B1544 – Reform of the Gender Recognition Act (2004) Watch

This discussion is closed.
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
Don't think a Canadian should be in this debate. Canada as a country is BIGLY filth when it comes to Liberalism.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Don't think a Canadian should be in this debate. Canada as a country is BIGLY filth when it comes to Liberalism.
I don't think cis people should be in this debate. After all it's a trans matter...
See how stupid you sound :rofl:
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by Glaz)
I don't think cis people should be in this debate. After all it's a trans matter...
See how stupid you sound :rofl:
Reported for cisphobia.
1
Thomp0
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Not old enough to drink, not old enough to cut your balls off.
Nay.
Old enough to be sent to war and old enough to have sex, old enough to determine which gender you wish to live as.
Aye.
4
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by Thomp0)
Old enough to be sent to war
Not without parental consent.
0
JakeTSR
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
I’m interested what’s going to happen in this new age of gender fluidity regarding the olympics. Is it fair that a man who transitions to a woman competes with women despite having the biological advantage??
Last edited by JakeTSR; 1 month ago
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by Good bloke)
Not without parental consent.
Old enough to have children, old enough to determine whether your children call you mommy, daddy or anything else.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by Thomp0)
Old enough to be sent to war and old enough to have sex, old enough to determine which gender you wish to live as.
Aye.
Only 18 year olds can be sent to war?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by Glaz)
Old enough to have children, old enough to determine whether your children call you mommy, daddy or anything else.
Eh?

Children have given birth at five years old. By your argument they can make life-changing decisions on their own by virtue of that fact. It doesn't make any sense.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by Good bloke)
Eh?

Children have given birth at five years old. By your argument they can make life-changing decisions on their own by virtue of that fact. It doesn't make any sense.
Generally people don't get pregnant at five. People do many things but that doesn't mean that's the norm. Lots of people do get pregnant as a teenager however...
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
(Original post by Glaz)
Generally people don't get pregnant at five. People do many things but that doesn't mean that's the norm. Lots of people do get pregnant as a teenager however...
So you don't think the age of giving birth is relvant after all.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by Good bloke)
So you don't think the age of giving birth is relvant after all.
What...?

I'm saying that 5 year olds don't normally give birth so they shouldn't be allowed to do this, however 16 and 17 year olds do commonly have kids so they should.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Question for those who believe that the solution to help those who wish to self mutilate is to do it for them (while probably refusing to cut off somebody's arm if they felt uncomfortable with it, and to do all you can to stop trivial self farm because self harm is bad), when we're reaching a point in time where there are sufficiently many people de-transitioning as it becomes apparent that the solution to their issues is not to say they're something they're not is the solution really to make it even faster to start transitioning in the first place, and allowing children to make such decisions?
I'm not quite sure how 0.09% of all those who transition wanting to de-transition classes as 'sufficiently many'? This doesn't make it easier to start transitioning for children, as for those 16-18 they'd already have had to be living as the gender for 1.5 years or more - it's not something that they could make a snap decision on one day, a lot of evidence is still needed for this.

Arguably it does aid in social transition for adults as it allows you to legally live as the gender, but I don't view that as a bad thing - given you'd already have had to be living as the gender for 6 months to apply if you were over 18, this just formalises a decision that they had already made and had affirmed.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
When we live in an age where the Tavistock has faced 35 resignations in 3 years due to widespread belief that gender dysphoria is being overdiagnosed for fear of being labeled as transphobic if an honest diagnosis were given, where having issues with your sexuality makes you trans and where children are having their development arrested as a consequence should we not be standing back and saying "wait a minute..."?
There is an argument here around looking into whether the fear of overdiagnosis is correct, but I don't think that means we should make an overly rigorous process for those who are correctly diagnosed as being trans. Again, by this stage they would have had to live as the gender for 6 months - 1.5 years, and had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. If there is an issue at the diagnosis stage that should be tackled there, not here.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
When we live in a world where, by sheer coincidence, one family can foster/adopt two unrelated children who both supposedly suffer from gender dysphoria from an incredibly young age despite it being supposedly rare, and where there are studies suggesting a heard effect (can't find it atm) whereby when one person in a social group convinces themselves they're trans others will follow suit, just like with many other things during adolescence should we not be saying "wait a minute..."?
I'd want to see the study on this before commenting, I'm afraid! It's not something I've come across in the past, that I can recall.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
When those being diagnosed with gender dysphoria are massively disproportionately autistic, 35% in the case of the Tavistock Clinic with suggestions that this is not properly taken into account during diagnosis should we not be saying "wait a minute..."?

Of course the end of those "wait a minute"s will be "...you're a transphobe otherwise you would support this". This might not be the irreversible bit, it's just the first step there
I honestly don't know enough about the impact that would have to say either way here - however, if it were needed to be taken into account, that should be a part of the medical aspect of it, not the GRC in my view. To apply for a GRC you need to have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria - so if you sufficiently take anything like this into account during that diagnosis, it's offset before it hits the stage of applying for a GRC.

Also, a GRC doesn't have bearing on surgery, this would be decided by the medical team assessing the individual, and would not be granted solely because of having applied for this.
1
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by JakeTSR)
I’m interested what’s going to happen in this new age of gender fluidity regarding the olympics. Is it fair that a man who transitions to a woman competes with women despite having the biological advantage??
It's worth noting that most of the concerns with transwomen competing in the olympics are largely unfounded, and are based around misunderstandings of hormones and transitioning.

First of all, there are a number of trans athletes, and they are not winning most of the time. There will be a few exceptions to this, sure, but most of the time they are being beaten by cis athletes. If this were as big an issue as people like to suggest, that would very much not be the case.

Most of the biological advantages men have in sport comes from higher levels of testosterone - a transwoman who has transitioned would have far less of these advantages. Once someone starts taking estrogen, their testosterone levels dip and their muscles not only build slower, they also lose muscle mass as a result. There is an argument for requiring a certain amount of time to pass after they start taking hormones, or having restrictions around testosterone levels, but broadly speaking there just isn't as much of an issue here as is often suggested.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 month ago
#55
(Original post by Good bloke)
So you don't think the age of giving birth is relvant after all.
I should imagine that the argument here is at 16 one is legally allowed to give birth, in that they are old enough to legally have sex at that age. Yes, people have children a lot younger, but not from a law standpoint
0
Thomp0
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 month ago
#56
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Only 18 year olds can be sent to war?
"errors" in the past have sent under 18s to war (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-and-Iraq.html).
A 16 year old can enlist in the army and be obliged to stay for up to 6 years.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 month ago
#57
(Original post by Thomp0)
"errors" in the past have sent under 18s to war (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-and-Iraq.html).
A 16 year old can enlist in the army and be obliged to stay for up to 6 years.
Which is illegal and against treaties which the UK is a signatory to.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 month ago
#58
(Original post by Glaz)
Strong aye on this :yes:



Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure it is reversible?
I believe if we don't consider it a mental illness then it shouldn't be on the NHS. So you're supporting its classification as a mental disorder?
0
lozzarae97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 month ago
#59
I find this debate to be so ill-informed as to almost be a surprise to me.

Almost.

Aye.
2
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 month ago
#60
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I believe if we don't consider it a mental illness then it shouldn't be on the NHS. So you're supporting its classification as a mental disorder?
2020-01-03 (1).png
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All