Daily review 12/04/2024

89 comments on “Daily review 12/04/2024 ”

• Comment on post

1. gsays 1

   12 April 2024 at 6:28 pm

   I just found this link to an interview with Derrick Jensen. Environmentalist, "old growth leftie", who is surprised as to what got him cancelled. Writing about blowing up dams, no-one cared but question modern queer theory you get cancelled. HT Dark Waters on Daily Blog.

   It is an hour and a half and does have some good insights.

   Reply
   • weka 1.1

     12 April 2024 at 7:10 pm

     Interesting move for Jensen to be interviewed by Southern.

     Jensen's A Language Older Than Words was hugely influential on my deep green politics back in the day. I hung out on one of his forums for a while, in this Salmon/blow up dams years.

     Him and the Deep Greens got absolute shit for their defence of material reality and sex based rights. Tbf they were pretty rude about transwomen, but as we all eventually learn, being kind isn't a successful strategy.

     You might enjoy this if you have seen it.

     Short version

     https://youtu.be/PJsf5QY12rg?si=zBIjoixv2SHVIlT8

     Long version

     https://youtu.be/Cb3-tlyuhVo?si=4DkeJf7bDu7KH4Gb

     Reply
     • weka 1.1.1

       12 April 2024 at 7:13 pm

       you can follow the breadcrumbs from that. Jensen knows what he is doing here but many of the hard core identitarians won't get past the mention of paedophilia and queer theory 🤷‍♀️ The value is for the people trying to figure out what tf is going on in this whole thing.

       Reply
       • gsays 1.1.1.1

         13 April 2024 at 8:18 am

         I am far from a scholar of queer theory.

         From what DJ is quoting elements of it sure sounds a tad fringe. I trust there isn't a lack of context.

         Reply
         • weka 1.1.1.1.1

           13 April 2024 at 9:49 am

           He's talking about the origins of QT as a way of demonstrating the connections between QT and child sexual abuse. It's not that all of QT is paedophiliac, it's that the culture of QT is centred in highly valuing transgression and this undermines child safeguarding, allowing people who want child sex to be legal/tolerated to find some power.

           He names Focault, Gayle Rubin, Pat Califia, Judith Butler, all people highly influential in QT. Butler is contemporary, and recently released a book. She is a very influential academic.

           Most people who call themselves queer wouldn't know who most of those people are. But the reason it's such a problem now is because No Debate means no critique can be made publicly without accusations of transphobia or homophobia.

           You can see the disconnect in the video. When show evidence of child sexual abuse apologia, instead of engage with the evidence and testing its robustness, the QT students are hurling accusations that in today's world are often damaging.

           It's the same dynamic as why it took a 4 year independent medical system review to look at child and youth gender transition in the UK. Because the people who were raising concerns were shut down and the rest of the people who would otherwise have looked at the safeguarding issues were too scared to. People lost their jobs, marriages, careers, friends over this.

           It's also finds expression in Rainbow culture. Pride was originally an adult celebration of adult homosexuality. Now it's trying to be family friendly, which means you have men exhibiting their sexual fetishes in public with children. Again, when people try to point this out, there is denial and ostracisation.

           And because the progressive voices have been so successfully shut down, the debate is now terribly skewed to the right. Hence Brian Tamaki and co painting of rainbow crossings, the liberal left up in arms about that, and you and I are talking in yesterdays DR instead of there being front page posts all week about the Cass Review, Giggle v Tickle, and some dude in the North America who has just won a legal court case that will mean he can use public health services to have a neovagina created while retaining his penis. Because that's his gender identity.

           Reply
           • gsays 1.1.1.1.1.1

             13 April 2024 at 8:50 pm

             Thanks for the overview.

             There are parallels described in the Believe the Children episode of the Things Fell Apart podcast.

             https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s1-ep-4-believe-the-children/id1592984136?i=1000540368101

             That phenomena of strange bedfellows (Southern, Peterson, Tamaki) is rendered all the more stark with the lack of natural allies from the progressive "left". (The "Punching down" and pedancy around phrasing/wordgames crowd).

             Jensen's reference to old growth lefty resonates, but less from a wild nature lens more from a worker/class standpoint.

             Reply
   • tWig 1.2

     13 April 2024 at 11:04 am

     From Wanda Sykes, black US comedian:

     “To me, the whole complaint about cancel culture is a lot of men — especially straight men — who are just pissed that they can’t say things any more, y’know?” Sykes explained, “And it’s not like you can’t say these things. You can say them, but now there’s just consequences.” Sykes continued, "That’s why I say I can’t get canceled. Only God can say: ‘All right, Wanda, that’s enough.’”

     https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/wanda-sykes-says-%E2%80%98cancel-culture%E2%80%99-is-just-code-for-consequences.5269804/

     Reply
     • weka 1.2.1

       13 April 2024 at 8:04 pm

       Women who have been cancelled because of speaking out about women's sex based rights

       Alison Bailey, black, feminist, lesbian, long time activist for racial equality and LGB rights.

       Kathleen Stock, feminist lesbian philosopher.

       Jo Phoenix, feminist, lesbian, criminologist

       Ten examples of women in the UK who have been assaulted or threatened physically when talking about women's sex based rights

       https://sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-of-speech/the-escalating-campaign-of-intimidation-and-violence-against-gender-critical-women/

       that's a short list off the top of my head. There are many more.

       Reply
     • gsays 1.2.2

       13 April 2024 at 9:03 pm

       The biggest concern ain't the cancelling, it's the societal zeitgiest that give the cancelling some mana. Followers and such.

       Ironically I be came aware of some of the concept of the few who are beyond being cancelled. Taylor Swift and Joe Rogan are two examples.

       Reply
2. Drowsy M. Kram 2

   12 April 2024 at 9:59 pm

   ‘Two years to save the world’: UN climate chief calls for faster action and more finance [11 April 2024]
   Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare said Stiell was “listening to the science” – namely that global emissions must be halved by the end of the decade to meet the Paris climate accord's ambition of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

   “Governments are nowhere near that, and disastrously many are still supporting new fossil fuel development,” Hare said.

