r/unitedkingdom • u/PinkNews Verified Media Outlet • 5d ago

Keir Starmer says he doesn’t want schools teaching young people about transgender identities ...

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/06/25/keir-starmer-trans-education-general-election-2024/
3.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

432

u/TropicalGoth77 5d ago

The counter argument would be that its (at least partially) a social contagion type thing in which teenagers / young people going through the mental challenges of puberty are seeing transitioning as an answer to confusion and discomfort about changes in their body. Thus not mentioning it would reduce the amount of young people seeing that as the appropriate response to these feelings.

Whether you agree or not with this idea is up to debate but thats the counter point.

119

u/CitrusRabborts 5d ago

But it's the same when considering if you're gay or not. Some people experiment and decide it's not for them. We shouldn't be bothered if teenagers socially transition and then decide it's not for them

165

u/ItsFuckingScience 5d ago

Socially transitioning is not equivalent to kissing a boy and deciding it’s not actually for you

Getting yourself, your peers, teachers to address and support you as a new person and identity, persevering against potential pushback from parents, family or anyone suggesting it could “be a phase” etc is not easily psychologically reversible

107

u/Broccoli--Enthusiast 5d ago

But who cares if people want to socially transition ? Why is it a big deal? They aren't becoming a new person, they are using a name they are more comfortable with, maybe wearing different clothes. They are still the same person. Just being more public about how they feel.

I work with a trans person, one day Stacey became Hunter, she became he

It did not affect me one but, other than a few slips everyone had it down within a few weeks.

It literally doesn't harm or affect you in the slightest. Just let people be happy for fuck sake.

43

u/ItsFuckingScience 5d ago

Because the Cass Review stated socially transitioning should be viewed as a psychological / medical intervention because it

“may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning and longer term outcomes”

So it is a big deal. I’m supportive of trans people finding happiness and comfortable in their identity but this is a topic of research which is still quite new and developing which there isn’t a significant amount of evidence for.

And suggesting it’s completely fine and being totally fine with school children to socially transition without any medical / psychological oversight is wrong in my opinion.

That said, if one of my friends or colleagues said they were trans and wanted me to call them by x new name or use him/her or them instead I’d be totally fine with doing it. No issue at all.

33

u/Wuffles70 5d ago

The Cass Report also omitted studies from the review on the basis that they weren't double blind studies. 

In pediatric medicine.

3

u/ItsFuckingScience 5d ago

In the week after the release of the final report, Cass described receiving abusive emails and was given security advice to avoid public transport.[102] She also said that "disinformation" had frequently been spread online about the report. Cass stated "if you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children's healthcare, then that's unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that."[102]

There were widespread, false claims from critics of the report that it had dismissed 98% of the studies it collected and all studies which weren't double-blind experiments.

Cass described these claims as being "completely incorrect". Although only 2% of the papers collected were considered to be of high quality, 60% of the papers, including those considered to be of moderate quality, were considered in the report's evidence synthesis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review

10

u/queenieofrandom 5d ago

The cass review is full of flaws though

56

u/ItsFuckingScience 5d ago

It was well received by the British psychological society, Royal college of psychiatrists, and the royal college of paediatrics and child health

It was led by a consultant paediatrician and former president of royal college of paediatrics and child health

What did you find flawed with it? I think it’s the best evidenced based review out there?

-9

u/queenieofrandom 5d ago

Well it spoke about the lack of double blind trials, which isn't standard in paediatrics for one. Or that some of the writers and researchers are known advocates for conversion therapy.

22

u/Pluckerpluck Hertfordshire 5d ago

Well it spoke about the lack of double blind trials

I've read the full thing, and the only actual mention of "blind trials" is in a definition of what it means. It's never brought up otherwise, and was never a primary way in which reviewers were deemed high quality or not. So I don't know where this idea of talking about the lack of double blind trials even came from. Generally it was a lack of long-term follow up that lowered the quality of studies.

11

u/mittfh West Midlands 5d ago

Even though many of the studies were categorised as Moderate or High quality by the York team, Cass effectively dismissed them as very weak evidence for any intervention (including social transitioning) due to either (a) not representing children from every background, every coincidental mental / neurological condition and every age of first identifying as trans (but to do so, you'd effectively need a multinational study of hundreds of thousands of people to get enough to fulfil every category in both the "had blockers / HRT" and "didn't have blockers / HRT" cohorts), (b) a high drop-out rate (inevitable if you want to study a cohort over many years), and (c) 1-3 years after starting HRT is apparently nowhere near long enough to follow them.

