Suppose the type of help they provide for the children is the type of help the state does not approve of? Does the state take the children away?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
California AB 957 authorizes courts to take transgender kids away from parents.
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Party control of California state government
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
California is currently a Trifecta and a triplex state. The Republicans there have no influence whatsoever and is effectively a one party one rule state.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They aren't stopping doing medical transitions.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It is not a party state no matter how hard you wish or how many quarters you throw in the well.Party control of California state government
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politicsballotpedia.org
California is currently a Trifecta and a triplex state. The Republicans there have no influence whatsoever and is effectively a one party one rule state.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Stay in denial. It's a one party state.
How and Why California Became a Deep Blue One-Party State – California Globe
californiaglobe.com
We Never Know
No Slack
What party controls/has the...
1. Governor
2. Secretary of state
3. Attorney general
4. Both chambers of the state legislature
We Never Know
No Slack
To be fair, repubs have those in more states than dems. From your link..Party control of California state government
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
California is currently a Trifecta and a triplex state. The Republicans there have no influence whatsoever and is effectively a one party one rule state.
"As of September 10, 2023, there are 22 Republican trifectas, 17 Democratic trifectas,
and 11 divided governments where neither party holds trifecta control.
As of September 10, 2023, there are 24 Republican triplexes, 20 Democratic triplexes,
and 6 divided governments where neither party holds triplex control.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
This is from a study that is discredited. This simply isn't true and all known evidence points to children even at a relatively young age having a stable gender identity. The regret rate for transitioned individuals across multiple studies is a steady rough 1%. Usually less than 1% but we can round up to 1%. And the vast vast majority of "de-transitioners" stated that their reason for detransitioning was not because they weren't really trans but because they received such discrimination and hatred that they tapped out.
I'll take my time and read them and give my honest opinion about it. This is a medical intervention after all at this point. Zero medical intervention is always better than any medical intervention if there was an option. All medicine comes with side effects and so we have to weigh that against what its treating. Know that this isn't simply an elective aesthetic choice. This is a mental health and medical intervention for the health and well being of the child. In some cases its actually life saving for the child. So hopefully that contextualizes my answers.
This is interesting and something to keep an eye on. Its a response to another study that concluded that overall the average bone density of people using GnRH analogue treatment after 2 years is not statistically relevant. And in his response he found that it was slightly lower which was true and that there were outliers in the original study that had been removed. In studies often outliers are removed so that they don't skew the data. The outliers might have been removed because other factors were at play and without full access to the first study he was responding too I can't say for certain why. But it is a known fact that GnRH analogue treatment does reduce bone density temporarily and that there are studies that are in effect trying to fully understand the effects on all children and surrounding circumstances. The great news is that we know that it isn't life threatening and that these studies are helping us counteract the effects of the bone density loss and in fact the first linked study in this study is actually about another medicine trial that showed extreme reduction in bone loss.
So again this all has to be done with a doctor in mind. We aren't going just to hand these pills to any child at a vending machine. If a child already has something that would make the temporary bone density loss dangerous for them it would likely disqualify them from it.
Another wonderful study about the complex nature of the medicines. Again not life threatening nor irreversible. Just listing the study of the known side effect. This isn't evidence that the treatment is dangerous or inconsistent with medical advice.
This is mostly about how to diagnose osteoporosis in trans people since people under 50 have different scales depending on if you are male or female and there is a muddling of what to use in the medical field. Do you use the sex or the affirmed gender? Both have merits since biologically they were born with a sex but the hormones of the gender transition has had massive impacts on their bone density in ways that will make them appear closer to the sex of their preferred gender. There was a small side note about the timing and length of usage of puberty blockers in youth patients. However that was stating that there may be effects that may need to be taking into consideration even further if they didn't experience a natural puberty at all.
But not a scary anti-trans big dangerous no no study against puberty blockers.
A very enlightening study. An actual danger found and spotted. In a specific instance a specific issue can arise. We don't have any sort of stats on how common this is. But it is worth noting. However we won't be able to stop these uses. The reason being is because these are all for early stage preconscious puberty issues and all three of the individuals in the study are between 6 and 8 years old. During the high growth and development years of that time in their lives the GnRH analogue treatment has been linked to their SCFE condition.
But thankfully has nothing to do with trans children twice their age.
This is just the standards of care not a study but sure. Trans people are not fertile I will give you that. Though puberty blockers alone have not been shown to cause infertility. Though going further does. But at that point its a decision you've made and committed too with that understanding.
This is a clip of a stream that I cannot find the original source of. The tweet is from a TERF anti trans account. The whole account is nothing but being transphobic. So hardly a scientific source. And the tweet was originally posted by yet another account with a similar profile. But the original video I have no idea where it came from and spent about 20 minutes looking.
Again I can't say much about this because its just a clip of someone who may or may not be an actual person in the field who may or may not know what they are talking about.
Yeah this is just a study that used GnRH as a marker to study something else. They used it because we can control and know exactly when puberty happens and then track the results after because of it. This study didn't have anything to do with trans youth or the dangers of hormone blockers at all.
This is the same link I think you double posted by accident.
This is a paper mostly addressing the concerns already within the paper. So I don't really feel the need to respond since it sort of already supports my position. I can just copy paste from the article if you would like.
Interesting study on baby rams. Though it has not been replicated in humans notably. Good information to have and to study mind you but not a warning sign or evidence it is unsafe for humans. We have some memory issues that happen with hormonal imbalance issues but that has been discussed at length in other studies. here for example.
"Conclusions: Memory disruption may be a more common side effect of GnRH-a treatment than currently is recognized. Problems were temporary and more likely a result of rapid estrogen depletion than a consequence of mood, somatic distress, or personality factors."
This was talked about briefly in the paper address multiple worries earlier! The A1C difference is .2 which is not significant enough to cause harm to health. It is interesting to look at and it is a side effect. The other part is that those that are already prone to type 2 diabetes are more likely to have issues now with type 2 diabetes and thus might not be eligible for puberty blockers. Again this would come back around to a doctor having to make those decisions and it not being just handed out to every child who simply asked for it.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Strait from the horses mouth
"GnRH analog therapy doesn't cause metabolic syndrome"
So as stated before weight gain and very very very slight reduced insulin sensitivity is a side effect of hormone blockers. It will be up to the doctors to determine if the child has any sort of risk factors that would disqualify them. Though they would be the outliers in that situation as this is perfectly safe for normal healthy children.
This one is a study specifically on a separate medical case all together. It is also a different drug. It was for a specific kind of medical issue (endometriosis) and the study was not only on the hormone blocker but specifically on the cocktail mixture of the hormone blocker and 2 add back replacement medicines (at least one of was norethindrone acetate). Their specific medical situation is not comparable to what trans kids are going through. But to humor you even though the side effects were present the overall results still seemed overwhelmingly positive which I find interesting.
here is a link to the actual thing.
We have a total of 6 cases ever. Only one of which was for a transgender child. So I suppose be aware of the extremely low risks? Its better than getting in a car or on a bus. And it has been linked so we haven't fully understood why. Though I agree it is indeed worthy of being looked into. This doesn't make it unsafe however.
Interesting. Mostly affects older women, type 2 diabetics and people with neuropathic bowl disorders but still something to look at. Though this study doesn't seem to indicate any sort of undue danger or mistrust to the drug.
Actually overall none of these that are studies put the drug in a negative light. It only perhaps sounds scary if medical stuff just sounds scary to you. The video was objectively negative but again I can't comment on that since it wasn't linked or backed by anything in particular.
I don't think I have ever spent this long on a single post. I have spent well over an hour and half going through each of these articles and trying to read or at least get the jist of most of them. It was kind of fun. But at the end of it all I hope you know that they support the official conclusion of the medical standard of care that hormone blockers are safe and reversible.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
TBH its usually not the "number" of links. If I didn't have time or got bored I would have just picked a few at random and responded to those. If I saw a pattern I would have stated the pattern and assumed the rest followed. If you believed any of them broke that pattern then it would be back in your court. I knew it was slogging on your end but I just felt up to it today.Yes, I know what a gish gallop is. @Friend of Mara asked me for proof. So I gave her some links to read.
I know how this game goes: if you don't provide enough links, then that's a problem.
Now we have the "you provided too many links" dodge.
So I guess that somewhere in the middle is the perfect number of links? Can you tell me what that number is, and how it was arrived at? I'm all a twitter, waiting in anticipation
ah! so your mention of "gish gallop" was actually in support of my links?
I suppose that could conceivably be the case. But in that case, what a weird post to make. I can't really see the point??
The only other problem is I just hope that you had also read these articles and didn't just google them and grab links real quick of titles that looked like the supported your arguments. Because I see that a lot on forums like these. That is the real gish gallop time waster.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Marci Bowers is a surgeon who does bottom surgeries.
I'm also suspicious of that because people can orgasm before the age of 11.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The funny thing the SOC does include many studies that it's built upon.
Posting that as he did is an admission the links are not being read or considered and they are contradicting him.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Could. Its why I did mention that in the last post but I don't want to assume that is what has happened till I get a response. My metric right now is this. If I get an actual response that seems informed and matches the content of the links or in some way shows medical literacy to refute some of the things I said then I will assume this was all done in good faith. However if I see some other patterns of argument that sort of devolve away from it I will probably assume that this was pulling from titles or maybe at least scanning the articles.
Also to be fair some of these articles are a bit of a hard read. I don't understand everything in them. I let my RN expire in 2021 but I worked as an RN for five years and completed all the schooling required. I'm no doctor. Do we have any MDs that frequent here? I imagine not many.
Marci Bowers. I will do a little more research into her and this claim. Even if what she is saying is correct I feel like puberty blockers prior to age 11 seems a bit much anyway. Just because I am pro-trans rights doesn't mean I will agree with every trans rights positive person out there either.
First off, I must say that the quality and nature of our exchange is quite refreshing! I have been debating these issues frequently on RF and your responses truly stand out as being thoughtful, balanced, and logical. Truly, truly, truly appreciated!!
FWIW, I did read through all of the links I provided before posting them. I don't just copy and paste without some due diligence. To be fair, when I find a source and do some diligence, if I find the source to be reliable, I tend not to continue to "check their work". So I did go back and re-read some of the links I just provided.
I would say that I fall in the "more concerned" category, and you in the "less concerned" category, but still I find your honesty refreshing. We could dig into these studies more, but I'd be happy to say that it's concerning to just say these treatments are safe and reversible - that doesn't seem right.
edit: having read some of your exchanges with shadow, if you want me to respond more thoroughly to your claims, I will be happy to do so, just say the word
As for my claim that most kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it by going through puberty, here is a link that points to many studies. Not exhaustive, but this was easy to find with my search engine:
Do children grow out of gender dysphoria? - Transgender Trend
Do children change their minds and grow out of opposite-sex identification? Looking at the evidence and predictors for persistence and desistance.
www.transgendertrend.com
I do want to call out one of your criticisms of the links provided, when you said it was from a "TERF anti-trans" account. Both those terms are quite subjective, but I think the real point is that for such consequential issues - for the sake of the kids - we ought to separate the messages from the messengers. So even if the speaker was TERF anti-trans, and even if we were to agree that these were dubious positions to hold, we ought to stick to assessing the quality of the factual claims, not who made them.
But again, overall, thanks!
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I've read the SOC. That's not a maybe. It doesn't agree with him and its not being read or considered. You won't get that informed post.
Ideally puberty blockers need to happen before puberty. Not doing so just gives the person an unwanted body and additional concerns that inflame dysphoria (like unwanted breasts or beard).
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
I actually looked into the orgasm claim a long time ago. Most doctors don't seem to think of it as an issue it doesn't seem to actually be a problem. As in they can still orgasm. At least that's what it seems anyway.
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
This is a link that talks a bit about studies regarding orgasm. They don't support the claim that folk are unable to after transition.
@Shadow Wolf
@Friend of Mara
Abigail Shrier and surgeon Marci Bowers falsely claimed trans girls on puberty blockers lack sexual response after vaginoplasty
Women who transition early have good surgical results.
genderanalysis.net
@Shadow Wolf
@Friend of Mara
Last edited:
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Neglect is neglect and it harms a child's future and is something that effects them for their entire lifetime
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Sure! Actually yes of course! Mainly if there were any especially egregious points within the studies you wished to highlight to defend the position of being more concerned vs less concerned. No need to go through every single one unless you felt there was something of substance in each one of course.First off, I must say that the quality and nature of our exchange is quite refreshing! I have been debating these issues frequently on RF and your responses truly stand out as being thoughtful, balanced, and logical. Truly, truly, truly appreciated!!
FWIW, I did read through all of the links I provided before posting them. I don't just copy and paste without some due diligence. To be fair, when I find a source and do some diligence, if I find the source to be reliable, I tend not to continue to "check their work". So I did go back and re-read some of the links I just provided.
I would say that I fall in the "more concerned" category, and you in the "less concerned" category, but still I find your honesty refreshing. We could dig into these studies more, but I'd be happy to say that it's concerning to just say these treatments are safe and reversible - that doesn't seem right.
edit: having read some of your exchanges with shadow, if you want me to respond more thoroughly to your claims, I will be happy to do so, just say the word
Hmm. So I will respond to this. So first off this is a hugely biased website but I will try to look at the data as objectively as possible despite this but I feel at least as though it is wroth noting. I won't go further into this if it isn't necessary. But onto the page linked specifically!As for my claim that most kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it by going through puberty, here is a link that points to many studies. Not exhaustive, but this was easy to find with my search engine:
Do children grow out of gender dysphoria? - Transgender Trend
Do children change their minds and grow out of opposite-sex identification? Looking at the evidence and predictors for persistence and desistance.
The first link within the link is a link to a list of studies but doesn't actually link me to those studies. I've looked through a few of those studies but since they didn't link me to any of them it seems like its going to be more legwork to actually find them. And at least one so far has not been public access. Though the abstract listed for most of them don't actually sound like they were studying transgender children. Half of them were labeled "effeminize behavior in young men outcomes". Also I don't think that any of these can be all that reliable for today with a look at studies from the 70's and 80's. So I just have to put a huge amount of doubt on any of these. And half of them so far don't even seem to indicate that it studied what the original link claims it was studying.
The SECOND link is the one I will focus on. It is a full length study from 2013 and I did manage to get my grimy little hands on it as well as reviews of the study and I can hopefully elucidate why I disagree significantly with their conclusion and so should you.
Original grouping is 127. Of the original group 77 continued as normal. So that would leave 80 that was considered "defectors". So far this sounds pretty bad till we break the numbers down. Of the 80 we get that number from two sources. 52 responders and 28 that didn't respond at all. So at this point we have 52 detractors, 77 maintained gender dysphoria and 28 unknowns.
Of the 52 detractors 38 didn't meet the original threshold for a gender dysphoria diagnosis in the first place. They may have been there for the diagnosis or for further followups ect. I don't know and can't say for sure. But I can say that they were not diagnosed at that time. So currently we have 14 of the original 127 that are detractors that have stated that they are trans from the beginning. Which is 9% (a far far cry from the 80 % claimed by the link).
Even from that 9% we still have to understand that the respondents were not the children themselves but the parents.
So which is why I like to use studies of actual trans people and the regret rates of those that have transitioned rather than those who have backed out of transitioning in the first place. Primarily because there are also factors involved in the latter that also complicate the statistics further. The number of trans people who are 100% trans and sure they are trans but simply don't transition because of various reasons exist. A number of them that try and choose not too because of unsupportive parents exist. Those that are unable to handle the backlash from community, friends and family may go back on transitioning. None of that makes them less trans. Its just further evidence that we need to treat trans people better than we do.
It may be subjective in a technical sense but I feel its at the very least an extremely reasonable take. If you'd like to discuss that we can.
And the reason why I didn't rebuttal or comment much on the video isn't because it was from a TERF twitter its because it was a clip of someone I don't have the context of and don't have the original stream for. It in itself isn't a research paper and thus is hard to discuss. I did some googling and didn't find any studies that indicated what she was saying about inability to orgasm in trans women with early puberty blockers. Its the only real instance of that I've heard. If it is true and we get a study on it I think perhaps it means we incorporate that in our treatments moving forward. Though there are a lot of gray areas that I have several questions for that I would have asked were I in the room and with no way to get those clarifying questions I don't know what to make of it.
So again I didn't skip over it because of the source but because of the substance. Hope that helps.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
That was part of my follow up questions I wish I could have been there to ask. Forewarning for anyone squeamish. But trans women who transition sometimes loose the ability to ejaculate or sometimes even orgasm in the same way they did as a male but still have the ability to reach sexual satisfaction. So is it a situation like that or was it actually a sexual dysfunction issue? It wasn't clear.