   Supporting new fossil fuel development? "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis Luxon?"

   Reversing oil and gas ban brazen and utterly reckless [5 March 2024]
   “This Government is recklessly and shamelessly pouring oil and gas on the fire of the climate crisis,” says the co-leader of the Green Party, James Shaw.

   “The Prime Minister has talked about “tough choices” recently. Well, the choices they are making include reopening New Zealand waters to the fossil fuel industry instead of confronting the climate crisis with the urgency it demands.

   James Shaw, telling it like it actually is – Parliament's loss

   Dig this [Richard Harman, Politik, 16 Feb 2024]
   “In 2040, if I [Shane Jones] have anything to do with it, there will be a flourishing mining sector employing all my nephews who are currently going to the figurative Kalgoolies of the world, and I will have served my penance for having acquiesced in the closure of oil and gas off the coast of Taranaki.”

   “Global emissions must be halved by the end of the decade” – that’s 2030, Shane.

   Reply
3. Dolomedes III 3

   12 April 2024 at 11:17 pm

   How a cult captured the NHS: society fails when it treats children like adults

   Kathleen Stock aptly sums up "gender affirming care" of minors: https://unherd.com/2024/04/the-liberal-lessons-of-the-cass-report/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&utm_source=UnHerd+Today&utm_campaign=a9d7da6ff9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_04_12_08_39&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fd0df946-a9d7da6ff9-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

   Reply
4. Michael P 4

   13 April 2024 at 9:43 am

   As anyone who drives in Auckland knows, whatever the amount is, it is a lot.

   https://pointofordernz.wordpress.com/2024/04/12/nzta-does-not-know-how-much-it-spends-on-cones/

   Reply
   • joe90 4.1

     13 April 2024 at 10:24 am

     Saunders' nit-picking about investment in the safety and well being of workers and the public personifies the right's total disregard for anything other than their own bottom dollar. Fuck ém.

     Reply
5. Robert Guyton 5

   13 April 2024 at 8:26 pm

   weka

   13 April 2024 at 8:04 pm

   Women who have been cancelled because of speaking out about women's sex based rights… (lists women)

   Drowsy M. Kram

   12 April 2024 at 9:59 pm

   ‘Two years to save the world’: UN climate chief calls for faster action and more finance [11 April 2024]

   Reply
   • weka 5.1

     13 April 2024 at 8:28 pm

     it's the same thing Robert.

     Reply
     • Robert Guyton 5.1.1

       13 April 2024 at 8:34 pm

       How so?

       Reply
       • weka 5.1.1.1

         13 April 2024 at 8:58 pm

         It's peak patriarchy on both counts.

         5,000 years of suppressing women because we embody nature and here humans are about to kill nature itself.

         It's not a coincidence that transhumanism is arising at the same time as a full assault on women's rights at the same time as we all ignore impending collapse of biosphere.

         The only way out is via embodiment, of ourselves and nature, and we cannot do that without women, from whom we all come.

         Reply
   • Molly 5.2

     14 April 2024 at 8:09 am

     Missed a bit of context there – Robert (again).

     – two different completely different threads;

     – weka was participating in a conversation with others putting her own thoughts down;

     – Drowsy M Kram was initiating one with their style of posting links to mostly other people's reckons – (which is fine, just not usually good at creating momentum);

     – your comment (as it stands) with no editorial – reads as an admonishment to weka for (ironically) talking about women's right's – because Drowsy M Kram's comment is standing there all lonely without someone looking after it.

     I'm pointing this out because it is Sunday morning and I'm feeling charitable and thinking perhaps you ARE completely unaware of how your comment can be read by others.

     Reply
     • Robert Guyton 5.2.1

       14 April 2024 at 8:31 am

       You know, Molly, you're right!

       Thanks for pointing this out; your Sunday morning charitability is much appreciated.

       Reply
       • Molly 5.2.1.1

         14 April 2024 at 8:40 am

         Since you are so appreciative, here's another suggestion.

         Drowsy's comment is still standing alone in the TS playground. Instead of replying to me, go and play with him in the game you obviously prefer…

         Reply
         • Robert Guyton 5.2.1.1.1

           14 April 2024 at 8:47 am

           Love the playground allusion!

           Again, grateful for your kindness!

           Reply
           • Molly 5.2.1.1.1.1

             14 April 2024 at 8:57 am

             

             Reply
     • weka 5.2.2

       14 April 2024 at 9:04 am

       I thought RG's point was why spend time on this fringe issue when faced with the immediacy of the climate crisis. He's not wrong, apart for his idea that women's sex based rights are fringe and not intrinsically linked to the climate crisis

       He will probably equivocate now about my use of the term fringe instead of addressing the substantive points, but I thought it was worth saying how I saw it.

       Reply
       • Robert Guyton 5.2.2.1

         14 April 2024 at 9:23 am

         "I thought RG's point was why spend time on this fringe issue when faced with the immediacy of the climate crisis."

         Not really. "Two years to save the world" did catch my eye though. The subject of women's sex based rights does come up a lot on The Standard these days. I've long been an advocate for the position that the patriarchy and the state of the planet are intimately linked, and also for the proposal that women were/are/will be the kaitiaki taiao needed if we are to survive much longer. I also believe and profess that indigenous cultures that have maintained a close animistic connection to the living world hold the understanding of how to establish right relationships between humans and non-humans and in particular, the women from those communities and in particular, the older women there.

         Transhumanism though – there's a topic!

         Reply
         • weka 5.2.2.1.1

           14 April 2024 at 9:38 am

           I've long been an advocate for the position that the patriarchy and the state of the planet are intimately linked, and also for the proposal that women were/are/will be the kaitiaki taiao needed if we are to survive much longer. I also believe and profess that indigenous cultures that have maintained a close animistic connection to the living world hold the understanding of how to establish right relationships between humans and non-humans and in particular, the women from those communities and in particular, the older women there.

           good to hear this restated Robert!

