General Discussions

[LP]

If you're going to make unsubstantiated claims against a minority group, expect push back. And my calls for you to bring receipts in respect of these harmful claims are completely justified.

There are no unsubstantiated claims made against a minority groups, you're gilding the lily for emotive purposes.

The waste is a systematic issue, it's absurd to include otherwise biological males in studies about endometriosis or menopause, voluntarily or not, just as it would be as silly as including able bodied individuals in a study of amputees.

Do you genuinely think involvement in medical research is done for free?

Again there is no rort, the invalid candidates who might volunteer to be involved receive nothing except perhaps private validation of identity, but the involvement comes at a real world cost.

Typically in Australia the costs starts at about $2500 per candidate and goes up from there. But we don't have to even worry about that individual average, because we can do simple calculations based on proportional representation, 1:100, let's be safe make it 1:1000, if it's applicable to only 1/2 the population then 1:2000. Most recent figures indicate Australia Medical Research spends about $7B/annum, if applied globally at the ratio 1:2000 that's $3.5M dollars for what amounts to virtue signalling. By local R&D averages, that is roughly 15 fully federally funded research projects every year. That's your trivial cost.

If you want to argue the 1:2000 is too many, not representative or an inflated value, if it's 1:10000 or 1:20000, then why the change in the first place?

No, plain and simple.

[PaulP]

You object to what you perceive is a loophole in the definition, assume a phalanx of unworthy candidates are going to sign on as a result of this "loophole", make no attempt to confirm whether there are any checks and balances in place to reduce the incidence of such applications, and wildly assert that all these hard earned research dollars are being flushed down the toilet, all without the slightest bit of evidence.

[LP]

You object to what you perceive is a loophole in the definition, assume a phalanx of unworthy candidates are going to sign on as a result of this "loophole", make no attempt to confirm whether there are any checks and balances in place to reduce the incidence of such applications, and wildly assert that all these hard earned research dollars are being flushed down the toilet, all without the slightest bit of evidence.

No

No loophole, never claimed it was a loophole, it's in the charter and that will become criteria for funding approval.

No phalanx, never wrote that, but it will be proportional representation, any study has to be proportional representation to be considered viable.

No checks and balances, they can't discriminate that's already long settled in law a long time ago.

No lack of evidence, the intent is in the very links some have already provided earlier in this debate, the existence of those documents is all the confirmation you need, they don't differentiate candidacy.

Just no, no need to become extreme, not sure what you are defending.

[PaulP]

Lol. So all this fulminating and raging against wokeness on the off chance that a handful of people may inappropriately complete a survey. Is this like Claud Cockburn's spoof headline from decades ago ? "Small earthquake in Chile !! Not many dead !!"

[LP]

Lol. So all this fulminating and raging against wokeness on the off chance that a handful of people may inappropriately complete a survey. Is this like Claud Cockburn's spoof headline from decades ago ? "Small earthquake in Chile !! Not many dead !!"

No

No rage, just a comment about reality.

I genuinely think you might be overplaying your hand, the level of offense comes across as artificial or disingenuous, a gross over-reaction, even crying wolf or dog whistling. Ironic isn't it, that is what some of the comments might get labelled

If there is a wedge being driven here, it's seems to be pointing in the wrong direction..

[DJC]

Lol. So all this fulminating and raging against wokeness on the off chance that a handful of people may inappropriately complete a survey. Is this like Claud Cockburn's spoof headline from decades ago ? "Small earthquake in Chile !! Not many dead !!"

I strongly advocate cancelling all social justice initiatives because there's a slim chance that some poor misguided soul may take the p1ss  :

[LP]

I strongly advocate cancelling all social justice initiatives because there's a slim chance that some poor misguided soul may take the p1ss  :

The suggestion it's OK for a biological male who "identifies as female" to take some limited allocation of resources from biological females in a female gendered activity is an abomination. In health research it's even more critical than matters of social activity like sport. Allowing such events is not social justice at all, it's the very opposite!

I gravely doubt you or many others would sit quietly and accept a female in your life gets displaced from any limited resource activity simply so a male who identifies as female can take a spot.

It's too easy to sit on the fence on these issues, too comfortable, and many do when they don't have a wife or daughter involved in the events. We been through this debate previously about transgender athletes, it's largely the same.

Females have suffered long enough under various forms of misogyny, much like the case being discussed, it was hard enough to compete for funding and opportunities against Bob, Frank and Harry, now they have to worry about Mary nee Fred!

[PaulP]

I've been doing a little reading over the last couple of hours, and it's pretty clear that endometriosis is a real issue for trans people.

A decent society provides care for all who need it. It does not pit one worthy group against another. This is not a competition, not for funding, and not for public affection and support. 

[madbluboy]

I've been doing a little reading over the last couple of hours, and it's pretty clear that endometriosis is a real issue for trans people.

Is that one's that are born female?

[PaulP]

Is that one's that are born female?

I saw one study that noted prevalence of endometriosis in transgender men (i.e those assigned female at birth) is higher than the female cisgender population.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm guessing the study of these issues is very much in its infancy, with a lot of work to be done.