identify as trans, even when said males are not present. Punishing people who refused to play along with this.

Convincing everyone that not respecting someone's identity (even if said identity has not basis on reality) is an unforgiveable sin. All the while males who identify as trans can say literally anything without any consequence.

Forcing women to accept we're a nothing more than a bunch of stereotypes. Forcing women to pretend there is not any difference between women and males who claim to be "women".

Using dehumanizing language to refer to women in the name of "inclusion".

Forcing people to pretend biology doesn't matter and that sex is a spectrum or a social construct.

Being able to threath or, in some cases, physically assault dissenting women without any consequences while pretending this is not typical male violence against women.

Getting your self-diagnose recognized by proffessionals and having access to exogenous hormones and cosmetics surgeries on demand. In some places this must be provided for free by public or private health systems. All of this despite there is no solid evidence "medical transition" improves mental health at all.

Banning any research they don't like.

Banning any treatment that doesn't affir theirm "identities".

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, my goodness, get off your high horse, dude! I'm NOT protecting circling. I don't give a damn about circling. I absolutely cannot stand circling. Anyone who have read our many argurments would realize this obvious fact.

Moreover, I didn't call you out for pointing out circling's victing blaming (way to twist my words, dude). I call you out because you are claiming that I'm either protecting circling (why the heck would I do that?) or I'm too stupid to realize who is the wrong here. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact I didn't call out all the other people calling out circling for circling's shitty behaviour.

Futhermore, you're also ignoring I'm usually pretty quick in intervening once arguments here starts to get more heated up than usual. Once insults and personal attacks begins comments get deleted and warnings are issuednot matter who is doing it because in my experience things can only go down hill from there. I do this precisely so this place doesn't become a cesspool. I cannot make special exceptions for some people just because I happen to agree more with them.

And why are you singling me out in this mess, anyway? Why aren't you also complaining about this with grixit or peaking, too? I'm really tired that I'm always the one who gets blamed for everything that happens here just because I'm the most active mod!

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're the one who is dictacting how we must see you and how we must treat you even though biology goes against your self-image. Do you apply the same logic for other situations? Can someone practices medicine just by "identifying" as a doctor, even though they never studied for it? Can someone just "identify" as innocent in a trial so all the evidence against them is ignored? Can someone "identify" as Olympic champion runner even though they has never won any race? Can someone identify as a governor even though they lost the elections?

New rule announcement by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, everyone includes people on this sub and I've mostly seen this exact phrase used after we state we are not "cis", so I'd say is not allowed. QT would have to say things differently. For instance, "I'm cis because...." or "a cis person is someone who...".

Kathleen Stock, the Sussex University professor in trans row, urged to get bodyguards by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dude, I'm not going to ban you just because you've put into your head to enact a scenary where you're a martym who feels morally superior to the misguided mod who "chose" to "protect" circling over other members of the sub.

Like I said, circling's orginal comments happened before I became a mod. For better or worse, what is done is done and there is no point in re-modding over incidents that happened moths ago. However, I gave Houseplant the opportunity to choose whether to ban circling since she was the one affected over circling's comments, but she rejected it. Circling has repeated circling's points recently, and that is why comments were deleted and I gave circling an ultimatum. You can drop this baseless idea that I'm going easy on circling now

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You've said the same this before, there is no need to repeat it. Now you too drop the damn subject.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can drop the subject now. Every comment has a handy report button. Use it when appropriate instead of implying I'm protecting circling just because I cannot be available 24/7.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like I said I won't care if you're replying to someone else. There is no need to correct anyone about what was said because I linked your previous conversation with Houseplant. Anyone can judge it for themselves.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're done talking about it, then drop the subject already as you have been told! If I see one more comment of yours talking about this, or saying how you were misunderstood or whatever, or saying you're not allowed to talk about it, then I am going to ban you immediately. I won't care if you're replying to anyone else.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She has already took her decision.

And I already warned circling not to keep discussing the issue if circling don't want to be banned. So, you saying I'm protecting circling is completely ridiculous.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you need to stop telling Houseplant what she has to do.

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I said drop the subject.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here is where it begins.

The deleted account is circling and Catbug is Houseplant.

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

The conversation aroun circling's comment on assisting rapist ENDS RIGHT NOW. Any further will be deleted. Circling, I'm warning you. If you say anything more on this, including saying that you didn't say that or you're not allowed to talk about this, I'll ban you.

Edit: Thread closed because it has run out its course.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That was what you said. Now drop the subject.

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Your reaction to what I said the other day was completely disproportionated. That is not how I react when I'm mistaken for a man. QT posters here constantly dismiss my knowledge and I still don't get THAT mad. Even when QT say or imply I'm part of a hate group I don't get THAT mad...

Psychiatrists Shift Stance on Gender Dysphoria, Recommend Therapy by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TEXT Part 2:

"This [has moved from]...a topic that could previously not be talked about freely to one that we can discuss more openly now. This is a big improvement. Previously, everyone thought it was all settled but it's not, certainly not from a medical angle," he states. At Odds With Prior Australian Recommendations

The RANZCP had previously endorsed the standard guidelines of the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) Melbourne, followed by most gender-identity services in Australia, and similar guidance from New Zealand, which both recommend gender-affirming care.

"Increasing evidence demonstrates that with supportive, gender-affirming care during childhood and adolescence, harms can be ameliorated and mental health and well-being outcomes can be significantly improved," state the RCH guidelines.

But in 2019, RANZCP removed its endorsement of the RCH guidelines and started a consultation, which resulted in the new position statement.

However, Ken Pang, MD, of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne and an author of the RCH guidelines, says the key recommendations of the new RANZCP position statement are consistent with their own guidelines.

The former note "the need for a skilled mental health clinician in providing comprehensive exploration of a child or adolescent's biopsychosocial context," Pang says.

However, it's difficult not to see the contrast in stance when the new RANZCP statement maintains: "Research on gender dysphoria is still emerging. There are polarized views and mixed evidence regarding treatment options for people presenting with gender identity concerns, especially children and young people."

Pang says the RCH guidelines do, however, recognize the need for further research in the field.

"I look forward to being able to incorporate such research, including from our own Trans20 study, into future revisions of our guidelines," he told Medscape Medical News. Watch Your Backs With Affirmative Therapy: Will There Be a Compromise?

Morris says there will obviously be cases where "the child might transition with a medical intervention, but that wouldn't be the first step."

And yet, he adds, "There are those who push the pro-trans view that everyone should be allowed to transition, and the doctors are only technicians that provide hormones with no questions asked."

But from a doctor's perspective, clinicians will still be held responsible in medical and legal terms for the treatments given, he stressed.