           Reply
       • Molly 5.2.2.2

         14 April 2024 at 10:20 am

         I agree – his unstated point – was to make that distinction.

         It reads to me as someone who is telling others what they are to prioritise and spend their energy on.

         The sideways approach to telling women to stop talking. (I also note that Drowsy's comment is still sans replies.)

         A real "Do as I say, not as I do" comment.

         Reply
     • weka 5.2.3

       14 April 2024 at 9:05 am

       btw, a post about Cass going up this morning (if I get it finished), in case you are around.

       Reply
       • Molly 5.2.3.1

         14 April 2024 at 10:21 am

         

         Reply
         • weka 5.2.3.1.1

           14 April 2024 at 10:26 am

           got bogged down in it, so might not get it up today. It's really hard to write a post on this that isn't a novel.

           Reply
           • Molly 5.2.3.1.1.1

             14 April 2024 at 10:34 am

             "It's really hard to write a post on this that isn't a novel."

             I think it's impossible to be honest. Can only be broken down into small – but still very dense – segments.

             Reply
             • weka …

               14 April 2024 at 10:49 am

               this is meant to be an introduction 😬

               Reply
       • Molly 5.2.3.2

         14 April 2024 at 10:33 am

         Just clearing out my bookmarks, and this is good link to Alasdair Gunn from Genspect, talking about the treatment of chidren. (Link provides transcript, which I prefer to watching the video)

         https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/how-the-gender-industry-has-parasitized-peoples-emotions-alasdair-gunn-on-the-spike-in-teens-seeking-to-transition-5470406?&utm_medium=AmericanThoughtLeaders&utm_source=YouTube&utm_campaign=AlasdairGunn&utm_content=8-17-2023

         Reply
         • weka 5.2.3.2.1

           14 April 2024 at 10:53 am

           sent you an email

           Reply
       • Shanreagh 5.2.3.3

         14 April 2024 at 10:57 am

         Weka

         There was a good press release from SUFW on X and now I see that Peter Davis has also put up something linking to BMJ

         https://twitter.com/SpeakUp4WomenNZ

         Reply
         • weka 5.2.3.3.1

           14 April 2024 at 12:05 pm

           thanks, got both of those. Who is Peter Davis?

           Reply
           • veutoviper 5.2.3.3.1.1

             14 April 2024 at 12:34 pm

             Presumably this one, weka – not Helen Clark's husband of the same name, lol.

             https://twitter.com/PeterByardDavis

             Thanks so much for all your work and input into the major (definitely NOT fringe) issue of maintaining and protecting women's hard fought for rights – here on TS and elsewhere. As for your patience with some commenters (RG in particular) on this subject, I certainly could not maintain my composure as you do … !!!

             UPDATE – see you found him, but still want to pass on my thanks.

             Reply
             • joe90 …

               14 April 2024 at 12:52 pm

               not Helen Clark's husband of the same name

               Peter Byard Davis is Helen Clark's husband.

               Reply
               • veutoviper …

                 14 April 2024 at 1:16 pm

                 Oops! Thanks for that.

                 I should have checked further, knowing that Helen C's hubbie is a sociologist!

                 I appreciate many of your posts here, joe90.

                 Reply
         • weka 5.2.3.3.2

           14 April 2024 at 12:20 pm

           do you mean Helen Clark's husband? Not finding anything online.

           Reply
           • weka 5.2.3.3.2.1

             14 April 2024 at 12:24 pm

             found it. Good for him.

             https://twitter.com/PeterByardDavis/status/1778880587576819989

             Reply
             • Phillip ure …

               14 April 2024 at 12:42 pm

               Um..!…the link Davis recommends speaks out against 'advocates and activists' campaigning on this issue…when there is little/no quality evidence…

               And also notes that 'no professionals 'took part in this cass report..

               And seemingly agrees with BMJ…that this report should be the stimulus for further research…

               Have you read the BMJ piece..?

               [I’ve addressed your very poorly framed points below. I have some sympathy for people trying to get up to speed with what is a complex situation. But this is a major medical scandal where multiple children have been damaged for life. I have zero tolerance for lies and propaganda. From now on, if you want to comment on the Cass report or related issues, you will have to do the following every time

               1. use copy and pasted quotes in ” “, so we know what you are referring to
               2. provide a link for that
               3. make your point clearly

               If you fail to do those things each time, I will simply take you out of the debate. If you think this is harsh or unfair, read this so you understand what is at stake – weka]

               Reply
               • weka …

                 14 April 2024 at 1:31 pm

                 I've done little for five days but read about the Cass report, and the BMJ piece was one of the first.

                 Her stated ambition is to ensure that those experiencing gender dysphoria receive a high standard of care. This will be disputed, of course, by people and lobbying groups angered by her recommendations, but it is a theme running through the review.

                 The BMJ editor is talking about genderist/pro-trans umbrella NGOs and TRAs there.

                 The lack of quality evidence refers to the fact that GIDS and other clinics have been giving puberty blockers and later cross sex hormones and surgeries on kids and young people without adequate medical science to base those treatments on.

                 That's the scandal Phil, and it's a major part of the Cass Reviews final report. You are woefully under-informed here.

                 Reply
               • weka …

                 14 April 2024 at 1:35 pm

                 And also notes that 'no professionals 'took part in this cass report..

                 Bullshit. Hilary Cass is a professional. She worked with a university. The review was overseen by medical professionals.

                 What the BMJ is referring to is the fact that nearly all the adult gender clinics in the UK refused to share data with Cass so that she could look at the evidence for whether children treated with affirmation only were being helped existed.

                 Those clinics have now been told to release teh information by the government, and there is going to be a similar kind of review into the adult clinics as the child ones.

                 Let that sink in. Medical professionals refused to share crucial information with an independent review that was trying to see if children were being harmed by medical treatment.