She'd also like studies to examine not just the person's health, but also how well they do in life generally: do they move out of their parental home, do they get a job, do they form relationships with others. To do that would necessitate an even larger international cohort, and a study potentially lasting several decades to last from childhood to nearly 30.

Added onto which, even social transition shouldn't be started without clinical consent, and even then should only be part time (at home, not in school). While setting up multiple child gender clinics around the country and having a holistic assessment of all their needs sounds good in theory, the two new clinics are struggling to find staff, while the CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) waiting list is currently over 100,000, and there's likely to be very little additional money for health services in general over the coming few years.

So for all but a handful of children, they may go from a 4 year wait to access a gender clinic to a wait until they're nearly 30 (given Cass recommended children's gender services look after young people until they're 25 before moving to adult services) - so effectively outlawing the bulk of trans children. Oh, and private providers will likely be required to follow the same pathway as the NHS or have their license pulled.

Added onto which, despite waiting lists for adult gender referrals being 5.5 years long (they're currently booking first appointments for those referred in December 2018), she's concerned that they're allegedly too quick to issue hormones, don't take other conditions such as mental health or autism into account, and there's allegedly a high rate of detransition, so the NHS is to commission a review into adult gender services. There's also a recommendation that HRT should only be given under 18 in exceptional circumstances, and all seeking HRT should have their case assessed by an independent national panel who'd make the recommendation, rather than any doctors involved in the patient's care.

So at a time when 20+ countries offer gender self identification, we're going down the opposite route of ever increasing gatekeeping and hoops to jump through - plus the ever looming possibility of barring trans people (regardless of stage of transition) from all single sex facilities and services - most organisations won't have the funds or space to set up separate unisex facilities.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ver_Void 5d ago

May have

Not being able to try and figure out who you are in your own way can do a lot of damage, did do a lot of damage to be precise

0

u/PotsAndPandas 4d ago

Could you elaborate on what the actual issues are with social transitioning? Saying the Cass review says so isn't much of a statement.

0

u/skepticCanary 3d ago

At this point any sentence that starts with “The Cass Review says…” is pretty much worthless.

-2

u/Agent_Argylle 5d ago

Cass is full of shit. Trans is nothing new.

4

u/ItsFuckingScience 4d ago

You’ve clearly not read the Cass report

-2

u/Agent_Argylle 4d ago

You clearly haven't or read it too uncritically

3

u/ItsFuckingScience 4d ago

Trans is nothing new.

What does this have to do with the Cass review

-10

u/oswaldluckyrabbiy 5d ago

Cass Review is bunk science. If a review in any other field chose to selectively disconsider any study that happened to disagree with their pre-determined outcome (led by a director not qualified in said field) to the scale of 98% of studies it would be placed under extreme scrutiny.

Its purpose was to be something 'sciency' that transphobes can point to as "proof" that could be used to sway otherwise uninformed but sympathetic members of the public.

4

u/ItsFuckingScience 5d ago

I’m just going to copy a previous reply of mine, as you’ve spread the exact same misinformation as a previous commenter

In the week after the release of the final report, Cass described receiving abusive emails and was given security advice to avoid public transport.[102] She also said that "disinformation" had frequently been spread online about the report. Cass stated "if you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children's healthcare, then that's unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that."[102]

There were widespread, false claims from critics of the report that it had dismissed 98% of the studies it collected and all studies which weren't double-blind experiments.

Cass described these claims as being "completely incorrect". Although only 2% of the papers collected were considered to be of high quality, 60% of the papers, including those considered to be of moderate quality, were considered in the report's evidence synthesis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review

-1

u/oswaldluckyrabbiy 4d ago

Point still stands. In any other field if I claimed 98% of accepted data was 'poor in quality' and STILL then went on to dismiss 40% of it - the onus is on me to justify that.

Also your source for spread disinformation is Cass herself - we've seen plenty others falsely play the victim for sympathy in the past. Ahe even played a 'wont someone please think of the children' card - literally parody material.

Your defense it the classic - if you aren't 100% right which means you are 100% wrong. Ironically exactly what the Cass Report did.

You also still failed to address the other problems I pointed out like Cass being unqualified to lead the report. Imagine getting an architect to judge the space shuttle program. They might be a capable intelligent person but clearly not suited to the role. Worse her personal social media was caught to be following LGB Alliance. Imagine if a review into racial equality and treatment by the police followed an active anti-black group.

Its not fucking science it was a hitjob in disguise.

3

u/ItsFuckingScience 4d ago

Point still stands. In any other field if I claimed 98% of accepted data was 'poor in quality' and STILL then went on to dismiss 40% of it - the onus is on me to justify that.

You’re lying again or have poor comprehension. She didn’t say 98% was poor in quality. If studies looked at were not of good quality then of course they should not be included. The whole point of the Cass review was a review of the available evidence.

Also your source for spread disinformation is Cass herself - we've seen plenty others falsely play the victim for sympathy in the past. Ahe even played a 'wont someone please think of the children' card - literally parody material.

It’s not parody material. Her report is not anti-trans. And even the very pro trans “side” of the discussion makes the exact same argument. It’s “think of the children” just from a different perspective. And she never said “trans is bad think of the children” she said “stop lying and spreading misinformation about a review of scientific evidence into childrens healthcare”

Your defense it the classic - if you aren't 100% right which means you are 100% wrong. Ironically exactly what the Cass Report did.

Nonsensical. This is not what I said or the Cass report did.

You also still failed to address the other problems I pointed out like Cass being unqualified to lead the report. Imagine getting an architect to judge the space shuttle program. They might be a capable intelligent person but clearly not suited to the role.

This is getting ridiculous. She was a highly qualified Paediatric consultant. She was also chairing the review. She didn’t do the review herself. She wasn’t “judging” anything. It’s a terrible analogy. Disingenuous or ignorant at best.

A former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health from 2012-2015, Dr Cass recently finished a term as Chair of the British Academy of Childhood Disability (2017-2020).

Other recent roles include acting as the Senior Clinical Advisor for Child Health for Health Education England.

Her consultant clinical practice was as a tertiary neurodisability consultant from 1992 to 2018 in three very different specialist centres and she has published widely in this area.

Worse her personal social media was caught to be following LGB Alliance. Imagine if a review into racial equality and treatment by the police followed an active anti-black group.

Can’t comment on this. Was she following multiple other groups including pro trans groups? Or just this alliance you mention?

Its not fucking science it was a hitjob in disguise.

Hysterical conspiratorial criticism of a well regarded review of available scientific literature.

5

u/boycecodd Kent 4d ago

Following someone on social media doesn't even mean you agree with them, it just might mean you want to stay informed about what they're saying. I follow all the main party leaders, it doesn't mean that I approve of them or like them.

2

u/howlingwelshman 4d ago

I have quite a few people in my life who have transitioned. One in particular is so much happier and confident I 100% believe it was the right thing for her.

Others I feel they did it because it was an answer to a problem that they couldn't find a solution for. They were depressed, lonely and introverted and in all honesty soon after transitioning they went back to being depressed, lonely and introverted. Transitioning was an attempt to find happiness because they were not happy with who they were. Unfortunately it didn't fix it for them and they are still unhappy.

-11

u/DontUseThisUsername 5d ago edited 5d ago

I agree people living how they want isn't an issue. There are real people that want to be dogs, chairs and cars. It's all equally fine if they want to address themselves as such, and I'm sure they can find supportive people to live like that, but that fringe topic shouldn't be addressed in school (outside of a psychology class) as something kids should consider.

What should be taught is to be respectful. Not being forced to see a person as a dog, but not bullying or harassing because of difference or mental illness.

0

u/Amekyras 5d ago

Who? Who wants to be a dog, a chair, or a car, and is doing so insistently, persistently, and consistently (the standards we apply to gender dysphoria)?

3

u/DontUseThisUsername 5d ago edited 5d ago

Does it matter who? It's acceptable and comparable for the same reasons. Wanting to be a dog for a day or wanting to be a dog for life doesn't change that you're not a dog. It's just diagnosed as a more serious mental condition if they permanently see themselves that way.

-1

u/Amekyras 5d ago

You can understand how this is completely different, right?

3

u/DontUseThisUsername 5d ago edited 5d ago

It would be a bit different if trans just meant people wanted to be treated and conform to the societal standards of the opposite sex. Wear a dress, act girly etc. Those are social inventions. That's not the case though. Gender and sex are conflated. Man and Male are conflated. Sex on ID's can be changed, not just gender. People get implants and sexual organs changed. People are always pointing out biological blurred lines. Links to male or female brains being trapped in the opposite gendered body etc.

This isn't just an attempt to redefine the link between the terms "Man"/"Woman" and Sex (Male/Female). It's trying to redefine someone's sex as they choose, even if it's under the guise of social constructs. Hence why changing biological species is perfectly similar.

On a side note "redefining someone's sex as they choose" is actually perfectly fine and I can see a future where this is possible. It's just not possible now.

1

u/Amekyras 5d ago

I mean, it all depends on how you define things like sex. One of the theories I find convincing is the idea that our brains have a neural map of our bodies (this is why phantom limb syndrome occurs for example), and that for trans people the neural map is simply just not quite right.