Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[The Hammer]

Either you believe that a woman who want to be called "he" is actually a man or you dont. Do you believe that person is actually a man? "Yes" or "No". It's a simple question.

Not everything has as a simple yes or no only answer, get used to it. Life is a spectrum of grey, not black and white.

 

[Ignatius A]

Not everything has as yes or no only answer, get used to it.

LMBO expected.

If gender is just a social construct, why are you balking at just answering, "Yes"? It should be a slam dunk question.

 

[Ignatius A]

Not everything has as a simple yes or no only answer, get used to it. Life is a spectrum of grey, not black and white.

So in other words...there are no absolutes.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

While the Cass report raises many concerns, I think we can focus on the following for now:

The Cass report concluded that there is no good evidence that GAC drugs and then surgeries improve mental health outcomes.

That's not an exact quote, correct?

The Cass report doesn't really look at the question of the safety of these drugs. Do you agree that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones come with substantial risks and dangers?

I do, but no more than any other drug that people are prescribed. Even over-the-counter drugs like nsaids can have substantial risks and dangers. I also agree with the Cass report that more research is necessary and patients require warning of risks and should receive holistic treatment.

The WPATH files contain an hour long video plus leaked internal documents. These demonstrate that WPATH routinely does bad science and bad medicine. These files were released a month or two ago, and WPATH has not denied their authenticity. The WPATH report is over 200 pages long, but below is a copy of the executive summary.

It seems as if it would be bad science to see these as conclusive, given they haven't been authenticated and causation hasn't been established for their claims. Who leaked the info and who has been reporting on it?

In your opinion, how much cheating by trans women can women's sports absorb before they are destroyed? Additionally, why would we want to support such a clearly zero-sum solution?

I don't see transgender people competing as "cheating," which would imply they only became transgender in order to win a sport. A list of transgender folks that have won competitions implies none of that.

It's not fun for me. Confused kids are having their lives destroyed using protocols that have no good evidence to support them. Additionally, members of WPATH have admitted that frequently families are incapable of providing informed consent. Add to that the fact that many doctors are in the position of having to rely on WPATH guidelines.

I would not disagree with better-evidenced protocals on consent put into place if that is occurring.

It would be much better if the situation was as you described: families receiving good, comprehensible information from well informed doctors. But the information is based on bad science, the information is too complex to allow for informed consent, and the doctors have been misinformed.

If this is true, then it should be fairly simple to change this without denying folks with care they may require. Even the Cass report doesn't suggest getting rid of gender affirming care.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Oh goodness gracious aren't you people tired of the examine the genitalia nonsense? I guess you have nothing else.

"We" are the ones separating gender from genitals. Doesn't your definition of gender involve the genitals? Otherwise, you would have no problem with using "her" as a pronoun for someone with a penis if they otherwise had all the other features we associate with "woman."

 

[icehorse]

I do, but no more than any other drug that people are prescribed. Even over-the-counter drugs like nsaids can have substantial risks and dangers. I also agree with the Cass report that more research is necessary and patients require warning of risks and should receive holistic treatment.

Hmmm.. Are you saying that all prescription drugs are equally dangerous? I can't imagine that's really your claim here?

In any case, these drugs often cause severe side effects like osteoperosis or sterility. When such severe side effects are likely wouldn't you agree that those drugs ought to have some proven benefits? In the case of GAC, we're dealing with kids who are experiencing emotional distress. And yes, sometimes this distress is severe. But the goal of GAC "should be" to improve mental health. full stop. It has somehow evolved into this weird assumption that the goal ought to be transitioning kids. But the reality is that MOST kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it naturally as they finish puberty.

So GAC has to compete with a high bar. Nature usually takes care of GD with no side effects. So GAC needs to prove - with high quality evidence - that it improves mental health outcomes. Because GAC IS dangerous.

What the Cass report (and others), have discovered, is that there is no high quality evidence that GAC improves mental health outcomes.

Why would we continue to use a dangerous protocol that is unproven?

It seems as if it would be bad science to see these as conclusive, given they haven't been authenticated and causation hasn't been established for their claims. Who leaked the info and who has been reporting on it?

A whistleblower leaked the video and these documents. Given how damning they are about WPATH, I think it's fair to assume that if they were not legit, WPATH would have said so.

I don't see transgender people competing as "cheating," which would imply they only became transgender in order to win a sport. A list of transgender folks that have won competitions implies none of that.

A person who went through puberty as a male has substantial physical advantages over a person who went through puberty as a female.

If this is true, then it should be fairly simple to change this without denying folks with care they may require. Even the Cass report doesn't suggest getting rid of gender affirming care.

Not so simple, sadly. But no one is suggesting getting rid of GAC. The suggestion is to limit GAC to talk therapy and avoid using dangerous drugs until their efficacy is well established. And of course to also stop surgeries

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll happily respond to that point. If I observe someone I've never spoken to before and they appear to be a woman, no matter what they are wearing, I will call the person, her, she, ma'am, miss, Mrs, Ms. etc. . If the person goes off on me because of it, then I will treat them like the rude animal they are and I won't give a s**t what they want to be called.

Alternative scenario:

You encounter the same person who, regardless of clothes, appears to you in every reasonable way to be a woman. You refer to them as a woman and, rather than "going off on you", they politely and graciously correct you and ask you could refer to them as a man. What would you do in that scenario?

 

[Ignatius A]

"We" are the ones separating gender from genitals. Doesn't your definition of gender involve the genitals? Otherwise, you would have no problem with using "her" as a pronoun for someone with a penis if they otherwise had all the other features we associate with "woman."

There is no need to look at genitals to determine if someone is a man or a woman. If you want to be called a kumquat I'm more than happy to call you a kumquat. But you recognize, I hope, that even if I call you a kumquat and you believe, think and feel that you're a kumquat, you aren't actually a kumquat. Right?

 

[Ignatius A]

Alternative scenario:

You encounter the same person who, regardless of clothes, appears to you in every reasonable way to be a woman. You refer to them as a woman and, rather than "going off on you", they politely and graciously correct you and ask you could refer to them as a man. What would you do in that scenario?

I would refer to them as a man that but if someone asked me, is that person a man I would say, "No".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would refer to them as a man that but if someone asked me, is that person a man I would say, "No".

So you'd respect their wishes to their face, but disrespect it behind their back despite the fact that they did not deserve you being rude about them at all?

 

[icehorse]

So you'd respect their wishes to their face, but disrespect it behind their back despite the fact that they did not deserve you being rude about them at all?

If a person asks you to lie, why should you respect them? A trans woman is NOT a woman, and a trans man is NOT a man. To say differently is a lie.

 

[icehorse]

@Guitar's Cry -

This link does a great job of saying what I've - clumsily - been trying to say about the Cass report, WPATH, and GD healthcare in general. It's not a long read. This topic - IMO - simply cannot be reduced to a sound bite:

Calling All Major Medical Associations

 

[Revoltingest]

If a person asks you to lie, why should you respect them? A trans woman is NOT a woman, and a trans man is NOT a man. To say differently is a lie.

This is your opinion about their sex.
If their opinion differs, & they express it sincerely,
ie, no intent to deceive, then it's not a lie.
You merely disagree.

 

[icehorse]

This is your opinion about their sex.
If their opinion differs, & they express it sincerely,
ie, no intent to deceive, then it's not a lie.
You merely disagree.

Biological sex is not a matter of opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Biological sex is not a matter of opinion.

I see a more complex reality than you do.

 

[icehorse]

I see a more complex reality than you do.

I doubt that. I see you parroting over simplistic and illogical, woke talking points.

 

[Ignatius A]

So you'd respect their wishes to their face, but disrespect it behind their back despite the fact that they did not deserve you being rude about them at all?

So let me get this straight, a woman who asks me to call her "he", actually is a man? Does this happen with other things in life?

 

[Ignatius A]

If a person asks you to lie, why should you respect them? A trans woman is NOT a woman, and a trans man is NOT a man. To say differently is a lie.

Correct. So if a 25 yo woman who is 5'5" tall and weighs 98 lbs goes to a doctor asking for a diet plan because she thinks shes "fat" should get the diet plan otherwise the doctor is being disrespectful and impolite. The doctor wouldnt want to hurt her feelings.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So let me get this straight, a woman who asks me to call her "he", actually is a man? Does this happen with other things in life?

Yes. Names and pronouns.

So you literally think you just have the right to be disrespectful, but everyone has to respect you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If a person asks you to lie, why should you respect them? A trans woman is NOT a woman, and a trans man is NOT a man. To say differently is a lie.

Firstly, learn what gender is.

Secondly, it's not. All that is being said is "I prefer to be called X". From no reasonable perspective, other than the assumption that the person is somehow lying about what they prefer, would this be called a lie.

Thirdly, I love the fact that you claim not to be transphobic, yet here you are suggesting that the very notion of accepting that being trans is actually a thing is "a lie".

You're just a transphobe. Give it up already.