Your response is exactly what we — or at least I — have come to expect of you: a parade of flawed argument and (probably deliberate) misrepresentations of “fact”. Let’s look at them:-
Well, there may be a blizzard of “scientific papers” addressing the subject of gender dysphoria, but there’s not a single one that provides an objective basis for such a diagnosis. As with homosexuality, nobody really knows what causes it.
There are many scientific papers (there’s no need for the quote marks, by the way: they are perfectly genuine papers, written by teams of individuals who are well-qualified and published under the aegis of reputable institutions). They form the basis of a clear and strengthening expert concensus that Gender Incongruence has several causes, which act individually or in combination to produce recognisable signs and symptoms, that can be managed by a range of interventions that can include social transition, HRT, and surgery.
I agree that science has not yet provided a complete explanation, any more than it has (yet) provided a complete explanation for Alzheimers, diabetes, or the common cold. But the scientific and medical world is working towards a more complete understanding, and in the process, is ruling out some of the flawed theories and ineffective or counterproductive “cures”.
Those signs and symptoms are — to the outsider, at least — often subtle and easily mistaken for other things that are much more common or well publicised: that is why I regard expert advice as essential both in diagnosis and management.
And so as a practical matter, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria depends on the individual’s declaration — which isn’t what you’d call scientifically rigorous.
“The individual’s declaration” is close to the definition of a symptom, as opposed to a sign. A symptom is something that can only be noticed by the individual affected (such as pain): a sign is something that can be noticed by anyone (such as a rash).
So the main reason most patients go to their doctor is because of symptoms — which cannot be objectively observed. The doctor may then look for signs, but many initial diagnoses are based only or mainly on symptoms.
Now one can argue that an adult should be permitted to choose his or her “gender,”
That is a blatant straw man argument because few (if any) Gender Incongruent individuals “choose” their gender identity.
If it were possible, I’m sure most of us would gladly “choose” the gender that matches our genitalia. But that is not the case. If it were, there would be masses of solid evidence in support of “conversion therapies”, rather than the overwhelming weight of evidence that leads every reputable professional body (including the American Psychiatric Association and the UK’s Royal College of Psychiatrists) to declare conversion or “reparative” therapies ineffective, unethical, or even dangerous.
But thanks to the militant ideology of gender this choice is being imposed on young children, many of whom are subjected to life-altering drug therapies and surgeries, none of which are medically indicated in any rational sense of that term.
Even ignoring your repeated use of the word “choice”, this comment is not only a malicious slur on the competence and ethics of a large number of highly trained and respected individuals and their professional bodies, but it is manifestly untrue.
There may be occasional practitioners who flout the protocols, and there may be some well-meaning but (I believe) misguided parents who are tempted to buy drugs for their children without medical supervision, but their numbers are miniscule — if, indeed, they actually exist.
No qualified practitioners prescribe hormone treatments to “young children” because even if they were allowed to, there is no medical reason to believe that they would achieve anything in pre-pubertal children.
Misleadingly-named “Gender Reassignment Surgery” is illegal in most countries below the “age of consent” — In Europe, that is typically 18, but it is 16 in Eire and Malta. Kim Petras is believed to be the youngest person ever to undergo GRS anywhere in the world, at the age of 16. Eleven years on, she is a successful pop singer.
This is happening despite numerous studies showing that very few trans children still want to transition by the time they reach adulthood. But thanks to the fanaticism of the gender ideology mob, this choice is being snatched from them.
This is, at best, a misinterpretation of the facts. Your use of emotive and abusive language leads me to believe that it is a deliberate falsehood.
Here’s a simple comparison:
Out of every 100 women who undergo mammograms to screen for breast cancer, four are recalled for further tests. Roughly three of those four do not have cancer, so they are not treated for it.
The number of kids who are found to be not trans after being referred to gender clinics for diagnosis is usually claimed to be about 80%. That’s roughly three out of four. They are not trans, so they are not treated for it.
They aren’t “desisting” because they weren’t trans in the first place — any more than the 75% of women who walk out of their recall appointment with a clean bill of health could be said to have “desisted” from having cancer.
The only children who are having anything “snatched” from them are those who are trans, but are being denied access to proper assessment and advice, or who are being pressurised into “desisting” or detransitioning by anti-trans propaganda or the threat of abuse and violence.
[Rachel McKinnon] defeated his [sic] female rivals by a wide margin — unsurprisingly given his advantages as a biological male[sic]. And of course, he [sic] reviles and bullies anybody who dares to point out that he’s [sic] basically a fraud and a cheater.
The issue of trans participation in sport is complex. The assumption that trans women are stronger than cis women is highly questionable, and the fact that they are typically bigger is at best a mixed blessing — particularly in McKinnon’s sport of cycling, where weight and windage are both significant drawbacks. There are other issues, including characteristics such as joint flexibility and access to training facilities that also have an effect.
One of the few academic reviews of serious research into this issue is Jones, Arcelus, Bouman, et al (2017), available here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y
Published a year before McKinnon’s win, it found that “…transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence based.” and concluded that “…there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.”
Personally, I see no reason to disagree with that: any decisions, I believe should be left to the governing bodies of individual sports, on the basis of unbiassed research and expert advice — not the ill-informed opinions of the twittersphere and activist groups.
The McKinnon controversy stems from the Masters Track World Championships in 2018, when Sarah Fader (the fastest qualifier from the 200m heats) dropped out of the 200m final. It was her choice — she told the event officials that she was taking her daughter to Disneyland.
With the fastest qualifier out of contention, McKinnon won the final, with Carolien Van Herrikhuyzen in second place and and Jennifer Wagner third.
Prompted by a British journalist notorious for anti-trans activism, Wagner tweeted that the result was “not fair” — even though McKinnon’s record survived only a matter of minutes before it was broken by another (cis-gender) cyclist.
McKinnon responded with some interesting statistics about their past history, pointing out that she had competed against Wagner thirteen times and that Wagner had won eleven of those thirteen encounters — including one earlier in the same week.
This is what the double-bind for trans women athletes looks like: when we win, it’s because we’re transgender and it’s unfair; when we lose, no one notices (and it’s because we’re just not that good anyway). Even when it’s the SAME racer. That’s what transphobia looks like.
Wagner deleted her crucial twitter post, and publicly apologised to McKinnon:-
After having some time to reflect, I realize my twitter comments earlier this week unintentionally fanned the flames on a controversial situation, and that I regret. I made the comments out of a feeling of frustration, but they weren’t productive or positive. They were just inflammatory, and that’s not who I want to be or am. While I may not agree with the rules, when I pin on a number I agree to race by them. I also respect @rachelvmckinnon ‘s right to compete within the rules.
I apologize, @rachelvmckinnon , for not properly congratulating you on race day. I hope you accept it a few days late. Congratulations and enjoy your off-season. Thanks, everyone, for reading.
But according to you, McKinnon is basically a fraud and a cheater. Can you prove that allegation? Do you have any evidence that she pretended to be anything other than a trans woman? Or that she broke any of the rules? Or are you just hurling more abuse?
Unfortunately, having triggered the twitter attack, Wagner was powerless to stop it. McKinnon was deluged with accusations, abuse, and death threats.
That’s the background against which to judge her comments about Magdalen Berns.
Berns has been a notorious anti-trans activist for many years, producing dozens of abusive vlogs, appearing as a platform speaker at anti-trans rallies, and setting up anti-trans activist cells — always pushing the dishonest theme that trans women are “men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women”
McKinnon had been the subject of death threats incited by the propaganda put out by people like Berns and her associates, so maybe it’s not surprising that she was not exactly saddened to hear that Berns was dying.
Berns died of natural causes. She was not a victim of human hate: she was an instigator of it.
McKinnon was a target of human hate, instigated by Berns.
The question of whether it is appropriate to express pleasure when a bad person dies is morally acceptable is moot: how do you feel about living in a country that has just reinstated capital punishment?