                 Reply
                 • Phillip ure …

                   14 April 2024 at 1:46 pm

                   Maybe you should take that up with BMj/Pete davis.?…I am just passing their words on..

                   And I read the admonition to 'activists and advocates' re paucity of reliable evidence to campaign on..

                   ..to be also addressed to the antis such as yourself..

                   Me..?…I don't have enough evidence to have any certainty on this issue..

                   And it would seem that applies to pretty much anyone pontificating one way or the other…

                   And I was quite amused by you and veuto posting something that wasn't what you thought..and that actually tells you to taiho…and to wait for some real/credible evidence.

                   What is your reaction to that admonition/advice..?

                   Reply
                   • weka …

                     14 April 2024 at 1:51 pm

                     the only reason you're not getting a ban right now is because I have to go out. Read the mod note and respond, you only get one chance at this.

                     I am telling you you are wrong about Davis' tweet and the BMJ editorial. I'm saying that as someone who has been following this debate closely for 7 years and has been reading a huge amount of analysis in the past 5 days. You simply have the completely wrong end of the stick here.
                   • Phillip ure …

                     14 April 2024 at 1:59 pm

                     What have I got wrong about the BMJ article..and Davis's twitter comment..?

                     Are you saying you know more than BMJ..?

                     As I said..they are their words..not mine..

                     I repeat ..what have I misinterpreted from the BMJ piece…?

                     I mean..it’s a short article..and a tweet..quite easy to read/understand .

                     You may disagree with them…but why should you jump all over me..for reading/reporting .on yr misreported links..?

                     Links that question your stance..?
               • weka …

                 14 April 2024 at 1:40 pm

                 mod note. please acknowledge you have read and understood.

                 Reply
               • Phillip ure …

                 14 April 2024 at 1:52 pm

                 I am talking about what BMJ..and Pete davis said…

                 I am not saying this..as I said .I am agnostic on this issue ..due to lack of evidence..

                 And I am commenting on links you and veuto put up..noting they say the opposite to what you thought…

                 So .really..w.t.f..?..eh..?

                 Can I suggest people actually read links before posting them..

                 Reply
               • Phillip ure …

                 14 April 2024 at 2:07 pm

                 What 'lies and propaganda..?

                 This is the British medical Journal .and Pete davis..

                 Both links that you and veuto posted..?

                 That you disagree with their conclusions..leads you to accuse me of posting 'lies and propaganda'…?..once again…w.t.f..!

                 Reply
                 • Phillip ure …

                   14 April 2024 at 2:12 pm

                   I have read..and I have understood ..

                   It's quite simple/clear..what's not to understand…?

                   Reply
                 • Phillip ure …

                   14 April 2024 at 2:13 pm

                   I think I need a joint ..

                   Reply
                   • Phillip ure …

                     14 April 2024 at 2:45 pm

                     Aahh..!!..that's better..!..

                     A nice mix of indoor/outdoor..freshly ground coffee beans..consumed looking thru the trees out to the body of water..

                     I recommend the mix of all that..

                     What I have understood..is that for me not to be banned here..I cannot comment on any story weka has written/is close to ..

                     And as a general rule of thumb…I should not interact with weka..if at all possible..

                     …a tad limiting…but I can live with that…

                     I shall return to the ghettos of o.m./d.r…and peer out from behind a rock…
                   • weka []

                     14 April 2024 at 7:39 pm

                     What I have understood..is that for me not to be banned here..I cannot comment on any story weka has written/is close to ..

                     And as a general rule of thumb…I should not interact with weka..if at all possible..

                     You have completely misunderstood the BMJ editorial. I’m not explaining it to you because you’re not listening. The conditions of commenting are in the original mod note. Go and sort your head out and reread it, it’s clear.
                   • Shanreagh …

                     14 April 2024 at 10:58 pm

                     I have read and reread the BMJ & Peter Davis' X (Twitter) comment. I cannot work out how Philip Ure has read what he has into it.

                     Peter Davis makes a couple of comments based on the BMJ which in turn has some quotes from the Cass Report. X (Twitter) imposes character limits hence the shortened writing

                     This is the complete Tweet from Davis

                     "The Cass review: an opportunity to unite behind evidence informed care in gender medicine". Existing evidence woefully poor; cannot justify current 'over-medicalised' interventions. Professionals in the field did not cooperate with Cass

                     "The Cass review: an opportunity to unite behind evidence informed care in gender medicine" This is a quote from the title of the BMJ article

                     "Existing evidence woefully poor; cannot justify current 'over-medicalised' interventions." Davis' words presumably from reading the BMJ. The word in quotes come from the BMJ

                     'Professionals in the field did not cooperate with Cass' Davis' words presumably from reading the BMJ.

                     This is link to the article in the BMJ.

                     https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

                     How anyone could read this and think that BMJ did not support the Cass review I do not know.

                     The BMJ picks up on a crticism of the Cass Report about setting too high a bar with research standards then states

                     'the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret.' Thus supporting that she has been sparingly, relatively, with the links to research as there is not much that reaches the standards a researcher would expect to see.

                     and

                     Yet this inconclusive and unacceptable evidence base was used to inform influential clinical guidelines, such as those of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which themselves were cascaded into the development of subsequent guidelines internationally

                     and

                     A spiralling interventionist approach, in the context of an evidence void, amounted to overmedicalising care for vulnerable young people. A too narrow focus on gender dysphoria, says Cass, neglected other presenting features and failed to provide a holistic model of care.

                     and

                     Cass’s review is independent and listened to people with lived experience. Without doubt, the advocacy and clinical practice for medical treatment of gender dysphoria had moved ahead of the evidence—a recipe for harm.

                     and finally

                     'People who are gender non-conforming experience stigmatisation, marginalisation, and harassment in every society. They are vulnerable, particularly during childhood and adolescence. The best way to support them, however, is not with advocacy and activism based on substandard evidence. The Cass review is an opportunity to pause, recalibrate, and place evidence informed care at the heart of gender medicine. It is an opportunity not to be missed for the sake of the health of children and young people. It is an opportunity for unity.'
                 • Robert Guyton …

                   14 April 2024 at 3:58 pm

                   Feeling your pain, Phillip.

                   Reply
                   • Shanreagh …

                     14 April 2024 at 11:03 pm

                     Robert, hopefully the setting out of the tweet & analysis and the link to the BMJ article will alleviate some of your pain.

                     Peter Davis quotes, presumably approvingly,* from the BMJ's review of the Cass report.

                     * ie he does not allude to anything he disagrees with.

                     BMJ picks up on some early crticism of Cass and rebuts that.
                   • Robert Guyton …

                     15 April 2024 at 8:25 am

                     The Cass review is an opportunity to pause, recalibrate, and place evidence informed care at the heart of gender medicine. It is an opportunity not to be missed for the sake of the health of children and young people. It is an opportunity for unity.'

                     https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

                     That sounds sensible, Shangreah.
                   • Molly …

                     15 April 2024 at 8:50 am

                     @Robert Guyton

                     "The Cass review is an opportunity to pause, recalibrate, and place evidence informed care at the heart of gender medicine. It is an opportunity not to be missed for the sake of the health of children and young people. It is an opportunity for unity.'

                     https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

                     That sounds sensible, Shangreah."

                     Somehow, you missed the preceding sentences in that closing paragraph:

                     "People who are gender non-conforming experience stigmatisation, marginalisation, and harassment in every society. They are vulnerable, particularly during childhood and adolescence. The best way to support them, however, is not with advocacy and activism based on substandard evidence. "

                     I am someone who believes respect needs to be earned. But sometimes it is also lost.
                   • Robert Guyton …

                     15 April 2024 at 9:09 am

                     I have no idea what point you are trying to make, Molly, nor why you are offering your opinion to me.

                     Perhaps you're just bored?
                   • Molly …

                     15 April 2024 at 9:55 am

                     @Robert Guyton

                     "I have no idea what point you are trying to make, Molly, nor why you are offering your opinion to me.

                     Perhaps you're just bored?"

                     Just because I personally find you boorish, doesn't mean I am bored, or that I will ignore your comments if I consider them a misdirection.

                     This is a public discussion platform, and the thread is discussing a major medical scandal that is becoming harder to deny.

                     I comment – sometimes – because I believe there are some who seek to diminish the necessary attention and consideration on this issue – and whose efforts in that direction make it much harder to rectify and avoid further unnecessary harm.

                     For me – you are firmly in that camp.
                   • Robert Guyton …

                     15 April 2024 at 10:12 am

                     Your work here is invaluable, Molly. Know that we value you most high!
                   • Molly …

                     15 April 2024 at 10:46 am

                     @Robert Guyton

                     "Your work here is invaluable, Molly. Know that we value you most high!"

                     Part of integrity is not saying things you don't mean, Robert.

                     If you have nothing to contribute of relevance on this significant issue, have you considered just reading?
6. Robert Guyton 6

   14 April 2024 at 9:01 am

   

   Reply
7. Shanreagh 7

   14 April 2024 at 2:14 pm

   Let that sink in. Medical professionals refused to share crucial information with an independent review that was trying to see if children were being harmed by medical treatment.

   Double bad in my books Weka.

   First from the Hippocratic oath that all Drs take

   Ensuring patient safety is at the heart of the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm

   The notion “do no harm” embodies the medical ethics principle of “non-maleficence”, that is to refrain from doing any harm first, before doing any good.

   beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and respect for the patient's autonomy

   First do no harm

   various links

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20said%20that,wrong%2Ddoing%20and%20harm%22.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5747024/#:~:text=Some%20UK%20schools%20use%20the,of%20the%20oath%20%5B11%5D.

   I'm not a Dr but surely the harm from puberty blockers and surgical interventions is/was known. The harm should have been first and foremost in a Dr's mind per Hippocratic oath. Quite apart from the gross known harm ie puberty blockers are not able to be reversed and botched surgical redesigns of sexual organs are well known, these humans acting in an almost God-like capacity really bother me. Sexual response to orgasm can be completely lost on children/adults who have been subject to ‘trans’ ‘work’. And someone decided that this was Ok when that child was pre teen. I don't understand how parents/Drs can do this to anyone.

   The second bad is that these Drs were working in the public sector/public sector adjacent and presumably had contracts or other documents plus money from the Govt. Having worked in health when we had a contracting model I know that any group who refused to supply info would

   a have had their staff referred to the appropriate professional medical society they belonged to

   b had any accreditations pulled from them, leading to

   c pausing of funds until a & b had been had been fixed

   d our high powered audit team/plus teams from the funder of the general medical services fees (the way Drs are funded) would be there before the records could be 'lost'

   e pausing of further funding on an interim basis even before any referrals

   Of course these take time.

   It may be that the intransigence will serve the Cass Report well in that the Drs are not actually covering themselves with glory in not providing the info. Actually if you read Hannah Barnes book 'Time to Think' you will note that several of those speaking to her (ie former employees) had expressed concern about not recording and not reviewing.

   https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/19/time-to-think-by-hannah-barnes-review-what-went-wrong-at-gids

   Reply
   • weka 7.1

     15 April 2024 at 12:39 am

     not as an excuse but as context, in the US there is significant culture in medicine around avoiding legal liability by overtreating or treating along specific pathways.

     In socialised medicine countries I think this still happens but more along the lines of giving the patient what they want. This is part of why antibiotics have been overprescribed despited doctors knowing the risks. It's a weird contradiction, but in the US it's tied up with the agenda of insurance companies and what they will and won't cover as well.

     Add to that, I don't think we can over-estimate the degree to which ideology is a factor here. Lots of theories on why people go along with it in the way they do, but I don't see it definitively explained. We just know it's there.

