Hmm, ‘best scientific and ethical advice’ doesn’t necessarily benefit the majority, as these decisions are mostly made by those placed under pressure not to be vilified by the affected minority. Nor do these decisions tend to be dealt with utilising common sense.

As I said, sex should be the basis of segregation not what someone thinks or identifies as.

So firstly I would suggest that I neither described a physical change as a ‘whim’ however secondly there are plenty of examples where those who have undergone such catastrophic actions have either ‘transitioned’ back or in some cases even taken their own lives if not just been left wanting to. There’s also a push for this to be done to younger and younger individuals which is barbarically cruel IMO. As for those wishing to undergo HRT or currently undergoing it the first step might be to stop the practice where possible with immediate effect. The other issue here however is that individuals might claim it is their right to do so if available. I don’t know the answer there with only subjective opinion but if so it should be very strictly regulated, not accessible for anyone under the age of 18 but most importantly should not allow a person to be categorised as female or male on the basis of surgery or hormone replacements. They would be their sex just with the body modification and that distinction should be noted everywhere appropriate. The likes of HRT treatment are not a perfect science.

Secondly, whilst my instinctive reaction is to vilify and shout down a lot within this spectrum my logical brain tells me there is something probably of value and truth behind it albeit probably for a very small proportion. My primary issue here is the lack of consensus and therefore clarity around the difference between sex and gender, the promulgation of ‘transgenderism’ as though it is of concern to the majority, the ideological drivers behind it and the prioritisation of this over general common sense and welfare for primarily women and children.

If, for instance, a male wants to identify as a very feminine male, with body modifications too including those that make him look like a female, I think that’s none of mine or anybody else’s business beyond where matters of sex come into consideration. If he receives extreme backlash, discrimination etc for this then yes interventions and actions may need to be taken to prevent or mitigate that for his safety. If he feels uncomfortable in a ‘Men’s’ toilet or similar, he should have a safe space but not one segregated for the exclusive use of females. Where we all have to pretend that he is a female however I disagree strongly. He is not. He is a male who chooses to act and look like a female, he should be free to live his life, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the freedom of others, as we all should be. Where there is mass promotion and policy for the butchering and complete disregard of the English language, a corporate approach to flying different flags, holding marches and designating periods of the years to certain groups, litigation for non-adherence to ideology and subjective desires, I think we have to look at society and say this is all nonsense and quite worrying.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

So you took one article from the Heritage Foundation and think that proves something? They’re a right wing think tank funded by the Koch Foundation and heavily into climate change denial, so clearly have an agenda.
The conclusion of the report they cherry picked their data from states:
“Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.‘
This was a study of just over 300 people starting in 1972 up to 2003. As you can clearly read from the conclusion surgery is not enough and continuing psychiatric care is also necessary, it suggests that this care was not provided over the period of the study. More recent studies show a different outcome, I suspect psychiatric care has moved on a bit since this study. Maybe you could move on too?

Actually I haven’t ever even heard of them or researched their material but thanks for the info. I heard it on the wireless a few yeas ago from some professor and that was before it became vogue to be trans. If the pool of people was too small to garner honest figures; how many should it be then. One person killing themselves over something preventable is too many! Also if you need ongoing psychiatric care even after the surgery you fight so hard for then just maybe you’ve made the wrong decision you think !

I did forget to add that this was after a period of 15 years or more. Maybe put that filter on and the results could be a little different.

Maybe there weren't as many people going through the process. Like the number who might regret getting neck tattoos or having three inch earlobes.

So how many is a good sample. 300 from a recent survey wasn’t enough iyo.
Go on stato how many ?

Why does it have to be prejudice? Can't it just be lack of interest? Other people's gender might be the core of their own existence but why should it matter to anyone else?

But, and it’s a big but in this case, the study you quote is outdated. Not saying it is a bad study, and being one of the earliest studies it is important, and it does highlight some negative consequences of the surgery. It is likely that this has had an impact on how this procedure is now carried out. If this procedure was still causing a significant rise in suicides within this group I find it hard to believe that any reputable medical professionals would be willing to provide this procedure.
If it was really the case that this procedure was producing significantly negative effects, even without the extreme of suicide, I’d agree that it should be avoided. But as others have said current research suggests a significant benefit for people undergoing the procedure. As the earlier study concluded, it is very important that people who undergo the procedure receive psychological support at all stages and afterwards. It may be that this study was instrumental in reducing the negative outcomes by highlighting the need for psychological support.
Current research suggests that things have improved significantly in the last couple of decades, not even the authors of your study suggested that there should be a halt to this procedure. If you want to cling to a view that runs counter to the evidence what should we call that? The Heritage Foundation have right wing political views as their excuse, you can choose to go with them or you can go with the data.

The sports change certainly made sense, as biological men in womens sport provably puts women at distinct disadvantage, no matter if testosterone levels and the like were now reduced. The knock on effect on records, physical safety and the like is clear.

The bathroom issue has become near hysterical from all sides, clearly almost all trans women (as with all women, and indeed men) go to the toilet to actually use it. If someone is nuts enough to want to sexually violate others, they can do so without impersonating a woman, so it doesn't in any way reflect on a group as a whole. The other side is that it's fair in a womens space for those present to.. well actually be considered to be women.

I'd say the changing room issue is more difficult in that people are more exposed. There are aspects of that to any use of changing rooms though and to my mind places that just have individual cubicles have the right idea. Maybe that should be a law with new facilities goes forward, it would seem to be a sensible idea.

A 'careful what you wish for' with this proposed change is that if we base use of these facilities on biological sex, trans men (those who are visually male but are biologically female) are then forced to use womens spaces, and is that the most rational place for them to be? Doesn't that defeat the object (and question the logic) of bringing in such a single sex measures? As with anything newly hyper political, the realities and more nuanced than the lurches.