leicsmac Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 14 minutes ago, The Floyd said: I'm not a fan of the proposal itself, no. I think manufacturing a right to choose something that is biologically determined is stepping into very dangerous territory. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and should be treated as such, it shouldn't be used as a method of political point scoring, which is quite clearly what the Tories are trying to do here. On your last point, I'm not entirely sure that opposing this could be classed as 'hardcore social conservatism'. Biological sex assigned at birth is of course biologically determined. Gender, however, is not - pretty much all of the current psych works agree on that. And sometimes people's brains and people's junk are simply not aligned in the way most other folks are. Also, while you could class gender dysphoria as a mental disorder, you know what the statistically proven best solution is for curing it? Transition. As such, it should probably be a treatment readily available just as any other treatment is. I certainly agree that issues of this type shouldn't be used as a political football, but here I just see the Tories making it more possible for someone to get the right medical care for an issue that they have. So kudos. Regarding hardcore social conservatism, yeah, opposing this probably isn't that, but the point I was making is that the Tories in recent times haven't really stood in the way of socially liberal legislation (like the gay marriage ruling) in the way that some folks over here seem hellbent on doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 Be interesting to see who the next Tory leader is. I think JRM would win easily if he stood. Would not be good for the country though. I think he probably knows this and will not stand as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Biological sex assigned at birth is of course biologically determined. Gender, however, is not - pretty much all of the current psych works agree on that. And sometimes people's brains and people's junk are simply not aligned in the way most other folks are. Also, while you could class gender dysphoria as a mental disorder, you know what the statistically proven best solution is for curing it? Transition. As such, it should probably be a treatment readily available just as any other treatment is. I certainly agree that issues of this type shouldn't be used as a political football, but here I just see the Tories making it more possible for someone to get the right medical care for an issue that they have. So kudos. Regarding hardcore social conservatism, yeah, opposing this probably isn't that, but the point I was making is that the Tories in recent times haven't really stood in the way of socially liberal legislation (like the gay marriage ruling) in the way that some folks over here seem hellbent on doing. That is pretty much my point. By allowing someone to choose their own gender, you're allowing them to contradict their own biological characteristic. It's not the people themselves my problem lies with, whilst I personally don't understand, who am I to criticise? I do however have a problem with this idea that everyone should be entitled to change their gender whenever they so please, with no diagnosis of gender dysphoria required. Really? They're essentially speeding up the process and de-medicalising it. I'm not sure what medical care you're referring to here. Fair enough, by no means am I calling for a Tea Party-esque government. Edited 23 July 2017 by The Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 8 minutes ago, The Floyd said: That is pretty much my point. By allowing someone to choose their own gender, you're allowing them to contradict their own biological characteristic. It's not the people themselves my problem lies with, whilst I personally don't understand, who am I to criticise? I do however have a problem with this idea that everyone should be entitled to change their gender whenever they so please, with no diagnosis of gender dysphoria required. Really? They're essentially speeding up the process and de-medicalising it. I'm not sure what medical care you're referring to here. Fair enough, by no means am I craving for a Tea Party-esque government. Or...you're allowing people to have their body match their mind. It depends on which you consider to be more important, I guess. There should be some referral and consultation with an expert required before someone transitions, I agree - however I don't necessarily think that a specific diagnosis from a specific doctor should be needed for folks to start in every case. I don't think they're entirely demedicalising the process here, nor should they, they're just removing one element that for some trans folks may be an unnecessary stress, and thus making it easier for them to help themselves (which does require medical care in the form of bloodwork and hormones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 1 hour ago, toddybad said: During the election campaign he spoke of looking at how to ameliorate the issues relating to those with existing debts if those coming before and after had no debts. This is the point he has made today - in response to untrue claims that he'd promised to wipe all debts by the right wing press - because the party was in no position to even consider wiping debt without full knowledge of the economic implications. Surely you would think this a good thing. Or are you too busy His actual quote to NME was "We are looking at it and I'll deal with it". We now know what he meant was "I haven't looked at it and I probably won't be able to deal with it" As I said though, I'll focus at the minute my praise on him for sticking to his guns on Europe, any backsliding of a proper Brexit May and that toad Hammond and Jeremy has my vote, carrying out the will of the people is the most important thing in politics at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Or...you're allowing people to have their body match their mind. It depends on which you consider to be more important, I guess. There should be some referral and consultation with an expert required before someone transitions, I agree - however I don't necessarily think that a specific diagnosis from a specific doctor should be needed for folks to start in every case. I don't think they're entirely demedicalising the process here, nor should they, they're just removing one element that for some trans folks may be an unnecessary stress, and thus making it easier for them to help themselves (which does require medical care in the form of bloodwork and hormones). I'm going to side with the scientific fact on that one. Ok, so what criteria does someone have to meet for them to be eligible to skip a diagnosis? One element it may be, but I'd suggest that diagnosis is a pretty important element in any medical circumstance. What's now stopping people - who have no history or diagnosis of depression - demanding