Has the UK's NHS changed it's approach to care for trans youth?

[Debater Slayer]

Sadly, politics seem to be thoroughly intertwined with this issue. I think trans-activists have also done a lot to stir the pot.

I will repeat a question I asked (but didn't get an answer to) in the last thread: who are "trans activists"? Are they supposed to be a uniform group with no differences in opinion among themselves? Why is "trans activist" implied to be a negative designation even though many trans activists simply want equal rights for trans people?

We really have to look at the fact that there has been a 2,000% increase in people identifying as trans in the last decade. Knowing everything we know about the power of propaganda and the negative side effects of social media, and applying Occam's razor, I think it would be an extraordinary claim to content that coercion is not a significant factor.

Reduced stigmatization and more access to gender-affirming care could also be factors in the increased rate of people identifying as trans. Trans people have existed throughout history; it's just that they're more visible now.

Also, you're trying to use your intuition and "Occam's razor" to arrive at a conclusion that is strictly and exclusively within the domain of research and measurable study. No, it's not an extraordinary claim to say that coercion isn't a factor for the majority of trans people because the coercion, both legally and socially, tends to be against coming out as trans. You're positing that the increase in identification is due to social media and coercion, and those should be measurable variables in research about the increase. So you need evidence or your claim is simply unfounded.

In such an environment, it seems to me that performing irreversible interventions is an extraordinary solution. So I think to justify that, extraordinary evidence ought to be required.

All reputable medical organizations contradict the above position. This is an overreach, and a dangerous one at that because of the significant harms that denial of medical care can do to people with gender dysphoria (or any other medical issue that requires professional care).

I understand that politicians have entered into the mix, and I agree that that's concerning. But so have trans-activists, and that's equally concerning.

See my questions above about "trans activists."

And no, it's not equally concerning because many politicians have legal power to impose their personal beliefs—which contradict the positions of medical professionals, in this case—whereas very few "trans activists" have anywhere near that much power.

Where is this persistence in opposing medical consensus about trans issues coming from? It's not usual for you, from what I've seen in your other posts, to discard expert authority on a scientific or medical subject. I'm still not sure why you're making an exception from your usual MO for this one subject.

 

[Yerda]

I will repeat a question I asked (but didn't get an answer to) in the last thread: who are "trans activists"? Are they supposed to be a uniform group with no differences in opinion among themselves? Why is "trans activist" implied to be a negative designation even though many trans activists simply want equal rights for trans people?

The designation of trans activist seems to sweep up anyone who publicly states that trans gender identities are real. The thing is that it isn't only fringe loonballs who agree that transwomen are women and transmen are men - it's very commonplace.

 

[icehorse]

I will repeat a question I asked (but didn't get an answer to) in the last thread: who are "trans activists"? Are they supposed to be a uniform group with no differences in opinion among themselves? Why is "trans activist" implied to be a negative designation even though many trans activists simply want equal rights for trans people?

For the record, you've left many of my recent questions to you unanswered as well.

As for "who are trans-activists": I'm happy to acknowledge that trans-activists are NOT a uniform group, but instead occupy spots across a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. So you tell me what term we should use for that subset that exists on the most radical end of that spectrum, I'm not at all attached to "trans-activist" as a term.

Reduced stigmatization and more access to gender-affirming care could also be factors in the increased rate of people identifying as trans. Trans people have existed throughout history; it's just that they're more visible now.

Also, you're trying to use your intuition and "Occam's razor" to arrive at a conclusion that is strictly and exclusively within the domain of research and measurable study. No, it's not an extraordinary claim to say that coercion isn't a factor for the majority of trans people because the coercion, both legally and socially, tends to be against coming out as trans. You're positing that the increase in identification is due to social media and coercion, and those should be measurable variables in research about the increase. So you need evidence or your claim is simply unfounded.

I'm happy to grant that there are many factors contributing to this extraordinary rise in people identifying as trans. But are you happy to grant me that propaganda and social media are factors as well? I would say my claim is as well founded as yours.

All reputable medical organizations contradict the above position. This is an overreach, and a dangerous one at that because of the significant harms that denial of medical care can do to people with gender dysphoria (or any other medical issue that requires professional care).

In this thread, I've given two example of organizations that disagree with you, The UK NHS and the AJP.

And for the Nth time, I have NEVER proposed denying care. I'm only questioning the most radical of the options in play.

Can you point me to the data that shows that the options you're defending save lives? I'll grant you that it's a very common claim. But can you point to good data? Just because a medical group claims it, doesn't make it good data.

Where is this persistence in opposing medical consensus about trans issues coming from? It's not usual for you, from what I've seen in your other posts, to discard expert authority on a scientific or medical subject. I'm still not sure why you're making an exception from your usual MO for this one subject.

Because I disagree with the claim that there is solid, evidence-based consensus. And because the interventions I'm concerned about are so extraordinary. Remember, we don't have the benefits of MRIs or CAT scans or EEGs or blood work or any of the standard medical tests that we run for other medical issues. That makes this situation very different.

Further, the whole notion that people have a right not to be offended has gained a lot of traction lately. In this case, even the "authorities" tip-toe around using meaningful terms, lest they offend. I've asked openly on RF - several times - how the medical community or psychiatric community even classifies trans. Everyone is SO concerned about stigmatization that they won't even use normal terms to discuss this disorder. Yikes! I said it! I said "disorder", how offensive of me. WHO recently backpedaled and now calls it "gender incongruence". What does that even mean? Here's the definition of incongruence:

lack of consistency or appropriateness, as in inappropriate affect or as when one's subjective evaluation of a situation is at odds with reality.

How is that any less stigmatizing than saying "disorder"? When one's SUBJECTIVE evaluation of a situation is at odds with reality. So apparently it's not offensive to say that a trans person's subjective evaluation of their sex is at odds with reality, right?

So I'll ask again: What kind of thing requires extensive medical and psychiatric interventions but isn't a disease or a disorder? How is it classified? It strikes me that the medical community is avoiding the use of terms like "disorder" because they feel the need to bend over backwards to be politically correct.

So what concerns me here is that everyone seems to be okay with the idea that young people, who in the best of times are going through the massively confusing time around puberty, can claim that they feel at odds with reality, and that such feelings are beyond anything we can measure or test, and that our answer - far too often - is that we should mutilate them.

AND TO REITERATE.. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide care.

And taking a nod from Confucius as I do: It strikes me as telling that the language around this issue is so tortured and twisted. Most people understand at some level the power of having the linguistic upper hand. I'm sure you've noticed that there is a parallel thread going on discussing the question "what is a female?". This high volume thread is evidence of the struggle for the linguistic upper hand. This is not about dealing with reality as compassionately as possible. The extreme trans-activists are dead set on bending reality, as WHO has (inadvertently?) supported with their newly minted phrase "gender incongruence".

 

[Koldo]

For the record, you've left many of my recent questions to you unanswered as well.

As for "who are trans-activists": I'm happy to acknowledge that trans-activists are NOT a uniform group, but instead occupy spots across a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. So you tell me what term we should use for that subset that exists on the most radical end of that spectrum, I'm not at all attached to "trans-activist" as a term.



I'm happy to grant that there are many factors contributing to this extraordinary rise in people identifying as trans. But are you happy to grant me that propaganda and social media are factors as well? I would say my claim is as well founded as yours.



In this thread, I've given two example of organizations that disagree with you, The UK NHS and the AJP.

And for the Nth time, I have NEVER proposed denying care. I'm only questioning the most radical of the options in play.

Can you point me to the data that shows that the options you're defending save lives? I'll grant you that it's a very common claim. But can you point to good data? Just because a medical group claims it, doesn't make it good data.



Because I disagree with the claim that there is solid, evidence-based consensus. And because the interventions I'm concerned about are so extraordinary. Remember, we don't have the benefits of MRIs or CAT scans or EEGs or blood work or any of the standard medical tests that we run for other medical issues. That makes this situation very different.

Further, the whole notion that people have a right not to be offended has gained a lot of traction lately. In this case, even the "authorities" tip-toe around using meaningful terms, lest they offend. I've asked openly on RF - several times - how the medical community or psychiatric community even classifies trans. Everyone is SO concerned about stigmatization that they won't even use normal terms to discuss this disorder. Yikes! I said it! I said "disorder", how offensive of me. WHO recently backpedaled and now calls it "gender incongruence". What does that even mean? Here's the definition of incongruence:



How is that any less stigmatizing than saying "disorder"? When one's SUBJECTIVE evaluation of a situation is at odds with reality. So apparently it's not offensive to say that a trans person's subjective evaluation of their sex is at odds with reality, right?

So I'll ask again: What kind of thing requires extensive medical and psychiatric interventions but isn't a disease or a disorder? How is it classified? It strikes me that the medical community is avoiding the use of terms like "disorder" because they feel the need to bend over backwards to be politically correct.

So what concerns me here is that everyone seems to be okay with the idea that young people, who in the best of times are going through the massively confusing time around puberty, can claim that they feel at odds with reality, and that such feelings are beyond anything we can measure or test, and that our answer - far too often - is that we should mutilate them.

AND TO REITERATE.. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide care.

And taking a nod from Confucius as I do: It strikes me as telling that the language around this issue is so tortured and twisted. Most people understand at some level the power of having the linguistic upper hand. I'm sure you've noticed that there is a parallel thread going on discussing the question "what is a female?". This high volume thread is evidence of the struggle for the linguistic upper hand. This is not about dealing with reality as compassionately as possible. The extreme trans-activists are dead set on bending reality, as WHO has (inadvertently?) supported with there newly minted phrase "gender incongruence".

What exactly are you worried about?
What medical procedures do you oppose and why/when?

 

[icehorse]

What exactly are you worried about?
What medical procedures do you oppose and why/when?

I'm worried about using hormones (e.g. chemical castration), and surgeries with minors.

 

[SomeRandom]

I agree that politicians should back off of this sort of question. My concern really is with trans-activists who promote these sorts of irreversible interventions to kids, and with those who profit from these interventions.

I think you and I actually share the same concerns.
Like I said, I don’t actually support transition surgery for minors (excluding for actual medical necessity, which I know can occur in some circumstances.)

I mean if someone is legally emancipated, I suppose an exception could be made. Or at least a successful legal argument could be made

I don’t know. In my country, a 16 year old is legally capable of consenting to a great many things. Some of which isn’t legal (technically) in the US
So I guess I have to figure out the nuances of that for myself in the near future.

But regardless. An adult can do whatever they want to their body. That is their right, imo
Even if they regret it, that’s just reality of the risks we accept

 

[Debater Slayer]

For the record, you've left many of my recent questions to you unanswered as well.

I've answered the points you brought up; I just get the impression that you sometimes move on and don't acknowledge the answers if they don't line up with a specific viewpoint.

As for "who are trans-activists": I'm happy to acknowledge that trans-activists are NOT a uniform group, but instead occupy spots across a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. So you tell me what term we should use for that subset that exists on the most radical end of that spectrum, I'm not at all attached to "trans-activist" as a term.

From what I've seen in this thread and the previous one, you're not talking about the "most radical end of that spectrum." You're merely talking about positions that match the stances of medical organizations.

What term would I use for such people? "People who accept and acknowledge the authority of peer-reviewed science," I guess. I would have to see you talk about actually radical positions before I could come up with a term for people who espoused them, depending on what those positions were.

I'm happy to grant that there are many factors contributing to this extraordinary rise in people identifying as trans. But are you happy to grant me that propaganda and social media are factors as well? I would say my claim is as well founded as yours.

The relationship between gender dysphoria and transitioning is well-documented and established via decades of medical research. On the other hand, you're positing that "propaganda and social media" factor into transitioning without offering any evidence for the claim. Where are the peer-reviewed studies demonstrating this causal relationship? Which medical organizations have vetted and verified this claim? Show me such evidence and I'll immediately agree with you. Otherwise you're hypothesizing, based on personal opinions, about something that is measurable and affects many people's lives.

In this thread, I've given two example of organizations that disagree with you, The UK NHS and the AJP.

No, because neither disagrees that gender-affirming care is sometimes necessary whether for minors or adults. The report only opposed routinely prescribing puberty-suppressing hormones, and I've already quoted the NHS where they explicitly state, in their current position, that they generally don't recommend such prescriptions for minors either. The criteria for it per the stance of the NHS are already strict.

And for the Nth time, I have NEVER proposed denying care. I'm only questioning the most radical of the options in play.

Can you point me to the data that shows that the options you're defending save lives? I'll grant you that it's a very common claim. But can you point to good data? Just because a medical group claims it, doesn't make it good data.

One:

Mental health benefits associated with gender-affirming surgery

Gender-affirming surgeries are associated with numerous positive health benefits, including lower rates of psychological distress and suicidal ideation, as well as lower rates of smoking, according…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Two:

Gender-affirming care can improve mental health outcomes in transgender youth

New research published in JAMA Network Open shows that gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers have a beneficial impact on depression and suicide risk in transgender and nonbinary youth....

epi.washington.edu

Three:

Error | AAP

Error landing page

www.aap.org

Four:

New Study Shows Transgender People Who Receive Gender-Affirming Surgery are Significantly Less Likely to Experience Psychological Distress or Suicidal Ideation - Fenway Health

BOSTON, April 28, 2021—A new study published today in JAMA Surgery found that gender-affirming surgery is associated with improved mental health outcomes

fenwayhealth.org

Five:

Gender-Affirming Care Reduces Depression in Transgender Youth

www.michiganpsychologicalassociation.org

Six:

Mayo Clinic's Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic provides a home base for transgender patients and those with differences of sexual development - Mayo Clinic

www.mayoclinic.org

This is from just the last link:

Studies show that after hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgery:

• 80% of transgender individuals report significant improvement in their gender dysphoria
• 80% report significant improvement in quality of life
• 78% report significant improvement in psychological symptoms
• 72% report significant improvement in sexual function

These are just a few examples, and every single one is based on peer-reviewed research. I don't see any reason whatoever to ignore all of these medical organizations' stances in favor of ideological and unfounded claims for which there isn't even a fraction of the evidence demonstrating how much gender-affirming care helps some people.

Because I disagree with the claim that there is solid, evidence-based consensus.

Then you should be able to find or quote even a single reputable medical organization disagreeing with the points I've outlined here. That hasn't happened.

And because the interventions I'm concerned about are so extraordinary. Remember, we don't have the benefits of MRIs or CAT scans or EEGs or blood work or any of the standard medical tests that we run for other medical issues. That makes this situation very different.

That applies to every single mental issue. Should we do away with psychiatric prescriptions for minors? Some of them also have heavy side-effect profiles (e.g., antipsychotics), but sometimes they're necessary or even life-saving. The lack of physical tests like CT scans or X-rays to diagnose gender dysphoria doesn't mean it's not diagnosable, nor does that somehow erase the fact that many people still suffer from it and immensely benefit from professional help.

Further, the whole notion that people have a right not to be offended has gained a lot of traction lately. In this case, even the "authorities" tip-toe around using meaningful terms, lest they offend. I've asked openly on RF - several times - how the medical community or psychiatric community even classifies trans. Everyone is SO concerned about stigmatization that they won't even use normal terms to discuss this disorder. Yikes! I said it! I said "disorder", how offensive of me. WHO recently backpedaled and now calls it "gender incongruence". What does that even mean? Here's the definition of incongruence:



How is that any less stigmatizing than saying "disorder"? When one's SUBJECTIVE evaluation of a situation is at odds with reality. So apparently it's not offensive to say that a trans person's subjective evaluation of their sex is at odds with reality, right?

Scientific understanding continually changes and improves, and this is far from limited to trans issues. I don't see any evidence that the classification of gender dysphoria has changed because of "fear to offend" rather than medical reasons—reasons that anyone can easily read about by looking up why the classification has changed.

Again, this is a claim that requires evidence, but you're merely attributing a change in medical understanding to some perceived ideological reason without substantiating this supposed causal link. The same claim was made when medical organizations no longer classified homosexuality as a disorder, which further reinforces my belief that some people make such claims when they disagree with a medical position, usually on ideological grounds, and want to undermine or cast doubt on it but have no scientific evidence to back up their opposition.

So I'll ask again: What kind of thing requires extensive medical and psychiatric interventions but isn't a disease or a disorder? How is it classified? It strikes me that the medical community is avoiding the use of terms like "disorder" because they feel the need to bend over backwards to be politically correct.

See above. As I said above, if you want to know how it's classified, you can read about that on multiple medical websites. There's no secret or much room for guessing when one does so.

So what concerns me here is that everyone seems to be okay with the idea that young people, who in the best of times are going through the massively confusing time around puberty, can claim that they feel at odds with reality, and that such feelings are beyond anything we can measure or test, and that our answer - far too often - is that we should mutilate them.

Mental health professionals do test for gender dysphoria by focusing on and evaluating multiple diagnostic criteria. You're making it sound like they immediately hand out diagnoses without assessing each case.

AND TO REITERATE.. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide care.

If so, it should be safe to assume that you have no issue with provision of professionally recommended care for gender dysphoria to someone who has been thoroughly, carefully evaluated and diagnosed, be they a minor or an adult. Is that correct?

Because otherwise it seems to me that you're indeed implying we shouldn't provide care, or at least not evidence-based, actually effective care. What you classify as "care" and what is actually helpful care for gender dysphoria—per professional guidance—are not necessarily going to match.

And taking a nod from Confucius as I do: It strikes me as telling that the language around this issue is so tortured and twisted. Most people understand at some level the power of having the linguistic upper hand. I'm sure you've noticed that there is a parallel thread going on discussing the question "what is a female?". This high volume thread is evidence of the struggle for the linguistic upper hand. This is not about dealing with reality as compassionately as possible. The extreme trans-activists are dead set on bending reality, as WHO has (inadvertently?) supported with their newly minted phrase "gender incongruence".

And we're back to the "extreme trans-activists" along with a conspicuously ideological trope about the "linguistic upper hand." It seems to me that you might have already made up your mind independently of what professionals think and are now finding different ideological arguments for your position.

Language evolves and has done so for millennia, as does our understanding of the world. Since there's now a significant amount of evidence that sex and gender are not synonymous, many people's understanding of words about both is also changing. This isn't the first time language about a specific subject has evolved, nor will it be the last.

I've been having a busy week, and we've already gone over most of these points in the other thread anyway. I may not engage further in the thread.

Have a nice week.

 

[icehorse]

I've been having a busy week, and we've already gone over most of these points in the other thread anyway. I may not engage further in the thread.

Have a nice week.

It's clear you've put a lot of energy into this thread, and that is appreciated.

I will put a lot of energy into studying what you've offered and providing a response.

 

[icehorse]

Hey @Debater Slayer (and others),

I want to reiterate that I truly appreciate the time and energy you've put into this trans discussion we've been having across several threads. You make very good arguments, and you've caused me to step back, re-evaluate, and think through why I'm taking this stance that is - as you say - different than my normal MO.

I'm a science guy. I studied molecular biology and physics at university. My profession has mostly been in software development and in teaching computer programming. I have a strong science worldview.

==

One way to summarize a key point of our contention is that we've slipped into a research papers arms race. I'm happy to acknowledge that if we pursued this approach, you'd be able to find a lot more research papers supporting your views than I would be able to find supporting mine.

I'm not going to pursue that arms race.

Instead, I'm going to zoom way out. The art and practice of science has evolved a lot over the years, and we've been able to do a lot of great things using what I'll call "science version 7". 7 is an arbitrary number meant to indicate some advanced step in the journey scientists are taking in getting better at doing science. Science v7 is what I learned and used, it appears to be what you use, and it's still predominant.

But doing science is branching out, and there are approaches to science that are inconsistent with v7. It's not a judgment, it's not that these new approaches are "better" than v7. I think mostly it's that v7 has some limits, and these new approaches are letting us tackle problems that stymied v7.

I'll specify that I'm in the process of learning how to use one of these new approaches, and it's called "Ecological Psychology" (eco-p).

Science v7 mostly takes the approach that we can study a thing by isolating it and slicing and dicing it into its component parts. And again, for many things, this approach has been powerful and successful.

But v7 has its limitations.

Eco-p takes a very different stance. Eco-p practitioners content that in some domains, we cannot remove the subject from their environment. It's insufficient to train an athlete only in the weight room. We can't do a great job curing diabetes using only drugs. And so on.

In our discussions I've brought up a range of environmental variables that are at play when we discuss trans youth. I'll reiterate and expand that list here:

- artificial diets
- contaminated drinking water
- poor air quality
- social media influence, and amplified peer pressure
- post-truth academia
- the rise of and exposure to polarizing extremists at every end of every spectrum
- a massive increase in information consumption
- the threat of destroying our life-sustaining environment
- an oligarchy that poisons many aspects of our lives, including widespread profiteering in the medical "industry".

And on and on…

Science v7 mostly tries to isolate its research from these environmental variables. It's an understandable approach. But it has limitations.

From an eco-p perspective, it's nonsensical to say we can ignore the enormous increase in trans identification over the last decade, and ignore these environmental variables when figuring out how best to treat children experiencing trans-related issues such as gender dysphoria.

From an eco-p perspective, it's an extraordinary AND DANGEROUS claim made by the medical establishment to say that we can ignore a child's environment and conclude that the best way to help them is via chemical castration or irreversible surgeries.

A nice summary of eco-p is:

"Ask not what's inside your head, but what your head's inside of."

 

[Yerda]

Hey @Debater Slayer (and others),

I want to reiterate that I truly appreciate the time and energy you've put into this trans discussion we've been having across several threads. You make very good arguments, and you've caused me to step back, re-evaluate, and think through why I'm taking this stance that is - as you say - different than my normal MO.

I'm a science guy. I studied molecular biology and physics at university. My profession has mostly been in software development and in teaching computer programming. I have a strong science worldview.

==

One way to summarize a key point of our contention is that we've slipped into a research papers arms race. I'm happy to acknowledge that if we pursued this approach, you'd be able to find a lot more research papers supporting your views than I would be able to find supporting mine.

I'm not going to pursue that arms race.

Instead, I'm going to zoom way out. The art and practice of science has evolved a lot over the years, and we've been able to do a lot of great things using what I'll call "science version 7". 7 is an arbitrary number meant to indicate some advanced step in the journey scientists are taking in getting better at doing science. Science v7 is what I learned and used, it appears to be what you use, and it's still predominant.

But doing science is branching out, and there are approaches to science that are inconsistent with v7. It's not a judgment, it's not that these new approaches are "better" than v7. I think mostly it's that v7 has some limits, and these new approaches are letting us tackle problems that stymied v7.

I'll specify that I'm in the process of learning how to use one of these new approaches, and it's called "Ecological Psychology" (eco-p).

Science v7 mostly takes the approach that we can study a thing by isolating it and slicing and dicing it into its component parts. And again, for many things, this approach has been powerful and successful.

But v7 has its limitations.

Eco-p takes a very different stance. Eco-p practitioners content that in some domains, we cannot remove the subject from their environment. It's insufficient to train an athlete only in the weight room. We can't do a great job curing diabetes using only drugs. And so on.

In our discussions I've brought up a range of environmental variables that are at play when we discuss trans youth. I'll reiterate and expand that list here:

- artificial diets
- contaminated drinking water
- poor air quality
- social media influence, and amplified peer pressure
- post-truth academia
- the rise of and exposure to polarizing extremists at every end of every spectrum
- a massive increase in information consumption
- the threat of destroying our life-sustaining environment
- an oligarchy that poisons many aspects of our lives, including widespread profiteering in the medical "industry".

And on and on…

Science v7 mostly tries to isolate its research from these environmental variables. It's an understandable approach. But it has limitations.

From an eco-p perspective, it's nonsensical to say we can ignore the enormous increase in trans identification over the last decade, and ignore these environmental variables when figuring out how best to treat children experiencing trans-related issues such as gender dysphoria.

From an eco-p perspective, it's an extraordinary AND DANGEROUS claim made by the medical establishment to say that we can ignore a child's environment and conclude that the best way to help them is via chemical castration or irreversible surgeries.

A nice summary of eco-p is:

"Ask not what's inside your head, but what your head's inside of."

I'm sympathetic to the perspective that we should consider things within their environments, including humans. But this doesn't address anything people have said to you in this thread (and others) and offers no support to anything you've said. The idea seems to be that medical research into the effects of gender affirming medicine is invalidated by a list of things that bear no apparent relation to the matter.

Please consider that you have stated here that you accept the weight of research favours views that contradict your own, but all that research and scholarship is being done wrong. No?

 

[icehorse]

I'm sympathetic to the perspective that we should consider things within their environments, including humans. But this doesn't address anything people have said to you in this thread (and others) and offers no support to anything you've said. The idea seems to be that medical research into the effects of gender affirming medicine is invalidated by a list of things that bear no apparent relation to the matter.

Please consider that you have stated here that you accept the weight of research favours views that contradict your own, but all that research and scholarship is being done wrong. No?

Let's take this one step at a time..

Would you agree that the physical and/or chemical castration of children are extraordinary and extreme interventions?

 

[Yerda]

Let's take this one step at a time..

Would you agree that the physical and/or chemical castration of children are extraordinary and extreme interventions?

That would depend on the context and the age of the children in question. I would certainly look to take on board the opinions of trans people, doctors, child psychologists, social worker, researchers and scholars no matter my pre-concieved biases.

 

[icehorse]

That would depend on the context and the age of the children in question. I would certainly look to take on board the opinions of trans people, doctors, child psychologists, social worker, researchers and scholars no matter my pre-concieved biases.

I think you're answering a different question. Let me try to restate this: Given a person who is in some "gender incongruence" * distress. There are a spectrum of interventions that could be attempted, correct?

Given that spectrum of interventions, would you agree that irreversible chemical and/or physical castration would be on the extreme end?

(Also understanding that even chemical castration creates a host of permanent, negative, long-term side effects.)

* "Gender incongruence" is the newest term used by WHO.

 

[Yerda]

I think you're answering a different question. Let me try to restate this: Given a person who is in some "gender incongruence" * distress. There are a spectrum of interventions that could be attempted, correct?

Given that spectrum of interventions, would you agree that irreversible chemical and/or physical castration would be on the extreme end?

(Also understanding that even chemical castration creates a host of permanent, negative, long-term side effects.)

* "Gender incongruence" is the newest term used by WHO.

If we're using the word to denote something about the degree of intervention and not a judgement - like we would use the word extreme to describe the opinions of a jihadist or a an anti-abortionist who bombs a clinic - then sure, I can agree with this.

 

[icehorse]

If we're using the word to denote something about the degree of intervention and not a judgement - like we would use the word extreme to describe the opinions of a jihadist or a an anti-abortionist who bombs a clinic - then sure, I can agree with this.

Exactly, not a judgment, just the degree of intervention.

Given that, I think Carl Sagan's advice is important here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Therefore, I think that before opting for the extreme / extraordinary measures of castration for young people, the medical profession ought to have extraordinarily good evidence that that's the best path.

We'll get to whether they have such evidence, but would you agree that they ought to?

 

[Yerda]

Exactly, not a judgment, just the degree of intervention.

Given that, I think Carl Sagan's advice is important here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Therefore, I think that before opting for the extreme / extraordinary measures of castration for young people, the medical profession ought to have extraordinarily good evidence that that's the best path.

We'll get to whether they have such evidence, but would you agree that they ought to?

They ought to have evidence for the best course of action in each case, yep.