Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[McBell]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774749954629652873

Ok, why is it when I copy paste your link directly from you post and present it I get a completely different page?
Is it the lack of account thing?

 

[We Never Know]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774749954629652873

This is what I get...but I'm on my phone right now. And I don't have a twitter account either.

 

[icehorse]

Me as well.

I do not have access, at least through your link, to any of that.

well now you do, via the screen shots given in post #598.

 

[McBell]

This is what I get...but I'm on my phone right now. And I don't have a twitter account either.

View attachment 91374

That is what I am talkiong about in post #601.

I quoted the post the link is in, copied the link, then pasted that link into post #601 and hit post reply.
Why the difference is what I do not understand.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Did you mean GAC? If you meant GAD, then can you clarify what that means?

Yes, GAC. Sorry!

Most kids with GD end up being gay. It seems clear to me that "socially transitioning" a confused kid who's really just gay would likely be damaging to that kid's psychological development, correct?

I am not sure psychological damage is inevitable. The problem is continued harassment and stigmatizing folks who are different from the norm. The damage likely would come from bullying.

Exploration of identity is a normal feature of childhood.

Again, the point here is that there is no crystal ball that allows doctors and therapists to know "this GD kid is just gay" but "that GD kid is trans", and MOST GD kids are not trans.

Medicine and psychology are tricky things. MOST kids gender questioning might not have gender dysphoria at all. And some do become transgender. Remember the stats I posted a while back in this thread? They point to low numbers of young people diagnosed with GD who recieve medical interventions. But they certainly e

Bingo!

I'm all for talk therapy for kids with GD. Although I would caution against offering the idea to a confused kid that "they might be in the wrong body". Kids do not understand what sex and love and parenthood and infertility really mean. And kids are impressionable. I think it's wicked for trans activists to push the idea that young kids should be told that they might be in the wrong body.

Are trans activists telling young kids they might be in the wrong body?

And further, we know the "medical pathway" is dangerous and creates a lifetime of medical dependency, why would we pursue that route when we have no evidence that it helps treat GD?

The quote from the Cass report is "For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated..." not "we have no evidence that it helps treat GD."

No matter the condition, we should always follow the "first, do no harm" rule, correct?

I am no doc, but it would seem impossible to treat human beings with "no harm." Even basic vaccinations come with side effects. My bottle of Tylenol has warnings about liver damage.

Even talk therapy often involves pain, where a person must confront trauma.

By the way, I am still reading through the WPATH files. It is taking some time, but I am doing so while also researching people involved as best I can.

 

[icehorse]

I am not sure psychological damage is inevitable. The problem is continued harassment and stigmatizing folks who are different from the norm. The damage likely would come from bullying.

Exploration of identity is a normal feature of childhood.

The above is in response to my concerns about social transitioning: Growing up is hard, kids get bullied / stigmatized for all sorts of reasons. As for exploration of identity, yes of course. But in general we let such explorations happen naturally. I will repeat, it's wicked for an adult to suggest to a confused kid that "they might be in the wrong body".

Are trans activists telling young kids they might be in the wrong body?

yup - often in the form of teachers who buy into "gender ideology".

The quote from the Cass report is "For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated..." not "we have no evidence that it helps treat GD."

You can cherry pick the report, but the clear message is that Cass found no good quality evidence that GAC improves mental health outcomes. And again, we know it's a dangerous, lifetime commitment to medicalization. Why would we send confused kids down such an extreme path when we don't know if it even works, and we don't know if the kid needs it at all?

I am no doc, but it would seem impossible to treat human beings with "no harm." Even basic vaccinations come with side effects. My bottle of Tylenol has warnings about liver damage.

Even talk therapy often involves pain, where a person must confront trauma.

"Harm" is not binary. In the case of GAC we're talking about extreme harm that lasts a lifetime.

By the way, I am still reading through the WPATH files. It is taking some time, but I am doing so while also researching people involved as best I can.

fantastic!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The above is in response to my concerns about social transitioning: Growing up is hard, kids get bullied / stigmatized for all sorts of reasons. As for exploration of identity, yes of course. But in general we let such explorations happen naturally. I will repeat, it's wicked for an adult to suggest to a confused kid that "they might be in the wrong body".


yup - often in the form of teachers who buy into "gender ideology".


You can cherry pick the report, but the clear message is that Cass found no good quality evidence that GAC improves mental health outcomes. And again, we know it's a dangerous, lifetime commitment to medicalization. Why would we send confused kids down such an extreme path when we don't know if it even works, and we don't know if the kid needs it at all?


"Harm" is not binary. In the case of GAC we're talking about extreme harm that lasts a lifetime.


fantastic!

Yeah, there never was a case of someone just feeling trans. In effect it is so allien, that it is not case at all and only an idea.
And that is so because of your ideas of what it means to be trans. Buit your ideas are not really ideas, they are objective and facts with science.

Do you understand? All of your cliams are based on objective science, because some of them make subjectively sense to you. That is your trick.

And yes, you do have some points, but we won't get there before you learn to understand when you are subjective.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, there never was a case of someone just feeling trans. In effect it is so allien, that it is not case at all and only an idea.
And that is so because of your ideas of what it means to be trans. Buit your ideas are not really ideas, they are objective and facts with science.

Do you understand? All of your cliams are based on objective science, because some of them make subjectively sense to you. That is your trick.

And yes, you do have some points, but we won't get there before you learn to understand when you are subjective.

We are ALL subject to bias and subjectivity. I have said this many, many times on this forum. Daniel Khaneman is arguably the world's leading authority on bias and subjectivity and he has admitted that even he is subject to those things.

So WE all have to understand when WE are being subjective, and WE ALL have to do our best, armed with that knowledge.

And YOU, even though you are a moral relativist, are still equally powerless to be unbiased and objective.

But the point is that what you're saying is true for every debate and discussion on this forum, so why are you muddying the waters on this thread?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are ALL subject to bias and subjectivity. I have said this many, many times on this forum. Daniel Khaneman is arguably the world's leading authority on bias and subjectivity and he has admitted that even he is subject to those things.

So WE all have to understand when WE are being subjective, and WE ALL have to do our best, armed with that knowledge.

And YOU, even though you are a moral relativist, are still equally powerless to be unbiased and objective.

But the point is that what you're saying is true for every debate and discussion on this forum, so why are you muddying the waters on this thread?

Because you use a standard that is not possible to do when it comes to gender. You demand something for the understanding of gender that is not possible for any human. You want it to in effect be objective, when it is subjective.
Not that objective is not real, but that it has a limit. That is the point.

I don't claim that everything is subjective or relative, but it is so for gender.

 

[icehorse]

Because you use a standard that is not possible to do when it comes to gender. You demand something for the understanding of gender that is not possible for any human. You want it to in effect be objective, when it is subjective.
Not that objective is not real, but that it has a limit. That is the point.

I don't claim that everything is subjective or relative, but it is so for gender.

I'm fine to say that gender is some sort of subjective, internal, non-falsifiable feeling or essence that a person has. If you want to clean up that definition, I'd probably be okay with your cleaned up version.

The problem is that gender ideologists are using this idea of "gender" in ways that are maiming kids and hurting women and girls.

As an analogy, we allow people to have religious faith, but only up to a point. If a person's faith calls for them to do harm to others, we do not accommodate faith at that point.

So anyone is allowed to believe in this subjective idea of gender, but that does NOT give them license to harm others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm fine to say that gender is some sort of subjective, internal, non-falsifiable feeling or essence that a person has. If you want to clean up that definition, I'd probably be okay with your cleaned up version.

The problem is that gender ideologists are using this idea of "gender" in ways that are maiming kids and hurting women and girls.

As an analogy, we allow people to have religious faith, but only up to a point. If a person's faith calls for them to do harm to others, we do not accommodate faith at that point.

So anyone is allowed to believe in this subjective idea of gender, but that does NOT give them license to harm others.

So we have the following problem. Gender is real, but we can't talk about because that will harm the kids. And it will harm those kids afflicted by being trans, when we don't talk about it.

So we are caught. Well, I then choose to talk about it anyway. But try to aviod and say that we are all trans if we choose so, because that is not how it works.

 

[icehorse]

So we have the following problem. Gender is real, but we can't talk about because that will harm the kids. And it will harm those kids afflicted by being trans, when we don't talk about it.

So we are caught. Well, I then choose to talk about it anyway. But try to aviod and say that we are all trans if we choose so, because that is not how it works.

There are a lot of topics we don't discuss with kids.

If you want to talk about gender ideology with adults, knock yourself out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are a lot of topics we don't discuss with kids.

If you want to talk about gender ideology with adults, knock yourself out.

Well, see here.
If gender is just a false construct then no kid will ever experience it. But if it is more than that you will have some kids experince it.
Do you get the problem now?
It is not just ideiolgy, it is real as such.

 

[icehorse]

Well, see here.
If gender is just a false construct then no kid will ever experience it. But if it is more than that you will have some kids experince it.
Do you get the problem now?
It is not just ideiolgy, it is real as such.

I never said gender was a false construct. What I've suggested is that it's very similar to a religious faith claim.

Yes, some kids will experience bad feelings concerning sexuality, and puberty, and possibly being gay. But that does not mean that it should be acceptable to ply those kids with faith claims. That's what secularism is all about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said gender was a false construct. What I've suggested is that it's very similar to a religious faith claim.

Yes, some kids will experience bad feelings concerning sexuality, and puberty, and possibly being gay. But that does not mean that it should be acceptable to ply those kids with faith claims. That's what secularism is all about.

Yeah, but it is not the same or even similar. We won't get any further unless you learn to accept that some subjective claims are in effect true and real.
As long as you do this as to demand objective evidence in effect, we won't get any further.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, but it is not the same or even similar. We won't get any further unless you learn to accept that some subjective claims are in effect true and real.
As long as you do this as to demand objective evidence in effect, we won't get any further.

Please do not misquote me

Of course I understand that - in practice - many subjective claims are - in effect - true and real.

But that does NOT mean they all are. Nor does it mean they should all be discussed with kids. As every good educator knows, kids go through various stages of cognitive and emotional development, and certain topics are simply not appropriate to discuss with kids.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please do not misquote me

Of course I understand that - in practice - many subjective claims are - in effect - true and real.

But that does NOT mean they all are. Nor does it mean they should all be discussed with kids. As every good educator knows, kids go through various stages of cognitive and emotional development, and certain topics are simply not appropriate to discuss with kids.

Well, gender is subjective, true and real.