anti-depressants? I think by dismissing the need for a diagnosis in one instance, you're setting a precedent for others. Edited 23 July 2017 by The Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 Would this mean any man could change his gender and then try out for women's sports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 14 minutes ago, The Floyd said: I'm going to side with the scientific fact on that one. Ok, so what criteria does someone have to meet for them to be eligible to skip a diagnosis? One element it may be, but I'd suggest that diagnosis is a pretty important element in any medical circumstance. What's now stopping people - who have no history or diagnosis of depression - demanding anti-depressants? I think by dismissing the need for a diagnosis in one instance, you're setting a precedent for others. Current scientific fact also stipulates that sometimes the mind doesn't line up with the body, and that's really important too - that's what dysphoria essentially is. The argument here is simply about whether people change their minds or their bodies to help solve the issue - and I think both solutions are equally valid. Like I said, I think consultation and talking with a shrink is a necessary part of such things (for the sake of the person involved more than anything else), but I think a strict diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" using specific criterions is too narrow to be applied in all cases, because there is variance - as there is with every other mind condition. I think a doctor should have to sign off before someone starts hormones on the NHS dime, but I think broadening out what justifications a doctor can use to say they can be used isn't a bad idea. I don't think that would lead to a slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 23 July 2017 Author Share Posted 23 July 2017 2 hours ago, The Floyd said: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/23/gender-reassignment-could-be-streamlined-under-proposal Awful, awful idea from the not so conservative Conservative party. I think that's the astonishing thing to gleam from this, wherever you sit on the position... who would have looked at the policy in isolation and linked it to a sitting Conservative government!?! Synics could suggest it's due to the lack of a majority and having plenty of government hours to fill, but who cares - it's a debate worth having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 (edited) I honestly don't understand how anyone could give a damn. I can't even pretend to care about, if you want to be a ladyboy or a hewoman I don't care. Lifes short, be happy. Edited 23 July 2017 by Innovindil 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 2 hours ago, LiberalFox said: Be interesting to see who the next Tory leader is. I think JRM would win easily if he stood. Would not be good for the country though. I think he probably knows this and will not stand as a result. Eurgh. They need somebody from the centre. Somebody young and fresh who is willing to chart a course away from what's gone before imo. Would open then to pulling centre ground voters back in rather than pushing them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 1 hour ago, Innovindil said: I honestly don't understand how anyone could give a damn. I can't even pretend to care about, if you want to be a ladyboy or a hewoman I don't care. Lifes short, be happy. Pretty much. I don't actually think people do care all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: Current scientific fact also stipulates that sometimes the mind doesn't line up with the body, and that's really important too - that's what dysphoria essentially is. The argument here is simply about whether people change their minds or their bodies to help solve the issue - and I think both solutions are equally valid. Like I said, I think consultation and talking with a shrink is a necessary part of such things (for the sake of the person involved more than anything else), but I think a strict diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" using specific criterions is too narrow to be applied in all cases, because there is variance - as there is with every other mind condition. I think a doctor should have to sign off before someone starts hormones on the NHS dime, but I think broadening out what justifications a doctor can use to say they can be used isn't a bad idea. I don't think that would lead to a slippery slope. Apologies for the delay in response. I'm not sure the 'variance' is all that relevant, because all patients of sex reassignment surgery share the same desired outcome. Also, if we consider this quite a major surgery, which I'm sure most would, then why should it not require a strict diagnosis? Every other surgery (bar cosmetic) would require a relatively thorough diagnosis. I also disagree that it won't result in others feeling increasingly more entitled, but we're not going to change each other's minds on that I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 I don't think it relates to surgery. It's about legal recognition for someone's gender. As I understand it gender is personal, I'm not sure this would change medical procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 20 minutes ago, The Floyd said: Apologies for the delay in response. I'm not sure the 'variance' is all that relevant, because all patients of sex reassignment surgery share the same desired outcome. Also, if we consider this quite a major surgery, which I'm sure most would, then why should it not require a strict diagnosis? Every other surgery (bar cosmetic) would require a relatively thorough diagnosis. I also disagree that it won't result in others feeling increasingly more entitled, but we're not going to change each other's minds on that I'm sure. Pretty much what LF said - reassignment surgery isn't the overall objective of all folks who want to transition (probably most though) - and additionally, I'm pretty sure that the consultation process for such will not be affected by this, merely access to hormones to begin the process and legal recognition, which is important to people. Pardon me for nitpicking at the exceptions here but I do think, as with most cases of neural atypicality, it's best to highlight how difficult it is to put in hard and fast rules for something like this and so while having a few is useful (like, as you said, when major surgery is involved) having too many might not be. Yeah, we're not going to agree on others exploiting this - I think that's classic slippery slope fallacy, but so it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 13 minutes ago, LiberalFox said: I don't think it relates to surgery. It's about legal recognition for someone's gender. As I understand it gender is personal, I'm not sure this would change medical procedure. That's the problem, the two overlap. If you allow anyone and everyone to change their gender legally, then how do you deny those people of sex reassignment surgery or regulate the use of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionator Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 2 hours ago, Innovindil said: I honestly don't understand how anyone could give a damn. I can't even pretend to care about, if you want to be a ladyboy or a hewoman I don't care. Lifes short, be happy. Yep, this. It's that person's life, they can do what they want with it if it makes them happy and they're not harming others. Who am I to tell somebody else how to live their life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 While Hammond looks for a magic money tree, Labour has found one https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/23/while-hammond-looks-for-a-magic-money-tree-labour-has-found-one?