MoD language guide

enpointe

Old-Salt
Lived experience [crosses off another box on the bingo card]

funnily how every credible legal, regulatory and academic consultation and survey puts great weight on the lived experience of those directly impacted by the area under consideration

rather than the masturbatory fantasises of the professionally offender gammon
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
funnily how every credible legal, regulatory and academic consultation and survey puts great weight on the lived experience of those directly impacted by the area under consideration

rather than the masturbatory fantasises of the professionally offender gammon
I know you're busy so thank you for taking the time to respond to me, even if it's not to answer any questions put to you but just to respond with typically male-pattern aggression.
 
I find it disturbing that this attitude, fear of speaking openly, increasingly seems to apply to the groups "my place of work" or "people I'm only casually acquainted with", because if the public square no longer includes companies, colleagues and casual acquaintances and is limited to your home and close friends, then it's not really public in any meaningful sense.
This has happened already. My "workplace" (ugh) is one generally considered quite "grown-up" and is well-known to many Arrsers with a military or related background - but I would no longer so much as dream of engaging in any conversation relating to race/gender or other potentially sensitive areas with any of my colleagues. It only takes one person to decide to be offended and you're guilty of, at best, a "microagression" - and quite possibly worse.

Keep conversations bland, professional and to-the-point - or accept the possible consequences.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I think that's a bit unfair. We've discussed detransition (and the lack of consistent measurement of its rate), we've discussed shared spaces. I don't dismiss prison safety, for instance; what I questioned was whether there was more abuse by trans women in womens' prisons, than of trans women in mens' prisons. I suspect that there is a great deal more of the latter (and linked to a post by @Sadurian describing his experience). Likewise, I don't dismiss safety within womens' changing rooms; instead I question how great a problem it actually is*; what you believe should be the alternative; and ask why this has suddenly become a hot topic - is it manufactured outrage by those who see this as an opportunity for entryism?

* I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the vast majority of those transitioning, pre-surgery, will actively choose disabled changing rooms etc. in order to avoid others' gaze, and any potential awkwardness/conflict. Or choose what facilities they attend, according to the availability of a private space to change.
None of those are what I've been talking about. Mostly I don't disagree with the above. My alternative you asked about was on the previous page, I agree there needs to be a third category of changing rooms, toilets and so on - I also agree with Owen Hurcum who suggests more internally cubicled changing areas, which seems like a feasible and appropriate solution. But those are the things you've been talking about.

What I've been talking about since about page 10, and what you referred to as "edge cases", is how we define and treat children as trans. That is where the likely major scandal is brewing; that is where I've linked the evidence from whistleblowing cases and legal cases; and that is where the documented cases of organisations and activists attempting (and succeeding) at censorship are so damaging. They are also the areas where acknowledgeing real differences in science, biology and disagreements or uncertainties in medicine are vital to getting the right answers, rather than imposing ideological principles.

You haven't substantially addresed any of that. You've suggested it is an unrepresentative niche. You've said that "the medical profession recognises and accepts the condition of "being trapped in the wrong body""; that society holds that the "defining female characteristics are the externally-visible-while-clothed ones"; that various serious issues or contra-indicators be treated as "the edge cases they are". None of these are obviously true, and several of them have quite a bit of reason and evidence to think they are not: the law does not treat female characteristics they way you say you do; there are contrary opinions in the medical profession; and so on.

This is either (consciously or otherwise) repeating activist talking points or it is being extremely cavalier with the evidence, or lack of it, around the core issues that shape this argument. To me, that seems to sail too close to the tactics that are often used to minimise and dismiss debate, various types of handwaving away serious questions as if they are unserious. This might be politer than what @enpointe does, but it is no less slippery in sidelining the uncomfortable questions that might destablise your position.

I would appreciate it if you addressed some of the sources and problems I've raised, from a position that they might indeed be true, and argue or judge the case on the evidence - introducing your own would be great - rather than supposition.
 
I would no longer so much as dream of engaging in any conversation relating to race/gender or other potentially sensitive areas with any of my colleagues. It only takes one person to decide to be offended and you're guilty of, at best, a "microagression" - and quite possibly worse.
Out of curiosity, how do you think an LGBT person feels in a workplace, particularly if they aren't (or suspect they aren't) "out" as LGBT? Do you think they avoid conversations relating to partners / interests or other potentially sensitive areas? It only takes one person to decide to be offended, and your life can get rather miserable; and quite possibly worse.

Actually, here's another. How do you think a Conservative voter feels in a heavily-unionised workplace? I suspect they avoid engaging in any conversation relating to politics or potentially sensitive areas...

No, it's not ideal. Yes, we should generally speak our mind - but we should generally be polite and tolerant. Free speech isn't an excuse to be a git to someone.
 
What I've been talking about since about page 10, and what you referred to as "edge cases", is how we define and treat children as trans.

But AIUI we're quite careful in the UK about how we treat children (link). Even puberty blockers can only be prescribed under 16 if a Court approves it, which means a detailed GIDS assessment over several months by a multiple-professional team. Hormone treatment is only available to 16-year-olds if they're been on puberty blockers for a full year. Again AIUI, we don't do any irreversible treatment at an age younger than that of a young soldier. Forgive me if I've missed something, I'll go back and reread your links.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the Army should be allowed to recruit those under 18? Because it would be a strange contrast to insist that a 18-year-old could give informed consent to one but not the other.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
AIUI we're quite careful in the UK about how we treat children (link). Even puberty blockers can only be prescribed under 16 if a Court approves it, which means a detailed GIDS assessment over several months by a multiple-professional team. Hormone treatment is only available to 16-year-olds if they're been on puberty blockers for a full year. Again AIUI, we don't do any irreversible treatment at an age younger than that of a young soldier. Forgive me if I've missed something, I'll go back and reread your links.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the Army should be allowed to recruit those under 18? Because it would be a strange contrast to insist that a 18-year-old could give informed consent to one but not the other.

Your IUI is wrong/incomplete. First, the court approval for puberty blockers no longer applies, and it only applied for about 8 months this year because it was imposed as a result of Bell vs Tavistock. That case was precisely questioning the practices of GIDS which had been prescribing puberty blockers without sufficient diagnostic sessions, without sufficient consideration of comorbidities other than GD, and without sufficient data to support their practices, and which were a "98% pathway to transition", in the words of the court.

Second, GIDS is basically the only service in the UK here, so when we talk about the gender dysphoria / transition pathway, we are talking about that service within the Tavistock Trust. This is important to understand the single point of failure.

Third, GIDS has, over the past 5 years, seen multiple resignations of medical staff who were concerned about their approach and culture, several investigations, a whistleblowing case, and a High Court case ruling against them. Those cases have - without getting heavy into the detail, which is in the links I posted previously - have found numerous problems with GIDS practice. David Bell, a safeguarding trustee of the Trust (Trust is to Battalion as Service is to Company) who was the focal point of some of these cases and won his whistleblowing case, has openly stated that he thinks it needs to be dissolved and started again, the problems were that severe.

Fourth, the science on puberty blockers is widely misrepresented, and includes (to my knowledge) no long or medium term studies of the practical use to which they are/were being employed by GIDS. Those few studies which do exist on the medium term effects are on adults and older children for temporary measures. So when activists say "puberty blockers are harmless and reversible", they have no research foundation for saying this. That is entirely before the psychological studies that would be required on the psychologiclal effects (in the case of desistence) of halting puberty, which many psychologists think would be substantial.

Fifth, one of the explicit findings of the High Court case, in several separate sections, was that whenever they asked for the grounding for statistics and statements that GIDS lawyers provided them, there was no data behind it because (their admission) GIDS never recorded it. This was a main thrust of the Court criticism, and despite the Appeal Court reversal of the High Court prescription decision, that original criticism still stands (and, obviously, the admission is now in the public record). To use your Army comparison, if the Army had been giving out statistics about soldier injuries and deaths, and then when challenged in court said it recorded none of the data around injuries and deaths, how much would you trust what they said?

Finally, the response of the Tavistock and GIDS to these criticisms was to hound the staff - remember, Bell was the safeguarding Trustee, he was the mandated tripwire for such concerns - who first raised them. Accusations of transphobia etc were apparently thrown around to those who raised concerns about the failings above. The cases against GIDS suggest that this was due to the undue influence activist groups - primarily Mermaids and Stonewall - were able to have on the Service and Trust. There is a very real link between: activist ideology > organisational rulebooks and speech norms > abuse of vulnerable children/patients.

So forgive me if I don't take the NHS page referring to GIDS as an entirely trustworthy source. This has all the hallmarks of an institutional abuse scandal, and because of the position GIDS has as the sole UK NHS clinic for GD, that makes it incredibly influential and serious. There is a second chapter to this, I suspect, which is about why the number of potential (i.e. referred by GP) GD cases are soaring, and that is: schools and learning resources.

(PS I can fly type this without references because, at least over the past few months, I've gotten into the detail of this for a couple of reasons, and I have good retention. If you read the links I've posted, however, they will substantiate all of what I've stated as firm facts. I still think that your understanding is superficial and based on biased resources - as I said before, not a criticism, but consider it and be aware).

PPS Not sure the Army recruitment analogy is relevant ... first I think 16 is probably as reasonable an age for consent as 18 in both cases (they are both arbitrary), but GD has an objective case for needing to make that decision far earlier; second as I understand it parental consent is required and seriously investigated by the Army for 16-17 yr olds, whereas there were / are too many accounts of activists and medical staff deliberately seeking to avoid or undermine parental consent / opinions for GD treatment, again based on toxic assumptions that such objections are "transphobic". Finally, I don't think the Army should be recruiting 8 year olds...

Feel free to keep throwing out these counterfactuals, but I'd hope my general history and behaviour on here might suggest I don't knowingly hold contradictory positions, at least not without serious examination, so I'm not sure how useful they are.
 
Last edited:

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
AFAIK someone can't transition to being a soldier, being a soldier isn't a protected characteristic and being a soldier is covered by employment legislation rather than protected characteristics.

But apart from that, great analogy [applause]. Please don't take this as an invitation to start trawling my posts for personal data.
 
Out of curiosity, how do you think an LGBT person feels in a workplace, particularly if they aren't (or suspect they aren't) "out" as LGBT? Do you think they avoid conversations relating to partners / interests or other potentially sensitive areas? It only takes one person to decide to be offended, and your life can get rather miserable; and quite possibly worse.

Actually, here's another. How do you think a Conservative voter feels in a heavily-unionised workplace? I suspect they avoid engaging in any conversation relating to politics or potentially sensitive areas...

No, it's not ideal. Yes, we should generally speak our mind - but we should generally be polite and tolerant. Free speech isn't an excuse to be a git to someone.
I think we are in agreement. I'm all for politeness and tolerance - and I aim to treat all my colleagues accordingly - regardless of ethnicity, orientation, gender etc.

My point is that it is safer to avoid certain topics of conversation at all costs in case someone decides that you are "off-message" - the consequences of which might be unattractive.
 
I think we are in agreement. I'm all for politeness and tolerance - and I aim to treat all my colleagues accordingly - regardless of ethnicity, orientation, gender etc.

My point is that it is safer to avoid certain topics of conversation at all costs in case someone decides that you are "off-message" - the consequences of which might be unattractive.
I have to agree, certain individuals at work are like that and I even record conversations with them now as they report the slightest issue with a venom you couldn't believe.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Opinions like those above demonstrate that while there may only be a small number of bullies, they can have a hugely disproportionate effect. Which is why it's important for everyone else not to remain or be silenced by those tactics: their power comes from complicit silence and weak leadership, not from the bullies themselves.

What would be interesting is to see some evidence that speech codes help solve this problem, rather than contributing to it or having no effect. Because certainly our societal and philosophical assumptions up until recently have been: freer speech helps reduce conflict. Why is this different?
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
I feel that workplace attempts to police speech have had a real chilling effect on relationships in the workplace. On the one hand I recognise the need to conform to legislation around harassment & bullying; that's not up for negotiation. On the other hand, what should be up for negotiation is the censoring of gendered speech or transposing one person's "lived experience" as an offender as a reason to speak on behalf of an entire group of people and change the speech of everybody else. The lack of negotiation or willingness to diverge from a trajectory comes across as very authoritarian and corrosive to any team, department, unit or organisation where that manifests itself.

Those who have the correct codes can control an organisation no matter their status. That's not right. It creates a barrier to team cohesion which in turn degrades moral & capability. Come conversations & bad thinks that ordinarily be done more openly and then cleansed by daylight by peers are now done away from scrutiny because of the threat and end up not being challenged or evolving at all.

BTW, all this is my lived experience so there is no data to go along with.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Opinions like those above demonstrate that while there may only be a small number of bullies, they can have a hugely disproportionate effect. Which is why it's important for everyone else not to remain or be silenced by those tactics: their power comes from complicit silence and weak leadership, not from the bullies themselves.

What would be interesting is to see some evidence that speech codes help solve this problem, rather than contributing to it or having no effect. Because certainly our societal and philosophical assumptions up until recently have been: freer speech helps reduce conflict. Why is this different?
I think this has rather more to do with timorous, cowardly, risk-averse HR functions and ditto senior corporate leadership, performing as effective allies and enablers for activists,
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I agree, but enablers they are nonetheless. As the Nolan Investigates podcast goes into in some detail, that is a real problem when the activists are a) lobbyists and b) representative of a particular side and set of views which are hotly contested by others.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Interestingly, in my professional life, I'm head of the Fun Police - responsible for cyber security in a large organisation and thus intent on making users' lives dreary and uninteresting by stepping all over their creative use of company IT assets - but I'm a much-loved figure, by comparison with the general view of the Business Prevention Department, aka Human Resources or whatever People thing it is they're calling themselves at the moment.
 
So forgive me if I don't take the NHS page referring to GIDS as an entirely trustworthy source. This has all the hallmarks of an institutional abuse scandal, and because of the position GIDS has as the sole UK NHS clinic for GD, that makes it incredibly influential and serious. There is a second chapter to this, I suspect, which is about why the number of potential (i.e. referred by GP) GD cases are soaring, and that is: schools and learning resources.

So; accepting your concerns about the UK treatment setup for under-18s, and assuming that the UK followed the Swedes in a halt to puberty-blockers; would that address the bulk of your concerns about the treatment of gender dysphoria?

I did find a summary of the Dutch study, which also noted the large rise in people seeking treatment for gender dysphoria - but who also noted that the rate of "I really wish I hadn't" remained at the same low level, five years on (they also noted that the uptake rate of hormone treatment dropped over thirty years, from 90% to 60%). To my untrained eye, that would suggest it's awareness that is rising, and diagnosis improving, not people being bullied into it by woke activists... and it would be interesting to see whether the UK treatment statistics (if eventually sorted out) are similar to the Dutch statistics.

To save people some time, this is the key part of the abstract:
Results: 6,793 people (4,432 birth-assigned male, 2,361 birth-assigned female) visited our gender identity clinic from 1972 through 2015. The number of people assessed per year increased 20-fold from 34 in 1980 to 686 in 2015. The estimated prevalence in the Netherlands in 2015 was 1:3,800 for men (transwomen) and 1:5,200 for women (transmen). The percentage of people who started hormone treatment within 5 years after the 1st visit decreased over time, with almost 90% in 1980 to 65% in 2010. The percentage of people who underwent gonadectomy within 5 years after starting HT remained stable over time (74.7% of transwomen and 83.8% of transmen). Only 0.6% of transwomen and 0.3% of transmen who underwent gonadectomy were identified as experiencing regret.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
But AIUI we're quite careful in the UK about how we treat children (link). Even puberty blockers can only be prescribed under 16 if a Court approves it, which means a detailed GIDS assessment over several months by a multiple-professional team. Hormone treatment is only available to 16-year-olds if they're been on puberty blockers for a full year. Again AIUI, we don't do any irreversible treatment at an age younger than that of a young soldier. Forgive me if I've missed something, I'll go back and reread your links.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the Army should be allowed to recruit those under 18? Because it would be a strange contrast to insist that a 18-year-old could give informed consent to one but not the other.
the Court stuff was overturned

the legla position remains that it is a Clinial decision

the problem is that GIDS is not actually run by clinicians
 

Latest Threads

Top