"I don't think they will ever not be accountable for that. They will always need to determine in their own mind whether their actions have positive value that outweigh any disadvantages," Morris continues.

The RANZCP statement does, in fact, stress just this.

All healthcare professionals need to "be aware of ethical and medicolegal dilemmas" pertaining to affirmative therapy, it indicates. "Psychiatrists should practice within the relevant laws and accepted professional standards in relation to assessing capacity and obtaining consent..."

Morris hopes there will ultimately be many more checks and balances in place, and that courts and clinicians will need to step back and not assume every child who seeks to transition is doing it as a result of pure gender dysphoria.

He predicts that things will end in a compromise.

"In my view, this compromise will treat children with respect and approach them like any other patient that presents with a condition that requires proper assessment and treatment."

"In the end, some cases will be transitioned but there will be fewer than [are] transitioned at the moment," he predicts.

Morris has reported no relevant financial relationships. Pang is a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health and its research committee.

Psychiatrists Shift Stance on Gender Dysphoria, Recommend Therapy by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TEXT Part 1:

A new position statement from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) stresses the importance of a mental health evaluation for people with gender dysphoria — in particular for children and adolescents — before any firm decisions are made on whether to prescribe hormonal treatments to transition, or perform surgeries, often referred to as "gender-affirming care."

"There is a paucity of quality evidence on the outcomes of those presenting with gender dysphoria. In particular, there is a need for better evidence in relation to outcomes for children and young people," the guidance states.

Because gender dysphoria "is associated with significant distress...each case should be assessed by a mental health professional, which will frequently be a psychiatrist, with the person at the center of care. It is important the psychological state and context in which gender dysphoria has arisen is explored to assess the most appropriate treatment," it adds.

The move by the psychiatry body represents a big shift in the landscape regarding recommendations for the treatment of gender dysphoria in Australia and New Zealand.

Asked to explain the new RANZCP position, Philip Morris, MBBS, FRANZCP, said: "The College acknowledged the complexity of the issues and the legitimacy of different approaches."

Exploration of a patient's reasons for identifying as transgender is essential, he told Medscape Medical News, especially when it comes to young people.

"There may be other reasons for doing it and we need to look for those, identify them and treat them. This needs to be done before initiating hormones and changing the whole physical nature of the child," he said.

"A cautious psychotherapy-first approach makes sense. If we can do that with adolescents then we will take a big step in the right direction," stressed Morris, who is president of the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists in Australia. Keira Bell Case and Scandinavian Stance Lead to More Open Discussion

The rapid rise in gender dysphoria among adolescents in the Western world, referred to as "rapid-onset" or "late-onset" gender dysphoria, has seen a huge increase in the number of natal girls presenting and created frenzied debate that has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months about how tobest treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Concerns have arisen that some transgender identification is due to social contagion, and there is a growing number of "detransitioners" — people who identified as transgender, transitioned to the opposite gender, but then regretted their decision, changed their minds, and "detransitioned" back to their birth sex. If they have had hormone therapy, and in some cases surgery, they are left with irreversible changes to their bodies.

As a result, Scandinavian countries, most notably Finland, once eager advocates of the gender-affirmative approach, have pulled back and issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

This, along with a landmark High Court decision in the UK regarding the use of puberty-blocking drugs for children with gender dysphoria, brought by detransitioner Keira Bell, which was recently overturned by the Appeal Court, but which Bell now says she will take to the Supreme Court, has led to a considerable shift in the conversation around treating transgender adolescents with hormonal therapy, says Morris.

Everything else! by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Haha, I expected to be a lone wolf around here to be honest. I watched a bit of random episodes Naruto on TV, but I never started it. Fans talking about how much filler it has did little to convince me to do so.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is nothing so formal. I just don't mod past incidents. Circling's heinous comments on rape happenned before I joined the sub, I think. If I'd been a mod by then I'd have been much harsher. I'd ban circling if u/Houseplant wants it, though.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Enough with the name calling, FlippyKing.

QT/Trans: What do the language changes actually accomplish? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Don't forget, that was until the white men came and taught them about males and females.

QT/Trans: What do the language changes actually accomplish? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

If only we had a word for people with uterus or who have periods or who can get pregnant...

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender dysphoria didn't exist before the 20th century, but it's still a thing today even if wen't through a few name changes. Anorexia nervosa is also a social contagion, but it still exists. Actually, girls with anorexia seem to be overrepresented among the girls identifyng as "boys".

I wouldn't dismiss the girls who say they are "nonbinary" because seemingly for many this "identity" is a stepping stone to say they are the opposite sex.

And transactivists absolutely need girls if they want people to overlook the obvious fetishism present in the movement. Teen girls are more useful for that than teen boys. And because girls (and women, too) who claim to be te opposite sex are seen as less menacing, TRA have used them to advance the erasure of single-sex spaces. Furthermore, if there weren't girls and women who say they are anything else than female, how could TRA justify all those "inclusive" terms like "menstruators", "uterus-owners" or "bodies with vagina"?

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even though intersex are one in five hundred million, I would date one that is XXY because two x chromosomes= biological female.

That is not how it works. The presence of the SRY gen, located in the Y chromosome, is what triggers the male development pathway. Individuals with a 47, XXY karyotype are male.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/klinefelter-syndrome/

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't stop being a bold claim just because Abigail Shrier said so. Abigail has made a great job on bringing awareness about ROGD, but still she is a journalist, not the one treating these girls. She is also too invested in the idea of "true trans", and I think that is coloring her views. It was very disappointing to read in her most recent article that she seemingly doesn't see how Jazz Jennings and other people like him were basically "transed" by their parents.

She is counting on the social contagion, but even if the number go down it doesn't necessaryly mean the cases of teenager girld suddenly identifying as "boys" will just dissapear. And the comparison with the the emo-craze ends when you take into account there are too many people who are invested in making the "trans" kids and teens a thing. I'm not that optimist to think the factors that have lead to the increase in teen girls disavowing their sex will just dissapear in that short time.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not in the mood for another discussion about the word gender. I just pointed that out because some may find you comment confusing given that is not how either GC or QT usually interpret misgendering.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So, suicide rates are impossible to estimate because you cannot know how many trans identified people there are out there. However, detransition rates are perfectly known without absolutely any doubt. How convenient!

Everything else! by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Congrats, Sloane!

I like anime. I finished the newest season of My Hero Academy, which is about superheroes, a genre I normally don't like. I'm also watching Tokyo Revengers, which is a mix of time travel and gangs.

The last thing I read was some short stories of Miss Marple by Agatha Christie.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Snow uses gender to mean sex.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, there are some reports about some comments made in this thread. Should I intervene? Hmm, it looks the kind of situation I do, isn't it? And it seems the other mods aren't around. Ah, but circling has said I'm unfit to be a mod! It would be wildly inappropriate on my part if I dare to keep doing my mod duties on the very same thread where circling is demanding to get me removed. Yeah, I'm staying out of this. I'm sure QT can wait until the other mods show up.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If you're using the DMS-V as the only authoritative voice about gender dysphoria, I'm pretty sure ROGD is not included on it. Also, it's a bold claim to make ROGD will just dissapear in ten years. What are you even basing this prediction on?

Moreover, the suicide mith is used to justify social and medical "transition" of trans identified children and teens regardless of their sex or when their gender dysphoria began. So, although it's important to make the distinction between the different populations, it seems relevant to include teenager girls in the discussion, especially considering they make up the biggest group right now.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1- So, what does having a sense of being male of female even means? If you think "transwomen" are women and female, what do you mean by they people with gender dysphoria were meant to be a different sex?

2- If you're going to define women and men by "gender identity", then it doesn't make sense to list biological differences.

So, are you against sex stereotypes or not? Do you believe men are the logical and rational sex as your first link argued? If you believe in ladybrain, then can you explain to me why brain scans are not used to diagnose gender dysphoria?

3- How do you define "to cure"? Because it think it's self-evident the distress doesn't go away even after doing a full "medical transition" and can be triggered by anyone mentioning the sex of the trans identified person. At most, "medical transition" works as a placebo. A placebo, with many side effects and that still requires everyone else to accomodate their actions and words so not to remind trans identified people of their sex... Maybe that is why doctors aren't giving anorexic patients liposuctions...?

4- If "trans men" are treated as men by society, why the Media talks mostly about them when they get pregnant? If "transwomen" are treated as women by society, how is possible they are ones leading the "trans movement"?

5- Even if you want to insist that sex is "assigned" rather than observed, in modern times this "assigment" often takes places before the baby is born... Look, I doubt very much you haven't heard of stuff like ultrasounds, so you saying "sex assigned at birth" tells me you are likely repeating what you have been told in places like reddit or everyday feminism because you are a "good ally" and you haven't sit down to analize any of this makes any sense (because doing so would be "transphobic", I guees).

As for intersex, people with disorders of sex development (DSD) are not an intermediate sex. They are still either male or femlale. DSD is an umbrella term that includes many different medical conditions, most of which are sex-specific, affecting the development of the reproductive system and that can be diagnosed after doing a bunch of studies. Trans issues have little in common with DSDs and most trans identified people are unambiguosly 46, XY males or 46, XX females.

By the way, I think you should know the term "assigned sex at birth" comes originally from the practice of assigning a sex of rearing to babies with ambiguos sex characteristics. Speaking of which, maybe it would be a good idea to read on the story of David Reimer, who lost his penis after a failed circumcision and was "assigned female" by John Money.

6- It sitll doesn't make sense. You are using the word sex to talk about biological features you're born with or the way someone "identify as" depending on what is more convenient for you at the moment. Can you tell me what you think sex is?

9a- How do you know nobody is forcing them? Do you really think a 2-year-old kid has an appropriate understanding of sex and gender to be able to decide what their "true self" really is? Kids will pretend to be many things when they are playing. If a 4-year-old boy says he is Superman, should the parents "affirm" his new found identity"? If a 3-year-old girl says she is really a dog, should their parents "affirm" her new identity and take her to the veterinarian rather than the paediatrician?

Furthermore, currently children are getting hormones and surgeries way before they turn 18 years old.

Scottish doctors approved breast removal for 51 trans teenagers

Chest Reconstruction and Chest Dysphoria in Transmasculine Minors and Young Adults

Eligible youth were 13 to 25 years old, had been assigned female at birth, and had an identified gender as something other than female. Recruitment occurred during clinical visits and via telephone between June 2016 and December 2016. Surveys were collected from participants who had undergone chest surgery at the time of survey collection and an equal number of youth who had not undergone surgery.

2 participants in this survey had a bilacteral mastectomy at age 13, 5 had one at age 14, 9 at age 15, 9 at age 16, and 8 at age 17.

A summary of "gender affirmative treatmen" for adolescents can be found here.

And I think the practice of binding, which "trans boys" do as part of "social transition" to hide their breasts, deserves a mention, too.

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, you were the only who answered me, so thanks!

Yes, I think the issue lies in that they are trying to escape reality, but other people don't following the official script reminds them of it. So, they have decided they need to control other people thoughts in order to keep escaping it. There were plenty of people who were willing to tell some polite lies at the begining, likely thinking that it will end there. However, they kept making more and more demands and now even some people who were fine in geting along with this are getting tired of it. The more TRA keep pushing their demands, the more other people will pushback, something than TRA will interpret as a rise in "transphobia" and they will make even more demands and so on and so on. And well, this is going to sound harsh, but if so many people have a problem with your behaviour, maybe it's time to ask yourself if you aren't the one with the problem.

Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care by Femaleisnthateful in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What a pair of hypocritical, lying and awful doctors!

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Ok, I guess I should say something more now that I've calmed down before the others mods comment here. First of all, thanks for the support!

So, I said what I said because I was angry for a lot of things. I'm quite angry about what is happening around these issues in general and how transactivists have accomplished many of their goals in a short time, mostly through everyone's back. I'm angry about how transactivists are forcing everyone to lie and say the most absurd things. And yet we're being asked to believe them when they claim to be a marginalized group that no one cares about. I'm quite frustated because my past discussions on this sub and I keep asking myself if is it worth it arguing with a bunch of people who time and time again show they are not interested in actually listening to anything I say because they had decided I'm a evil and ignorant bigot who belong to a dangerous "hate group", and yet they expect I give a dam about their struggles, all in the hopes that I may change some lurkers' minds. Supposing we have any lurker, which may be just whishfull thinking on my part. I'm frustrated with the moderation. From the begginnig I tried hard to be fair because I value fairness. Of course, nothing was ever good enough for the QT side. I'm frustrated with QT users acting like they were making us a huge favour just by showing up here, regardless of how they behave, and how they expect we be all-accommodating under the threath they will leave if not. u/circlingmyownvoid2 saying the choices of word to talk about women made by The Lancet was acceptable, right after ignoring the points I made in our discussion and accusing me of adhominen attacks for ponting out circling's lack of concern for women, was just the catalyst that made me say what I've been bottling up.

I say all of this as an explanation, not as an excuse. I recognized I broked the rules while being aware of the fact and under the knowledge circling wasn't going to like it a bit. I did it to prove a point and because I regard the idea of "misgendering" being an unforgiveable offense to be absurd. I won't apologize, though. I hate fake apologies and the truth is I stand by every single word I said. I do not think referencing someone's sex is an insult, it's trans identified people who decide to project their own ideas about the sexes onto everyone else. Also, circling has never apologized for their own behaviour in this sub as far as I've seen.

I expected my comments would be eventually deleted and I'd be warned not to do it again. I certainly wasn't expecting circling would immediately make a thread demanding I were removed from the mod team. I find this response to be disproportionate and hypocritical. I don't believe for a second circling's sudden interest in enforcing rules. As a side note, by doing this circling has only proved my point spectacularly. Circling has yet to answer me how if "medical transition" is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, how can circling get so upset by a stranger on the internet, who lives far far away, mentions circling's sex? I think this is an example of how "medical transition" doesn't really resolve the underlying issues and the "treatment" depends on everyone else playing along with their "identities". And given that society has refused to tell transactivists no, it's not wonder they keep asking for more and more. That is how now we have medical journals talking about "bodies with vaginas". Nothing will ever be good enough form them because they will always have the doubt other people don't believe all this stuff. Just like they themselves don't believe it, either.

Anyway, if I stay as mod, I'll have to accept not to "misgendering" here, regardless of my feelings on the issue. However, given circling's interest in me being a good rule-enforcer, I can promise I'd be more severe from now on... And I'll make sure a rule about not calling fellow users "cis" is written in the sidebar this time around. GC should not be the only ones forced to adjust their language in this sub.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1- Are you going to ever define the words male, female, man and woman? Also begins identifying? I though QT said "transwomen" have always been women and likewise for "transmen".

2- So, according to the first link I'm more man than women... Weren't you against sex stereotypes? Are you aware the second link is about biological sex and not "gender identity"?

3- How? Why not other mental health issue is treated in the same way? Why aren't doctors given anorexic people liposuctions?

5- What do "transwomen" and women have in common? What do "transmen" and men have in common?

7- Nobody is assigned a sex at birth. Sex is determined at conception and observed at birth or earlier. Why do GC gets acussed of reducing people to their genitals by insisting on a biological definition of woman and man, but terms like "bodies with vagina" or "menstruators" are considered "inclusive"?

8- Earlier in your post you said that presenting as the other sex alleviates dysphoria, and here you're saying "transwomen" are female. How is that possible. If they are "female", how can they present as the other sex.

9a- Social "transition" encourages further steps, though.

9b- QT is always "transing" the dead and questioning if people who break sex stereotypes aren't really "trans".

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No need to apologize. Although that was not exactly what I was talking about. I get the practicality of "passing" to avoid being hurt even if I disagree with this strategy. I was thinking more about things like the so called "inclusive language" and other things everyone is forced to accept even if nobody really believes it like "sex is a spectrum" or "you can only know someone's sex by looking at their genitals".

We're suppused to believe all that stuff is for trans idenitified people wellbeing even if those things have nothing to do with safety.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We have mod mail, you know? Or if you didn't want me to participate in the conversation, you could have sent an individual message to the other mods. I still don't know how making a meta topic for removing me gives you more advantage. I can see the whole conversation here and the other mods are the ones who have the power to remove me or not.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Or more, likely the other mods are not around and aren't aware of the drama yet. Grixit and procelain aren't very active really, so you'll have to wait until peaking is available.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And you think bodies with vaginas is not dehumanizing.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Trans men aren’t women

They are women because they are female.

And it’s happening to men as well. Adults over 40 with prostates should get them checked etc.

Provide proof or it doesn't happen.

especially in medical contexts that kind of specificity is important.

Health campaings should use simple language that the general population can understand. Stuff like "people with cervix" and "adults with prostates" (which is not a thing) is not inclusive of people with lower levels of education or who are not native speakers.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The rules also bar cis

Technically, they don't.

The hope is to maintain some level of civil discourse which is lost when you start hurling insults at people.

Says the [person] who is constantly is throwing baseless acussations and call male users monsters.

Also, the word man is not an insult. It's you who interpret it that way because of your self-hate.

Edit: Redacted following ACLU's style to comply with the rules...

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't have a problem saying girls and women. It's "bodies with vaginas" (the actual term used in The Lancet, not "people with vaginas", although I've a problem with it too) I objected to. Men don't have vagina. "Trans men" aren't men. Why do women have to accept all QT stupid "inclusive" terms, but you won't accept being called by your sex? And why aren't men being subjected to this ridiculous bussines of "inclusive language"? Why aren't we seeing stuff like bodies with penises, prostata-havers or impregnators?

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for making me laugh! Imagine to call refering someone's sex an abuse of power! You guys are truly to used to get all your demands met that can't handle when someone refuse to play along with you. That is the only reason that rule was in place. QT don't have a problem in calling us "cis" (despite we don't like it) or a hate group, so why GC the only side that has to play nice?

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please, circling, tell us how calling a man a man is worse than calling women bodies with vagina? Only women, regardless of how they identify, have vaginas. Males who identify as trans don't have one. A "neovagina" is not a vagina.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I tried to have a productive discussion. You're the one who wasn't interested. I just had enough with your bullshit.

By the way, it's pretty funny you say you're not having a meltdown when you immediately made a thread to remove me as a mod.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whatever, grixit didn like that rule either. So, I doubt he would kick me out for "misgendering" you, especially when I was the only GC user willing to take the post.

But I suppose, I should provide some context on my comment at least. Here is the whole conversation where this exchange took place:

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8fam/qt_is_there_such_a_thing_as_a_man_wants_to_be_a/va7p

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8fam/qt_is_there_such_a_thing_as_a_man_wants_to_be_a/vbc7?context=3

And here is the part about The Lancet recent controversy that made me give up on this bullshit of trying to not offend QT (an impossible mision, really):

Bodies with vaginas isn’t dehumanizing. Its a specific group which isn’t accurately described by “women”. That’s like saying “bodies over 5’7” is dehumanizing.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is the problem, [not a woman]? Didn't you say that "transition" was an adequated treatment for gender dysphoria? If you say your mental health has improved because of it, then you shouldn't have a meltdown every single time anyone refers to your sex. If you were secure about not being a man my words wouldn't affect you. I don't have an existencial crisis when people mistake me for a man because I know I'm a woman.

Edit: Redacted following ACLU's style to comply with the rules...

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As we’ve discussed as nauseum they don’t want 3rd spaces because they’ve determined assimilation is the path to safety.

And that is YOUR problem, not ours. Women DON'T own you and any other [NOT A WOMAN] absolutely NOTHING!!! We'have more than enough dealing all those men invading women's spaces.

The trans woman in the olympics didn’t hit the base lift so hardly a ringing endorsement of your outrage.

How many athletets do you know that debut at the Olympics at 43 years of age and with a big gap on their sporting carreer?!!!

Bodies with vaginas isn’t dehumanizing. Its a specific group which isn’t accurately described by “women”. That’s like saying “bodies over 5’7” is dehumanizing.

And you say this bullshit just after claiming that me saying you don't give a fuck about women is an ad-hominen attack?!! How is reducing us to body parts or functions not dehumanizing, [circling]? The word women is perfectly fine. There are only two sexes and humans can't change sex. How you "identify as" has no place in biology. That is enough! If you don't see how this is dehumanizing then I won't bother with this stupid rule about "misgendering". We're in this stupid mess because society have bend backwards to accomadate all the absurd demands by men pretending to be "women" for far too long. I'm going to call you exactly what you are: [NOT A WOMAN]. A mysgogynist [not a woman] who don't give a fuck about women like a typical [not a woman].

At least hormonally yes. And yes, I almost certainly would be what with the normal sized body, lack of cromagnon features and all.

You're [not a woman]. You couldn't have gone through a "hormonal female puberty". What a nonsense. Please pick some biology books.

I listen to doctors who control actual guidance and aren’t in the pocket of the Christian Right and anti trans money.

So, you only listed to doctors who are payed by trans lobby, got it. And you didn't read any of those links, aren't you? You just decided they were religious zealots. Anything to keek your male head in the sand, right?

Whatever, arguing with a [not a woman] like you was a total wasted of my time.

Edit: Redacted following ACLU's style to comply with the rules...

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Someone who doesn’t want breasts getting them removed is not a harm. They’re happier and not debilitated. You just don’t care value bodily autonomy.

I "love" how you are still not admitting that irreversible stuff is being done to teenagers. And, of course, not mention of breast binding on your part. Is that practice "harmles", too?

When it became clear this was just an ad homonym skred I just stopped reading and skipped to the next paragraph.

And again.

How am I wrong about anything I said? You have proven time and time again that you don't have any empathy for women and you only view us as human shields and as a way to get whatever you want. You have shown zero sympathy about all the harm that TRA's policies causes to women, yet you cry over how the "mean" women aren't working on giving you third spaces. You dismiss women's issues, and yet you wan't we feel sorry for you. Maybe you should start complaining to trans activists. If they can get male sex offenders jailed alongside women, medical journals using stupid and de-humanizing terms like "bodies with vagina", or a 43-year-old man competing at a women's event at the Olympics, they surely have the power to give you whatever you want.

I went through the wrong puberty. One made me a monster and miserable the other would have been fine. So some People do go through the wrong puberty. Just because you didn’t want the other one doesn’t mean no one did.

Just because you weren't comfortable with your body it doesn't mean you went through the wrong puberty. You're talking about your own subjective feelings, not objective facts.

Objectively my life would have been better without male puberty. How can you deny that?

This is nonsense. You cannot know that because you are not female. Therefore, you have absolutely no idea what is like to go through female puberty. This all wishfull thinking on your part. Do you think if you were given GnRH analogues and exogenous hormones while you were growing up you would have gone through "female puberty" and you will now now a happy "passing transwoman"? You would not. You would only have more health problems by now because of starting with a induced hormonal imbalance at a earlier age. That is why you need to stop proyecting your own fantasies on children and teens.

Doctors say different. I’ll trust them over you.

The Pediatric Endocrine Society’s Statement on Puberty Blockers Isn’t Just Deceptive. It’s Dangerous - by endocrinologist Michael K. Laidlaw

Gender Dysphoria and Children: An Endocrinologist’s Evaluation of ‘I am Jazz’

Challenges in Timing Puberty Suppression for Gender-Nonconforming Adolescents - written by one of the authors of the Dutch protocol

Children's transgender clinic hit by 35 resignations in three years as psychologists warn of gender dysphoria 'over-diagnoses'

Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just ‘Affirmation’ and Drugs

Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

Children's gender identity clinic concerns go back 15 years - about Tavistock doctors' concerns over "puberty blockers"

Irish College of GPs reverses stance on puberty blockers

Time to Hit Pause on 'Pausing' Puberty in Gender-Dysphoric Youth - by endocrinologist William Malone

One Year Since Finland Broke with WPATH "Standards of Care"

Sweden's Karolinska Ends the Use of Puberty Blockers for <16: New policy statement from the Karolinska Hospital

Evidence for puberty blockers use very low, says NICE

Irresponsible Gender-Transition Treatments on Children - letters from two doctors

Is that enough for you or do you only listen to doctors that tell you what you want to hear?

I said teens not children. Stop misquoting me. And a tiny regret rate doesn’t negate possible consent. Some 5 percent of adults regret breast augmentation. Should that be illegal?

Adults and teens are not comparable. No, I don't think teens are mature enough to concept to "transition", especially not when they are being sold a lie by unscrupulous doctors.

And I want to note you're moving the goal posts. This discussiong began by you claiming that not irreversible stuff was being done to trans identified teens, and now you are talking about consent.

Please stop comparing gender dysphoria and anorexia. They aren’t the same. I currently have diagnosis for both. (After a reevaluation my Ednos diagnosis was recatagorized, not a great congratulations on the weight loss present). They are not the same thing and it’s extremely disrespectful to try to force a comparison.

I'm not going to stop anything. Saying they are not comparable tell us absolutely nothing. Explain why gender dysphoria and anorexia nervosa are so different from each other when both involve individuals with a distorted perception of themselves and prone to self-harm? You really don't know how to explain it, aren't you? That is why you, and other trans identified people, try so hard to shut up the comparison with claims of being "disrespectful". How convenient for you all that any question that threathens your beliefs are "offensive" or "transphobic".

Nobody cares if unbiased and fair research gets done on detransition. But y’all aren’t doing that. That ROGD study is the perfect example.

Again with the same nonsense. Do you seriously think you are going to convince anyone by calling anything you don't like anti-trans propaganda? Why don't you explain how they were biased for a change? Why don't you tell us exactly what a unbiased research looks like to you for a change?

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I said you're hiding your head in the sand because that is exactly all what you've been doing: trying to twist my points to suit your position and ignoring the unconvenient parts that you don't know how to misrepresent. Just like you keep not adressing the evidence that 13 years old girls have gotten their breasts amputated, which is something irreversible being done to teens, exactly what you claimed it didn't happen. And speaking of harmful practices trans identified girls are encouraged to do, I forgot to mention the horros of breast binding. But of course, you don't give a dam about what happen to young trans identified females, just like you don't give a dam about women being told to use de-humanizing "inclusive" terms to talk about themselves and female anatomy, or how women are being harmed because of males claiming to be "women" are invading (formerly) women-only spaces like bathrooms, refuges, sports, hospital wards, prissons, etcetera. Just like you don't give a dam about TRA policies distorting statistics and lying about women getting more violent. Just like you don't give a dam about dissenting women receiving death and rape threats, being smeared, getting fired, or getting physically assaulted for stating the obvious fact that men are not and will never be women regardless of how many hormones they take, or how many surgeries they undergone, or how many sexist stereotypes they try to live up to.

You call yourself a "woman", yet you have zero sympathy for actual women. We're nothing more than human shields for you. Let's be real, deep down you likely know that you will never been anything but what you hate the most. Why else, do you throw a tantrum every time people refuse to play along with the obvious lies about who you are? You need to be honest with yourself and learn to be comfortable on your own skin rather than live vicariously through trans identified children and teens.

Nobody goes through the wrong puberty as nobody is born in the wrong body. Who does enjoy puberty, anyway? Do you think that being unconfortable with your changing body is an exclusive experience of trans identified people? I wasn't exactly happy when my breasts started to develope or when I got my first periods or when I was told I have to shave because I was a girl. Was I a "trans boy" or "non-binary person" or whatever else? I mean, I don't wear dresses or make-up, so I must not be a woman, right? That is the obvious conclusion if I were to follow QT logic, right?

Listen, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, more commonly known as "puberty blockers" are NOT reversible. Anyone who knows something about pharmacology would recognize the phrase of them being "reversible" as the red flag that it is. No drug is reversible, that is why you need to weight the benefits and the risks of using them. Why do you think in literally any other area of medicine self-medication is frowned upon? TRA's only basis to say they are "reversible" is by extrapolating from their use in the treatment of central precocious puberty. However, central precocious puberty and gender dysphoria are very different conditions and GnRH agonists are used for different reasons in them. In the former, the aim to dealy the kid's puberty until the typical onset of puberty. Meanwhile, in the latter, children whose puberty started at typical ages are getting their sex hormones shut down to made "passing" easier.

But the human body is too complex to be able to stop the clock as if were nothing. Sex hormones are important for developing bones and brains. Even if their secretion is later resumed, we can't be sure on the impact of temporaly shutting them down. Moreover, we can't know the sociopsychological impact of teens, who are likely uncorfortable with their bodies, being kept in a child-like state while all their peers are growing up normally. Why wouldn't they jump on taking exogenous hormones, especially when everyone is cheering them on being, or being able to become, the opposite sex? Keira Bell's treatment started at 16 years old and undergone a bilateral mastectomy at 20 years old. Yet she later regreted all of this. How can you say children and teens are mature enough to consent to any of this? How can they consent when they are being groomed by adult activists that tell them their only options are "transition" or suicide? How can they consent when they are not told the actual risks and doctors employ anatomical unaccurate terms like "male chest reconstruction", "neovagina", "sex assigned at birth", "front hole" or "transition"? Especially when many doctors are keen on ignoring the skyrocketing increase on cases, the change on the sex ratios in favour of teen girls, the many co-morbities that many of the patients have, or the increasing numbers of de-transitioners? Not to mention the obvious question: why are trans identified people are offered hormones and surgeries to "transition", but no one thinks on giving anorexic patients a liposuction?

And you have the nerve to complaining that I or others can't provide you with the data you ask for when it's trans activists who are doing the very best not to allow any debate or research that may contradicts their dogmas? It's trans activists who don't want people researching detransition or recent changes in the demographis of young patients with gender dysphoria. It's transactivists who seek to punish anyone raising safeguarding concerns or just get a more a cautios position. All of this under excuse that it's anti-"trans" propaganda. What a joke! Anything it's "transphobic" for you all, starting with reality itself.

You all would rather support doctors who can't keep basic patient's data or disregard any safeguarding. You all would rather support people who try to ban alternative treatments for gender dysphoria through bad science. You all would rather keep denying the importance of sex even if get's your life in danger. You all would rather support an English proffessor who advocate for stealing and burning a book he doesn't like. You all would rather support the lawyers who advice you to keep your goals secret. You all would rather support the lawyers who don't want people to know how many trans identified males there are in the female state.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So, you'd rather hide your head in the sand and keep repeating the same lies about how no irreversible procedures are being given to minors? Do you think all the evidence to the contrary will vanish by just saying this doesn't happen? If you are going to tell me my assertions are baseless, then justify your claims.

I can't produce research that hasn't been done. It's only recently that teenagers whose gender dysporia began at adolescense have been going to gender clinics for "transition". The change in the sex ratio where female patients are outnumbering male ones, that trans activists are keen on not looking for an explanation, is also a new fenomenon. It's also new that children and teenagers who identify as "trans" are being cheering on their cross-sex identitiies not only by the medical and psychological establishment, but also the Media and schools. There is anecdotical evidence by detransitioners that suggest they don't often don't go back to their doctors. As I said, desistence and detransition is an area that needs more research, but transactivists are trying their best to not allow it.

It's unbeliable you had the nerve that no one is objecting to study detransition when I showed you the case of a psychotherapist who is going to court about this very issue. What exactly is unethical about what he was trying to research? How is this more unethical than chemically castrating children? Why are you all so scared of people researching this topic if you all are so secure on your own chosen "identities" as you all claim? And what about the AAP not wanting to allow the debate on the treatment of trans identified minors? Again, what are you all so afraid of?

And what about this paper I linked, very much pro-"transition" for minors and using ofuscating "inclusive language", which outright admitted that females who identify as "trans" have gotten their breast removed as young as 13 years old? What have you to say about it? Are you going to try to dismiss it as "transphobic" propaganda? And what about the girls in Scotland that were aprroved for the same surgery? Are you going to ignore it too?

What have you to say about Finland and Sweden reversing course when in comes to "transition" of minors? What have you to say about even one of the authors of the Dutch protocol admitting that this is being applied for a population that it was not designed for? What have you to say that in spite of GnRH agonists being sold as a "pause button", virtually all children progress to cross-sex hormones? Tavistock's own data support this, you know? Are you going to argue the doctors have gotten very good on detecting who is a "true trans" at the same time when it's became "transphobic" to question someone's identity in any way?

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Teens are given cross-sex hormones and female teens are getting bilateral mastectomies, don't you think that qualify as irreversible? The effect of GnRH agonists (aka "puberty blockers) on children with gender dysphoria is still largely unknown and what we do know is not encouraging. Detransition is an area that needs more research, but trans activists will do as much as possible to ban any research on this topic, along anything else that question the official narrative. Is detransition is so rare, why are QT is so afraid that people research it?

A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder

Detransition-Related Needs and Support: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

Psychotherapist blocked from studying ‘trans regret’ takes case to the European Court

Scottish doctors approved breast removal for 51 trans teenagers

Chest Reconstruction and Chest Dysphoria in Transmasculine Minors and Young Adults

Eligible youth were 13 to 25 years old, had been assigned female at birth, and had an identified gender as something other than female. Recruitment occurred during clinical visits and via telephone between June 2016 and December 2016. Surveys were collected from participants who had undergone chest surgery at the time of survey collection and an equal number of youth who had not undergone surgery.

2 participants in this survey had a bilacteral mastectomy at age 13, 5 had one at age 14, 9 at age 15, 9 at age 16, and 8 at age 17.

AAP 'Silencing Debate' on Gender Dysphoria, Says Doctor Group

Evidence for puberty blockers use very low, says NICE

All Six of Sweden's Pediatric Clinics Meet to Discuss a Cautious Stance Toward Pediatric Gender Transitions

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because, while transsexualism and transgenderism weren't invented only by Americans, transgender ideology (or identity politics in general) is very American centric and it has not only reached other English speaking countries, but also many other countries to different degrees. I explained the use gender in Spanish because that was what we were discussing, but many other English "inclusive" terms has been adopted or literally translated into Spanish by TRA from Spanish speaking countries. And they also parrot the same taking points than English speakers. I admit that part of my disgust from the word gender comes from the fact I see it as something that has been imposed from the outside.

Yes, I think talking about sex rather using gender as euphemism should make things clearer. And that is why I don't understand your insistence on using the word gender to mean sex. It's not like nobody would understand what you mean if you say sex, well, other than some harcore TRA I mean. And I neither understand why you think using (also) a non biological definition for woman and man is useful when that is exactly what has lead to the many laws allowing "legal sex changes". Again, my problem is not only with self-ID, but any law making a man legally a "woman" regardless of any meaningless requirement they ask for.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Taking it literally, the phrase all "transgeder" sex offenders are male is likely false. However, I don't think it's far from the truth. The vast majority of sex offenders are male and trans identified males retain male patterns of criminality.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885#s4

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The point is to highlight how sexist their ideas of women and men are. A man with long hair wearing a dress and lipstick and who likes soap operas and hates sports? According to QT, he must really be a "woman"! A woman with short hair wearing trousers, who is good at math and likes action movies? Again to them, she must be really a "man"! I guess they realize this and that is why they usually avoid answering the question.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

2a- So, what do adult human males and transgender females have in common to be grouped together? What do adult human females and transgender males have in common to be grouped together.

2b- How are you defining male that transgender males are not included in your definition of man? How are you defining female that transgender females are not included in your definition of woman?

3- They are paywalled. I may adress them later if I find a free version.

4- I need to label better my list of links... These two are about sex offenders.

Female prisoners at greater risk of sexual assault by transgender inmates, High Court hears

High Court rules transgender women CAN go into female prisons: Judges rule government's policy is lawful despite claims from inmate it raised risk of sex attacks

Those are official numbers from the British goverment. Real numbers may be slightly higher because males with a GRC are counted as female (but nobdy is trying to erase sex, right?). Notice that the judges of this case recognized the greater risk for female inmates, but they ruled women must suck it up because the feelings of males who identify as trans are more important. Tell me again how are trans identified people the most oprressed?

7 and 8- And yet women are supused to use "prefered pronouns" and "inclusive language" and acept males in women's spaces because...? You're the one who thinks we're a hate group for refusing to do all those things yet, when questioned about TRA policies' impact on women, you simplely say that is how life works? Seriously?

9a- Have you read any pro-QT paper?

9b- That is how clinical research works. To prove that a new drug is effective to treat a certain disease you need to do a randomized double blind trial where you give a group of subjects the drug you're testing and another group of subjects, a placebo. The participants don't know which one they are taking. Neither do the doctors. If there is already a treatment available, you can include the standard treatment to see if the new drug offer any advantage over it.

https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/control-group/

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/double-blind-study/

Blinding for "gender affirment treatment" is not possible, but there is not excuse not to use a control group. But researchers never compare patients treated with "gender affirming treatment" with patients receiving not treatment or receive alternative treatments. They use the general population as control instead, except this doesn't tell us wheter patients are getting better from the treatment provided. Worse, for ideological reasons nowadays researchers will match subjects with controls by "gender identity" instead of sex and, thus, introducing more variables in the mix. Other common methodological problems of studies supporting "affirming" the identity of trans identified people are: they usually use a convenience sampling method, lack of long-term studies, and a high rate of participant's drop-out.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

2- I think OP meant all "transgender" sex offender are male, not all male "transgender" are sex offenders.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

2- Can you define what a man and a woman are without using circular definitions or rely on sexist setereotypes?

3- Where is the proof that it works?

4- Record numbers of transgender prisoners transition from men to women

One in 50 prisoners identifies as transgender amid concerns inmates are attempting to secure prison perks

6- OP is not GC. And when GC denied neuroplasticity, anyway? Do you even know what that word means?

7 and 8 - Of course, trans identified people are the only people who matter for QT...

9a) Are you saying that desistence must not be researched?

9b) How can you design a vetting system when QT ban any research that they don't like (e.g. desistence, detransition, alternative treatments, autoginephillia, causes of gender dysphoria, why the sex ratio has switched in recent years)? Why do "gender affirming treatments" studies avoid using controls (and by controls I mean people with gender dysphoria not being treated with "gender affirming treatments"?

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The correct term for sex is... well, sex... Gender is only used as an euphemism because... honestly, I'd really like to know why some many English speakers do it. Is it prudishness? Are they only following the flow? Yes, it's true this euphemism is used even in academia. And, yet, no one says (yet) genderual reproduction or gender chromosomes because people (still) realize how dumb that would sound.

By the way, beware that TRA, when talking about this gender ratios, they are likely classifying people by "gender identity", not sex.

I don't know German, so I won't speak about it. But I can I tell you that expanding the meaning of the word for gender in Spanish has been a mess. For instance, in 2012 the gender identity law was passed in Argentina. This law legalized self-ID here and declares that everyone has a right to a "gender identity", which must be respected. Despite all the talk about "gender identity", the word actually used in our documents is sex because as I said the word sex is still widely used in Spanish speaking countries. The term gender is also used to talk about women's issues and you now have words like violencia de género (gender based violence), which I think it gives credit to the QT theory that women are discriminated against because of femininity and not our sex. And now in the news (and I guess in the justice system too) murders of males who identified as trans are counted as "femicides"...

I'm not trying to undermine socialization, that is ridiculous. I'm well aware that women and men are treated differently since, or before, they are born. I think differences between male and female behaviour is a result from both nature and nurture. I said you're disregarding biology because it seems you think biology only matters in deciding how one will be socialized.

By the way, are you going to tell me how including sex roles and stereotypes within the definition of women and men is any different thatn what TRA does? How can one reject sexism and define women by stereotypes at the same time?

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender has no place in biology. The correct term has always been sex, which you could corroborate by seeing some related terms: sexual reproduction, sexual dimorphism, sex determination, sex chromosomes, sex hormones, sex-linked inheritance. None of them use the word gender.

Originally, gender belonged to grammar. For example, Spanish is a gendered language where nouns, adjectives and articles are either masculine or feminine. When not linked to sex, the gender of a word is quite arbitrary and it doesn’t tell you anything about social norms, either. For instance, all the sciences are feminine nouns in Spanish, but that doesn’t mean science is regarded as a feminine pursuit in Spanish-speaking countries.

It was later that English speakers decided to use the word gender to refer to the different stereotypes and social roles that are expected from women and men. And at some point, for some reason, some English speakers decided to replace the word sex for gender. This latter use was the one that extended it the most and, yes, it was adopted even by some scientists and health care professionals. It must be said, though, this aversion for the word sex don’t exist outside the English-speaking world (not until very recently at least). However, because of the cultural and political influence of English speaking countries, particularly the United States, all those new meanings of gender (included the meaning of "gender identity") have been exported to many non-English speaking countries. This process was facilitated by the fact there is no lack of people who are pretty eager to adopt the latest American fashion without any care if it makes any sense. So, even though in Spanish the word sex has not been removed from daily speech in the same way it was in English, the use of gender for non-grammatical purposes have been slowly creeping into our language and I hate it.

Anyway, you have said nothing about how defining women and men in non-biological terms is what now allows males to be “legally female” in many places. You said nothing either about how it makes sense to both reject sexism and define men and women by social trends.

Moreover, it’s not only evolutionary biologists who care about our sexed bodies. When you go to the hospital, your doctors won’t care about how you was socialized, but also what is your sex. For example, urinary tract infections are more common in women, because our urethras are shorter and closer to the anus. It was no male socialization what allowed Laurel Hubbard to debut at the Olympics at 43 years of age, either. It is not because of female socialization that sex selective abortions happen and now men outnumber women by a large margin in some countries. But you focus so much in socialization that you end up thinking that biology does not matter at all.

Feminists locked in trans row to sue Bristol student union by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is absurd to reject sexism and then define women and men by stereotypes. We should be able to talk about sexism and misogyny without doing so.

The root of current affairs around people who reject to "identify" as their sex lies in the doctors and psychologists who decades ago decided that some men were better off as "women" for not being "manly" enough. By making "sex change" surgeries a thing and using unaccurate anatomical terms to describe them, they gave legitimacy to the idea that men can become "women" somehow. This eventually evolved, among other things, to laws that allowed people to change the sex markers registered on their documents. And I'm not talking only about self-ID laws here, rather I'm also including laws that ask(ed) for meaningless requirements before a "legal sex change" like a clinical diagnostic of gender dysphoria or equivalent (you're still not the opposite sex), undergoing "sex reassigment surgery" (there is no such a thing) or living a certain amount of time as the opposite sex (what does that even mean?!). Society have enabled the lie that some men really are women, or viceversa, for far too long. Why, then, should we keep trying to dissociate the concepts of women and men from biology?

Lancet accused of sexism after calling women ‘bodies with vaginas’ by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know all that already. And in my natal tonge, Spanish, there is also the generic masculine in grammar. It doesn't change the fact there are only two sexes. If we have to talk about what society expects from each sex, there is already the words feminine and masculine. I don't see the need to start questioning what is a woman or a man from a non biological perspective when that is exactly what lead to all the pro-TRA laws and policies.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course the concept of man is real. The male sex is the one who produces small gametes. A man is an adult human male. A man doesn't stop being a man just because he is not a walking stereotype. Trying to dissociate the word man (and woman) from biology is exactly what gave rise to transgenderism.

Time to Hit Pause on 'Pausing' Puberty in Gender-Dysphoric Youth by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Archives from the article:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Is "Gender" really just "Masculinity", "Femininty", and "Androgyny"? by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As far as I understand, they use "gender expression" for fashion style basically and "gender identity" to refer to how they identify as. Meanwhile, "gender" may be used to mean biological sex, "gender roles" or "gender identity" depending on what is more convenient for them at the moment.

Liberals are now policing feminist jokes by [deleted] in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but I just stoped before the 5 minutes mark. I can't be bothered to finish the video when this dude get basic definitions totally wrong. Marxism opposes capitalism. You cannot talk about marxism without talking about economy and economic policies. Claiming that marxism opposes liberalism and the latter seeks the freedom of all individuals is disingenous. It is true that liberalism was key in the resurgement of democracy and the fall of absolute monarchies in modern times. However, the freedom that came with capitalsm had limits. For instance, in many (I'd say all, but I'm not sure) countries the vote was restricted to people based on sex, income or race at first. Many liberal countries have enganged in imperialism, without any care for the freedom of the people who lived in the countries they invaded. In some cases, the ruling class has overthrown democratic elected goverments they didn't like and persecuted political rivals (for an example of this, you can read on the history of military dictatorships in Latin America). Saying that only comunists can be authoritharians is a capitalist mith. That is why I said that the only freedom that liberals care about is economic freedom. Everything else is optional.

And I think it matters a lot how we choose to politically define the woke. Just like it matters we can say that "trans woman" are actually men claiming to be women for a variety of reasons, it matters we can say from where this ideology comes from and who is putting the money behind it. This ideology have surged in the West and the ones in power there are NOT marxist. Not only woke politics has nothing to do with economical policies, but their focus with identity has more in common with the individualism and the idea of the self-made man espoused by liberalism than with the class analysis from marxism.

I don't think it's a coincidence that "neomarxism" is a term usually used by conservatives. While conservatives opposes identity politics, they don't have any interest in economic reform, either. It suits their own interests to label the woke that way because they don't want people to question the status quo. Just like it suits them to blame transgenderism on feminism.

Liberals are now policing feminist jokes by [deleted] in GenderCritical

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If their ideas have nothing to do with marxism, then it doesn't make sense calling them "neomarxists" or "cultural marxists". Even if they cover their ideas with some marxist concepts to appear to be revolutionaries, it doesn't make sense. It's like calling TRA feminists because they use some feminist concepts to hide their true nature. Calling the woke "neomarxists" only serves to hide the fact that woke politics is, in fact, a capitalist enterprise.

Liberalism was originally tied up with economic policies, though. I don't know why Americans use the word in a different way, but I don't think Democrats care that much about freedom in general. Maybe, when it was the Republicans the ones who took offense at everything, they could say to be the party of freedom. However, IMO, just a glance at their foreign policy shows the two parties are two sides of the same coin.