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Pretty much what LF said - reassignment surgery isn't the overall objective of all folks who want to transition (probably most though) - and additionally, I'm pretty sure that the consultation process for such will not be affected by this, merely access to hormones to begin the process and legal recognition, which is important to people. Pardon me for nitpicking at the exceptions here but I do think, as with most cases of neural atypicality, it's best to highlight how difficult it is to put in hard and fast rules for something like this and so while having a few is useful (like, as you said, when major surgery is involved) having too many might not be. Yeah, we're not going to agree on others exploiting this - I think that's classic slippery slope fallacy, but so it goes. As I replied to LF, if you allow everyone to legally change their gender basically unchallenged, how do you then regulate the practice of sex reassignment surgery or disallow people from having it? Whilst of course not everyone will opt to have the SAS, those that do will either have to prove their gender dysphoria - which again, transgender people may take offence to - or the other option is that everyone has a free pass to the surgery. I just don't see consultation/diagnosis as a particularly big ask, I'd suggest it's to be expected with such a dramatic lifestyle change and it's absolutely not an attempt to deprive trans people of their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The Floyd said: As I replied to LF, if you allow everyone to legally change their gender basically unchallenged, how do you then regulate the practice of sex reassignment surgery or disallow people from having it? Whilst of course not everyone will opt to have the SAS, those that do will either have to prove their gender dysphoria - which again, transgender people may take offence to - or the other option is that everyone has a free pass to the surgery. I just don't see consultation/diagnosis as a particularly big ask, I'd suggest it's to be expected with such a dramatic lifestyle change and it's absolutely not an attempt to deprive trans people of their rights. That's a fair point, and why I think (as I've stated before) that there should be some kind of consultation before each step of the process, but just not a very specific diagnosis from a very specific doctor needed to get hormones and begin etc. Making the process more flexible than it is now - not taking it away completely - is a good thing IMO, and perhaps we can agree on that. Edited 23 July 2017 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: That's a fair point, and why I think (as I've stated before) that there should be some kind of consultation before each step of the process, but just not a very specific diagnosis from a very specific doctor needed to get hormones and begin etc. Making the process more flexible than it is now - not taking it away completely - is a good thing IMO, and perhaps we can agree on that. Flexibility without the abolition of too much medical procedure, sure . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 6 minutes ago, The Floyd said: As I replied to LF, if you allow everyone to legally change their gender basically unchallenged, how do you then regulate the practice of sex reassignment surgery or disallow people from having it? Whilst of course not everyone will opt to have the SAS, those that do will either have to prove their gender dysphoria - which again, transgender people may take offence to - or the other option is that everyone has a free pass to the surgery. I just don't see consultation/diagnosis as a particularly big ask, I'd suggest it's to be expected with such a dramatic lifestyle change and it's absolutely not an attempt to deprive trans people of their rights. Well how is it currently regulated? The legal recognition of one's gender is separate to any medical treatment although currently it seems you need to have a diagnosis to gain legal recognition. That suggests you need not have legal recognition to begin medical treatment which would surely be no easier to regulate. I don't really see how changing how legal recognition is administered would affect the medical side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 Drop in wind energy costs adds pressure for government rethink https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/23/drop-in-wind-energy-costs-adds-pressure-for-government-rethink?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 19 minutes ago, toddybad said: While Hammond looks for a magic money tree, Labour has found one https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/23/while-hammond-looks-for-a-magic-money-tree-labour-has-found-one?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Never understood all this "Magic money tree" bollocks, we've always had a magic money tree, the Gov owns a bank ffs. All this austerity bullshit is the biggest lie in economic history, anyone who thinks austerity works whilst running a BOT deficit needs to lock themselves in a dark room before they convince any more idiots it works! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 23 July 2017 Share Posted 23 July 2017 10 minutes ago, LiberalFox said: Well how is it currently regulated? The legal recognition of one's gender is separate to any medical treatment although currently it seems you need to have a diagnosis to gain legal recognition. That suggests you need not have legal recognition to begin medical treatment which would surely be no easier to regulate. I don't really see how changing how legal recognition is administered would affect the medical side of things. It's currently regulated by the diagnosis of gender dysphoria I assume. If you allow everyone to legally change their gender - inadvertently allowing everyone to self-diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria - then it creates a grey area as to who is illegible for surgery and who isn't, and if people are offended enough by having to prove it to acquire legal standing, then I'm sure they'll be offended if asked to prove it for medical procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts