Daily review 01/04/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, April 1st, 2021 - 16 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

16 comments on “Daily review 01/04/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bruce Ellis 1
    1 April 2021 at 6:07 pm

    Will Ron Brierley be deported to NZ as a 501?

  2. Stuart Munro 2
    1 April 2021 at 6:42 pm

    I wonder if the title for lapsed knights could become 'Sau".

  3. weka 3
    1 April 2021 at 7:12 pm

    It's worth pointing out a few things here. One is that health care for trans people has not had adequate attention in both provision, but also the evidence base. Trans people are being doubly discriminated against here. Women familiar with health politics know this stuff, only for us it was pushed predominantly by a culturally misogynistic and sexist medical science sector. With trans care it's being pushed by the same overmedicalisaiton with a very powerful set of trans focussed lobby groups. I can't see how trans people are served well by the shoddy science and process that has been used.

    There will be a push back that this report is anti-trans. What I'd like to see is trans people getting access to good health care, with a sound evidence base *and* major societal investment in non-medicalised support services.

    Anyone thinking that this is only the business of trans people, you need to spend some time listening to destransitioners and trans people who are critiquing the current ideology over evidence push.

    https://twitter.com/rogdmum/status/1377269324394737664

    • McFlock 3.1
      1 April 2021 at 8:07 pm

      And another twitter poster a few days ago had an unsubtle counterpoint to that concern.

      The anti trans argument they have about medication: 'we don't know the long term effects! crying'

      Really has the same stench as antivaxxer arguments.

      In both cases, they seem to prefer dead kids over live ones, who *might* (very small chance) have long term negative effects.

      https://twitter.com/NZklomo/status/1376092490499977217

      • Sabine 3.1.1
        1 April 2021 at 8:25 pm

        but what about the children……and won't no one think about the children……

        A very emotive response – dead children – but it did not touch to what wekas post was about. It is not about with holding medication, it is about more research and maybe a better application? Or is questioning medical intervention verboten? And why not rather advocate for a study that seems a bit more formal, considering that this will hopefully become the norm of the future. For medication to be available to those that need it.

        • McFlock 3.1.1.1
          1 April 2021 at 9:04 pm

          Emotive, but accurate.

          It's really interesting how twitterers really get interested in "questioning" specialist things, including medical interventions, in a direction that conforms to their general opinion about an issue. "Rogdmum" seems to be a case in point. So how many reviews have they not tweeted, or what findings from that review have they overlooked?

          Sure, more research is needed. Especially for NZ. But the the known outcomes of doing nothing are are often ignored by twitterers with an agenda. This is another medical decision for the people concerned, not an opportunity to use concern as a lever to get the social or political outcomes one desires.

          • Sabine 3.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2021 at 8:46 am

            no it is not accurate.

            no more then if you try to shut down a conversation about other groups of people and say 'but what about the children and don't you see dead children everywhere'.

            We have on average a child die every five weeks in NZ due to violence, and as a country we are seemingly ok with it.

            We have thousands upon thousands of kids go to bed hungry, go to bed in emergency accommodation, or sleep on a matraze on a floor in some aunties house, and we are ok with it.

            We have the same thousands upon thousands of kids needing a feed in school cause that may be the only feed they get for the day and we are ok with it.

            we have the parents of these same people not get the help, the housing, and the financial assisante needed to get them and their children out of the poverty trap.

            we have thousands upon thousands of kids in this country that don't get the health care they need because they live in areas where no GP wants to work and we are ok with it.

            so no this emotive response is not correct, it is designed to shut down a conversation that needs to be had. Namely, the treatments that we have are they save? Are they effective? At what age are they effective. And someone who does not want to discuss this is not a friend of anyone.

            I have no use for anyone trying to use children as an excuse to not have to discuss the finer points of life. It's like the fundamentalist, that constantly screech but the children and all they want to do is ban books, music, films etc. And that guy sounds exactly the same.

            And last but least, we are not discussing tweets we don’t see, this is a discussion about a tweet we did see.

            • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2021 at 3:25 pm

              Nah, when the twitterer has an obvious agenda the question definitely has to be "what inconvenient facts are they ignoring?"

              In this case, they're ignoring the known outcomes of doing nothing. And if low quality evidence for positive change is "damning", they still have zero evidence for long term negatives.

    • THolmes 3.2
      2 April 2021 at 1:48 am

      Hi Weka,

      What percentage of the health budget would you like to see devoted to trans issues? Do you think it’s currently inadequate? Also, define a way to make medical science less "sexist" without

      • weka 3.2.1
        2 April 2021 at 8:32 am

        I would expect the resources given to trans health to be developed as part of overall budgets alongside the recognition of both the medical and cultural needs of trans people. It's clear that trans movement ideology aside, that trans people don't have equitable access to healthcare. We've been here many times with different groups, we generally get better but it's debatable how adequate that is (eg research still has a bias towards men's bodies despite women having been pointing this out for decades).

        Two problems here. One is overmedicalisation, the other is the conflict of rights with women. Neither of those is hugely problematic other than the mainstream culture doesn't know what to do (or does and won't do it).

        How to make medical science less sexist? Change the underlying paradigm. Easiest way to do that is probably to regonise the inherent cultural bias. If you put wealthy white men in charge of a system, they will run it from their own way of thinking. This isn't to diss wealthy white men necessarily (they're part of a broken system too), but without that recognition, it's very had to make changes. People in science of course tend to have this myth that science is somehow bias-free, which doesn't help. If we put Māori women in charge for instance, we will get systems designed to better meet the needs of Māori women (and probably all women, and all people tbh).

        The other barrier there is that wealthy white men tend to not want to share power.