     I've been thinking about this interview with Helen Joyce where she talks about how parents who have transed their kids have to stay ideologically committed to that for the rest of their lives, because they've caused so much harm to their child that they can't never undo.

     https://youtu.be/ZG9_lcln7FU?t=4045

     I wonfder if this is a factor for some medical people too.

     I also think that there are doctors in it for the glory. The surgeons in particular who are honing their skills on the genitals and breasts of teenagers. Those ones can get fucked.

     Reply
8. Shanreagh 8

   14 April 2024 at 2:36 pm

   It is the children that I really get riled up about.

   A girl child I know of had a phase of telling her mother "I a boy, I a boy". From this in the next few years up until now this child was subjected to all sorts of chemical interventions.

   This idea, as a child, that you wish to be another thing is common and non worrying to most parents, kids grow out of it or parents/GP undertake watchful waiting.

   Reply
   • Molly 8.1

     15 April 2024 at 9:03 am

     Puberty for young people is a difficult time. We all know it. Psychologists and child development experts know it. Body changes, hormone fluctuations, social engagement, distancing from family, peer connections all have significant impacts on individuals. Many women will be able to relate how dealing with menstruation and body changes was often a cause for embarrassment or shame. The development of their bodies often attracting unwanted attention or comment – both from strangers and sometimes from previously trusted adults. Men have their own stories of this period. They are significantly different.

     Self-exploration and understanding is a major part of that period. Fluidity in presentation, identification and connections is not only expected, but an aid in defining your adult self.

     I grieve for the vulnerability of the young people caught up in this. The autistic, the non-regressive-stereotypical, the same-sex oriented, the ones with co-morbidities.

     I hope that many have adopted an identity that required no interventions – and they will be able to walk away unscathed by a need for long-term medical treatment. For others, that have permanent outcomes to deal with, we need to demand high-quality, accessible, ongoing support.

     Reply
     • Shanreagh 8.1.1

       15 April 2024 at 12:07 pm

       I agree with all of this Molly.

       I grieve for the vulnerability of the young people caught up in this. The autistic, the non-regressive-stereotypical, the same-sex oriented, the ones with co-morbidities.

       Going down a path that is non reversible is tragic. It completely in my view blows out the concept of 'first do no harm'. This concept is not try to find the way then check that it is not harmful. That is of sizing up a child as a possibilty for intervention from the time the child walks through the door. It works in a reverse way.

       I accept that Drs do have this expectation that they will do something to help us ie prescribe something…so much so that MOH/GPs were on a programme to deter antibiotics use where they were not needed.

       You can see how young the girl child I was referring to by the language used 'I a boy, I a boy.' This was not a pre teen but rather perhaps a pre schooler.

       Reply
   • Michael P 8.2

     16 April 2024 at 1:40 am

     This to me is a clear example of what might be behind some of this ideology.

     It's those same old ideas / questions that can be asked when you want to find out who might be behind various things (at least to some extent) You can 'follow the money' and / or ask "who benefits?"

     In this example the child doesn't benefit, the parents don't benefit (except maybe in their own minds in the short term). The beneficiary here is whoever produces, pushes and distributes the said chemicals, which would be everybody's friend, the pharmaceutical industry.

     Reply
9. Anker 9

   15 April 2024 at 10:14 am

   I see the Cass review has/is being covered here. Great.

   Sorry I don't very the Standard much nowadays.

   I will try and catch up with what has been and what hasn't been covered

   Reply
10. Robert Guyton 10

    15 April 2024 at 10:21 am

    Not everyone's so delighted with the report.

    How do we regard The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa here on The Standard?

    The points they have made in their first few paragraphs sound reasonable.

    https://patha.nz/News/13341582

    "The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) is disappointed to see the number of harmful recommendations made by the NHS-commissioned Cass Review, released yesterday in England. This review ignores the consensus of major medical bodies around the world and lacks relevance in an Aotearoa context."

    "The final Cass Review did not include trans or non-binary experts or clinicians experienced in providing gender affirming care in its decision-making, conclusions, or findings. Instead, a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice."

    It’s shocking to see such a significant inquiry into transgender health completely disregard the voices of transgender experts. It would be like reviewing women’s health with no women, or Māori health with no Māori involved.

    Reply
    • weka 10.1

      15 April 2024 at 10:32 am

      it's a blatant lie.

      From the Cass Review website,

      In spring 2023 the Review commissioned six support and advocacy organisations to facilitate a series of focus groups with former, current and potential future service users to understand their experiences and to capture their thoughts and ideas about what they need and want from services and how they would want to access them.

      The Review worked through host organisations because they were able to provide a safe environment in which participants felt comfortable and confident to speak freely and could be supported before, during and after the sessions.

      The brief was:

      • To facilitate between 15 – 20 focus group sessions (delivered by a range of organisations)
      • The focus group participants should be people with lived experience, i.e., those who identify as transgender, non-binary, gender fluid and/or young people who have been through a period of gender questioning, ideally, but not exclusively, people who have used NHS gender services, or are likely to use those services in the future.
      • Each focus group should engage with between 10 – 15 people, in the age range of 14 – 30 years. There will be some topics where parental / family perspectives may be helpful, but the focus is predominantly on the young people themselves.
      • Each discussion session should last for a minimum of 1 hour.

      Host Organisations were asked to:

      • Work with the Review team to agree the format, focus and key questions for the sessions.
      • Recruit appropriate participants, in line with the criteria set out above.
      • Provide support to participants before, during and after the sessions as required.
      • Facilitate discussions in an open and non-directive way.
      • Compile and submit to the Cass Review team an accurate and comprehensive written report of the outputs from each focus group, including an anonymised profile of participants – age, expressed gender identity, whether they have accessed GIDs, region that they are resident.
      • Attend a meeting with the Cass Review team to discuss learning from the sessions.

      The Review team set the questions explored through the group sessions. While the support organisations could pose additional questions, it was expected that the topics/questions put forward by the Review team would remain the main focus of discussion.

      https://cass.independent-review.uk/contribute-to-the-review/lived-experience-focus-groups/

      The groups they engaged were

      • LGBT Foundation
      • 42 Street
      • Proud Trust
      • Gendered Intelligence
      • Mermaids
      • Kite Trust

      Might be time to review who you are putting your trust in Robert.

      Reply
      • Robert Guyton 10.1.1

        15 April 2024 at 10:36 am

        I'm not putting my trust in any group at this time, weka. Picking sides at this early stage of my learning seems irresponsible to me. I'll keep reading from the various camps and treat each issue with an open mind, as best I can.

        Reply
        • weka 10.1.1.1

          15 April 2024 at 10:39 am

          you literally just said that PATHA's position sounded reasonable, and I pointed out they told a blatant lie, and you want to equivocate with me over trust?

          It's not early. We have been talking about this on TS for years, and the debate has been raging internationally for longer. Children have been damaged because of organisations like PATHA. Please go read the Cass review post and inform yourself.

          Reply
          • weka 10.1.1.1.1

            15 April 2024 at 10:40 am

            like I said to Phil yesterday, I have some sympathy for people trying to get their head around this complex situation. Hard this late in the game. But at some point the ignorance becomes wilful. You've been in these debates for some time, this isn't an early stage for you either.

            Reply
          • Robert Guyton 10.1.1.1.2

            15 April 2024 at 12:04 pm

            "you literally just said that PATHA's position sounded reasonable, and I pointed out they told a blatant lie, and you want to equivocate with me over trust?"

            I said it sounded reasonable. Are you expecting me to abandon my opinion after just one claim from you?

            YOU may "have been talking about this on TS for years", but others might like to form their own views in light of the present situation with the release of a report and responses from various agencies appearing on the internet.

            Is a case of your way, or the highway?

            Or should we just rename The Standard, The Stroppery?

            Reply
            • Shanreagh 10.1.1.1.2.1

              15 April 2024 at 12:29 pm

              Does this mean that even lies are useful in forming an opinion?

              Perhaps in a philosophical way they are as they can point towards a truth. To do this though we need to know the truth or the least worst way of looking at something.

              We need to look at: are these orgs or people that can be trusted?

              Trying to get a handle on this is laudable but perhaps late.

              As a personal view the lack of a base of knowledge does not seemed to have stopped you from commenting on womens rights/trans views over all the years that these topics have been raised.

              Having learned how to research it is usual to get the accepted view under your belt. Then branch out to see commentators.

              I would start with the Cass Review, incl the terms of reference, then read and then look up every single footnote. You will then get a view on the sources that this establishment view found relevant and those that it did not. Then look at comentators such as BMJ etc. Once you have the prevailing views then branch out….widening the circle.

              Cass set a high bar in not accepting views that did meet her threshhold of what constituted good research procedure-wise.

              In doing research as a newcomer we can become confused if we look at commentary before we know what the issues are. It just become like a smorgasboard or a pick & mix. Just a gigantic mush

              This is a concept that should be familar across many spheres even including art. We learn all the rules about mark marking in visual art before we have the competence to break them. If we do this before having a deep understanding of the 'rules' our art is often amateurish and people just think we don't 'know' about making art

              Reply
              • Robert Guyton …

                15 April 2024 at 1:02 pm

                "Does this mean that even lies are useful in forming an opinion?"

                I commented "sounded reasonable" – it did, in my opinion.

                weka claimed "lies". I don't know if weka was correct in their claim; they provided bullet points in support.

                I've reserved my judgement in anticipation of more evidence. I reckon that's reasonable.

                "Having learned how to research it is usual to get the accepted view under your belt. Then branch out to see commentators."

                I'm well aware that this is the view shared here, however, I liken commenting on this issue to other issues, especially those that interest me the most; soil health, for example. If a commenter said something naive about that topic, I'd be pleased enough that they cared to think about it, rather than demand they do their homework. Even if they continued to question the need for a living soil, or whatever, I'd think they were engaging and potentially turning over rocks that might otherwise have disappeared from view. I'm not claiming to do that btw – best to make every nuance of my comment crystal clear for fear of being accused of opacity 🙂

                Also (not only but) if a commenter with my interest in lefty issues wasn't able to comment on this particular topic; women's rights/trans, there'd be bugger-all else to talk about, bar WWIII.

                Reply
                • weka …

                  15 April 2024 at 1:15 pm

                  weka claimed "lies". I don't know if weka was correct in their claim; they provided bullet points in support.

                  No Robert, I provided the standard TS level of evidence: my explanation, some supporting quotes and a link to back up the claim.

                  This is where the wilful ignorance bit comes in. If you won't inform yourself even when the information is laid out in front of you, that's one thing. But when you then misrepresent the nature of that information, that is a problem for the rest of us.

                  Reply
                • Shanreagh …

                  15 April 2024 at 1:17 pm

                  You have missed my point. If you actually did know and read the Cass Review in depth you wouldn't actually be ascribing 'reasonableness' to the PATHA link.

                  As a learner you'd be asking how is it that this group seems not to believe the Cass Review? Seeking guidance that may not have been apparent to you as a learner.

                  You came out as though it may be a truth or at least 'reasonable' which had you read and inwardly digested Cass you would not have. The review is not that difficult to understand.

                  A more advanced learner might be carefully reading but probably coming to the Mandy Rice-Davies conclusion

                  "Well they would say that wouldn't they?'

                  You haven't commented on how you were able to comment on many of the Women's rights/trans posts here over the years, with no tentativeness or wish for learning, without this background that you are reading in the Cass Review?

                  You have posited views many, many times that have involved many of us in getting material or expressing views only to find now that in fact actually you hadn't read up, or know the issues. To say it feels like somewhat of a betrayal to have been misled like this is an understatement.

                  Reply
              • Robert Guyton …

                15 April 2024 at 1:11 pm

                "This is a concept that should be familar across many spheres even including art. We learn all the rules about mark marking in visual art before we have the competence to break them. If we do this before having a deep understanding of the 'rules' our art is often amateurish and people just think we don't 'know' about making art"

                Children then, cannot be artists until they have been taught the rules of art?

                Picasso famously described his anguish at having to unlearn his teachings in order to draw like a child again.

                You may be interested too, in The Fool card from the tarot deck, and the trickster figure from so many different indigenous cultural story-telling traditions, including and especially our own Māui tiki tiki a Taranga.

                Note: I'm NOT classifying myself thus.

                Reply
                • Shanreagh …

                  15 April 2024 at 1:30 pm

                  Robert I used art as an example to show how this step by step reading/learning goes. I have a degree in fine art and learning art is somewhat of a topic in the art world with some saying you have to be a natural at art to learn art and others saying that art, like any other discipline can reveal itself by step by step learning. Of course there are exceptions of course there are the naive artists.

                  Naive artists though are few. Talented people who have a possible head start in eye hand coordination are many and can be taught further.

                  Of more wonder is the story I heard from a teacher who believed children can be taught and recognise what we believe might be advanced concepts. He taught 5-7 year olds how to do perspective, at an adult level with looking at a mathematical approach, including infinity.

                  He said children knew that they were not drawing how their eyes saw the world. They were able to relate to what was being taught and were joyous at the idea of being able to show walls etc instead of a flat surface.

                  In general when researching step by step works best…..working out from a known source to wider views, practices.

                  Reply
            • Shanreagh 10.1.1.1.2.2

              15 April 2024 at 12:44 pm

              "you literally just said that PATHA's position sounded reasonable, and I pointed out they told a blatant lie, and you want to equivocate with me over trust?"

              I said it sounded reasonable. Are you expecting me to abandon my opinion after just one claim from you?

              I think this indicates that you don't have the knowledge from Cass Review under your belt. If you had you would not be saying phrases like 'one claim from you.' You would have known that what PATHA was saying did not line up with what the Cass Review had said. You might even have been able to utter/think the famous Mandy Rice-Davies phrase 'well they would say that wouldn't they?"

              Reply
            • weka 10.1.1.1.2.3

              15 April 2024 at 1:08 pm

              I said it sounded reasonable. Are you expecting me to abandon my opinion after just one claim from you?

              No. If I were merely making a claim I would expect people to scroll on by.

              Instead, I spent a five days reading the various commentaries on the Cass report before I put up a whole post. That post includes references that people who want to inform themselves can read.

              I also addressed Phil's inane comments specifically because I had done all that reading and knew he didn't know what he was talking about. He was was someone making a casual claim and he was just flat out wrong.

              This morning I responded to your own claim of 'sounds reasonable' with,

              • my considerable experience in reading about the responses to the CR
              • an explanation of how PATHA are wrong
              • links to back that up

              Others have also provided commentary on this. We are not the ones making 'just one claim'.

              I have seen you in conversations like this over time, and it's always the same. You can take any position you like, but you cannot on TS not expect to be criticised for that position.

              Call TS whatever you like, but when any regular here puts up highly misleading commentary, there will be pushback, and if they don't acknowledge the mistake, then there is likely to be comment on that too. Stroppery or robust debate, we are one of the few places online that holds a standard of truth. It takes work to do that, which is why some of us take a very dim view of lies and obfuscation on important political topics. If you think I am out of line here, you can look at how lprent deals with such comments on other topics.

              If you don't believe me about the CR then make an actual argument backed up by something real, not some useless propaganda talking points from an organisation that itself has been critiqued by Cass and where those talking points have already been roundly criticised.

              Reply
    • weka 10.2

      15 April 2024 at 10:36 am

      It’s shocking to see such a significant inquiry into transgender health completely disregard the voices of transgender experts. It would be like reviewing women’s health with no women, or Māori health with no Māori involved.

      Oh, you mean like that time Stats NZ decided to prioritise gender identity data over biological sex across its organisation and consulted with rainbow groups but didn't talk to any women's groups?

      The care and concern demonstrated for trans people individually and as a class throughout the documents is evident and to be applauded. What I don’t understand is why this isn’t also being seen as an issue for women. If the intention is to largely replace sex data with gender data, then why have women not been consulted in this given sex is central to a wide range of experiences of being biologically female in NZ society?

      In their process of developing changes to the standards, Stats NZ convened an external expert advisory group in 2019 to assist with aspects of the review. There were no women’s groups represented.

      https://thestandard.org.nz/should-the-government-replace-sex-data-with-gender-identity-data/

      Reply
      • Robert Guyton 10.2.1

        15 April 2024 at 1:03 pm

        "Oh, you mean like that time Stats NZ decided to …"

        Nope. I didn't mean that.

        Reply
    • Shanreagh 10.3

      15 April 2024 at 12:12 pm

      and lacks relevance in an Aotearoa context

      This is not explained. How? Why have we got 10 times the numbers on irreversible drugs than other western countries?

      As it is from a NZ body I am sure they will recognise the NZ vernacular/meaning when I respond by saying

      'Yeah right'

      in tones of the utmost sarcasm

      Reply
      • weka 10.3.1

        15 April 2024 at 1:12 pm

        that was one of the more risible parts of PATHA's response. The Cass review was for NHS England. It took into account international research, but it's purpose was UK focused.

        But imagine if drugs and surgeries in other areas of medicine were being critiqued internationally and a group said, oh that doesn't apply to NZ.

        PATHA are sounding a tad pre-emptively defensive there 😉

        Reply
    • Michael P 10.4

      16 April 2024 at 1:50 am

      Robert, the recently leaked 'WPATH' files reveal (amongst other things) widespread medical malpractice on children.

      Here's a link to the leaked files:

      https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/gaedata/TMY/2024SJ-00004-R000318-Gerber,%20M-Opposes-TMY.PDF

      PATHA NZ guidelines for gender affirming health care, etc come directly from WPATH.

      Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS