"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[icehorse]

They delay puberty until they can make an informed decision as an adult.

These drugs are dangerous, irreversible, and create lifetime dependencies on more drugs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

sex is not the same as gender

I agree. We're talking about gender, not sex.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These drugs are dangerous, irreversible, and create lifetime dependencies on more drugs.

False on all three counts. They are safe, largely reversible and I would love for you provide any evidence whatsoever that they produce dependency on other drugs.

Sources:

Puberty Blockers: What You Should Know | Cedars-Sinai

Kids are growing up faster than ever, with more starting precocious puberty before 8 years old. Puberty blockers can help them stay kids for longer.

www.cedars-sinai.org

The Effects of Puberty Blockers Are Non-Permanent: 14 FAQs

The effects of puberty blockers are not permanent, whether the medication is being used to treat precocious puberty or as a part of gender affirming care.

www.healthline.com

Pubertal Blockade and Subsequent Gender Affirming Therapy: True, True and Unrelated?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[icehorse]

I agree. We're talking about gender, not sex.

The word choices matter. A biological man can decide to look and act feminine, but he's still a man. If you want to call such a person a trans woman, ok, but a trans woman is NOT a woman. And a trans man is not a man.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The word choices matter. A biological man can decide to look and act feminine, but he's still a man. If you want to call such a person a trans woman, ok, but a trans woman is NOT a woman. And a trans man is not a man.

Definitionally, you're just wrong about this. Take it up with dictionaries.

 

[icehorse]

False on all three counts. They are safe, largely reversible and I would love for you provide any evidence whatsoever that they produce dependency on other drugs.

Proving the safety of a medical intervention is a tough job. Proving safety is - by its nature - an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. OTOH, proving that an intervention is not safe is much easier. All you have to do is find one way in which an intervention is not safe, and the intervention becomes not safe. So far, so good?

Here's a link to an article that cites over 300 studies indicating that these drugs are not safe and not reversible:

Our Report on Puberty Suppression

 

[icehorse]

Definitionally, you're just wrong about this. Take it up with dictionaries.

You agreed that sex is not the same as gender. It is dishonest to use a word that describes sex, to describe gender. It's the work of activists to try to force this dishonesty on society. Biology is reality, and in the end reality always wins.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Proving the safety of a medical intervention is a tough job. Proving safety is - by its nature - an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. OTOH, proving that an intervention is not safe is much easier. All you have to do is find one way in which an intervention is not safe, and the intervention becomes not safe. So far, so good?

What the hell are you talking about? This makes no sense. Chemotherapy isn't "safe" in every possible way, but you wouldn't use that as an argument to say that chemotherapy as a form of intervention for those diagnosed with cancer is always bad or unnecessary. This is a nonsensical statement.

Here's a link to an article that cites over 300 studies indicating that these drugs are not safe and not reversible:

Our Report on Puberty Suppression

Notice how the sources I provide are scientific studies and reports produced and reported on by medical sources, and yours comes from "The Lesbian Post".

Funny, that.

Oh, but not to worry! The publication was prepared by "Lesbians United, and endorsed by Get the L Out UK, Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (LAVA), Lesbian Fightback, Lesbian Labour, LesbianMeToo, Lesbian Strength, Résistance Lesbienne, and Scottish Lesbians". I wonder how many of these organizations are medical organizations?

Could it be literally none of them?

What is it you like you say about dogma vs. facts?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You agreed that sex is not the same as gender.

Yes.

It is dishonest to use a word that describes sex, to describe gender.

Are you serious? You don't understand that one word can be used to refer to two different things? This is a new idea to you?

It's the work of activists to try to force this dishonesty on society. Biology is reality, and in the end reality always wins.

It is REALITY that the word "woman" can refer to both or either biological and social categories - though it is almost always used in a social context rather than a biological one.

That's reality. You're against that. So, don't lecture me on it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, this. And to be fair, although these aren't quite the same thing, I also believe that purely cosmetic surgeries should be banned for all minors. No more nose jobs or boob jobs for self-hating 15 or 16 year olds.

No more circumcision either, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

WPATH has global reach. Thankfully, many countries in Europe with superior healthcare systems are seeing through WPATH's issues.

Here in Canada, we have CPATH:

"CPATH is the largest national multidisciplinary, professional organization in the world, working to support the health, wellbeing, and dignity of trans and gender diverse people.​

Among the professionals included in our membership are family physicians, endocrinologists, pediatricians, surgeons, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, speech therapists, educators, and lawyers, as well as organizational members that provide front line services and support to trans people across Canada. Professional members, both cisgender and trans, are responsible for the governance of the organization, and lay trans and allied community members attend our conferences and contribute as volunteers on committees."

Home

cpath.ca

The most useful studies would compare mental healthcare outcomes for GAC vs. talk therapy. Why haven't a bunch of those studies been done? I think a reasonable conclusion is that the pro-GAC collective have been effective in promoting the idea that "the cure" for GD is transitioning. Transitioning is a radical, dangerous, irreversible approach, correct? So why is that there is no high quality evidence that it's more effective at improving mental health than less invasive and dangerous approaches?

There is such evidence. And it's been provided for you over and over again in these threads.

Talk therapy is always a component of GAC.

Hmmm. I've answered this question many times. I'm simply reporting on the findings of experts who oppose GAC.

While ignoring the ones who don't oppose it.

And, we all have access to research studies. The dearth of comparison studies that I mentioned above is telling. And all it takes is a basic understanding of how research is done to see this glaring omission.


And the experts I'm learning from have concluded that NO ONE can predict which GD kids will grow out of GD without be subjected to unproven, dangerous, irreversible protocols.


Going through GAC takes a away far more choices than not going through GAC. I will agree however that neither is a perfect solution. It's just that GAC is worse.

In your non-medical, non-psychiatric opinion.

Getting a hysterectomy "takes away choices" too, but it can be the most beneficial thing to do, in a given situation.

Tell that to the many top halthcare providers in Europe with whom I agree. Are they all seeing bogymen? Or are they more qualified than you are? Overall, their healthcare systems are much better than ours.

You seem to be. I can't read posts from these people you speak of.

Again, not just my opinion.

In your non-professional, non-transgender, layperson's opinion.

But that said, what part of GAC being radical, dangerous, and irreversible do you disagree with?

What I disagree with is butting into other peoples' psychiatric and medical decisions and attempting to make decisions about their lives and their bodies on their behalf.

 

[icehorse]

What the hell are you talking about? This makes no sense. Chemotherapy isn't "safe" in every possible way, but you wouldn't use that as an argument to say that chemotherapy as a form of intervention for those diagnosed with cancer is always bad or unnecessary. This is a nonsensical statement.

You claimed these drugs were safe - full stop.

Of course sometimes we use drugs with dangerous side effects. But we don't call them safe.

In these cases we have to weigh the upsides against the downsides. E.g., chemo drugs have downsides but they're often viewed as "worth it" because of their upsides.

We should use the same criteria for drugs used to combat GD, correct?

Notice how the sources I provide are scientific studies and reports produced and reported on by medical sources, and yours comes from "The Lesbian Post".

Funny, that.

I would agree that this issue is heavily politicized. Advocacy groups are on both sides of the issue. So I'm happy to agree that the report I provided came from an advocacy group. But the report links to over 300 scientific studies. It doesn't matter who compiled the list of studies. it only matters what the studies say.

Is any of that news to you?

 

[icehorse]

There is such evidence. And it's been provided for you over and over again in these threads.

No, what's been provided are studies that ask a different question.

None of the pro-GAC posters have provided links to studies that answer the following question. And just like the chemo example I just mentioned, answers to this question are essential.

Given that these drugs and surgeries are dangerous and irreversible, the question must be asked:

Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? To answer that question, you MUST compare GAC results against talk therapy only results.

That is the study you need to provide and you have not done so.

We're both putting a lot of time and energy into these discussions. For example, I just spent 15 minutes tracking down a link for @ImmortalFlame .

So as I sign of good faith, if you think you've posted a link to a study that answers the question I just asked, will you post it again? thanks!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You claimed these drugs were safe - full stop.

They are. Just as safe as any other drugs used in medicine. No drugs are safe in literally ALL circumstances. That's why we have DOCTORS to determine when, where and on whom to use them.

I mean, amputating a limb is significantly more dangerous and has significantly greater long-term effects on the health and life of a child than puberty blockers do; but you wouldn't use those facts as a reasonable argument against amputating a child's limb if it's deemed to be medically necessary to the child. Your argument is equivalent to saying that the option to amputate a child's limb should NEVER be allowed to be made, REGARDLESS of medical opinion, expertise, circumstance or analysis. And what we're advocating for - that children for whom puberty blockers are deemed by doctors to be medically necessary or helpful following extensive review and oversight - is a damn sight less severe than amputation.

Of course sometimes we use drugs with dangerous side effects. But we don't call them safe.

Literally, we do. When we use a controlled substance IN A CONTROLLED WAY, it is safe. You are trying to imply that using it IN A CONTROLLED WAY is not safe; which you have yet to demonstrate in any way.

If your argument is literally just "drugs can be bad if not used correctly" or "drugs often have negative side effects", then your issue is not with puberty blockers. It is literally with THE WHOLE FIELD OF MEDICINE.

In these cases we have to weigh the upsides against the downsides. E.g., chemo drugs have downsides but they're often viewed as "worth it" because of their upsides.

Right, which is what you're not doing in the case of puberty blockers. You have literally ignored all studies about the benefits of their effects.

We should use the same criteria for drugs used to combat GD, correct?

Yes, which is why I support medical control and intervention.

I would agree that this issue is heavily politicized. Advocacy groups are on both sides of the issue. So I'm happy to agree that the report I provided came from an advocacy group. But the report links to over 300 scientific studies.

Which I can't review, because their sources page doesn't work. I literally can't view the study and can't review their citations.

It doesn't matter who compiled the list of studies. it only matters what the studies say.

I agree. So can you present the studies, rather than the advocacy group's biased conclusions and omissions?

Is any of that news to you?

Nope. Can you present the studies they're claiming to cite?

 

[icehorse]

Literally, we do. When we use a controlled substance IN A CONTROLLED WAY, it is safe. You are trying to imply that using it IN A CONTROLLED WAY is not safe; which you have yet to demonstrate in any way.

If your argument is literally just "drugs can be bad if not used correctly" or "drugs often have negative side effects", then your issue is not with puberty blockers. It is literally with THE WHOLE FIELD OF MEDICINE

I disagree. We tell cancer patients that the chemo drugs we're going to give them have dangerous side effects. But we also tell them that the upside of curing cancer is better than the dangerous side effects. But we don't say that chemo drugs are SAFE.

If you want to say that drugs like chemo drugs are BENEFICIAL, I could accept that to move our conversation forward.

You have literally ignored all studies about the benefits of their effects.

No I have not. What I've done is characterized those studies. So here, I'll do it again:

Yes, you have provided studies that show that kids that go thru GAC often end up with improved mental health. Agreed.

But what YOU have to show is that these kids feel better BECAUSE of GAC. And that's what these studies have failed to do. They have all committed the correlation is causation fallacy.

That's why the truest test is to compare the efficacy of GAC against talk therapy only. Because the reality is that a large percentage of kids who experience severe GAC grow out of it naturally.

Which I can't review, because their sources page doesn't work. I literally can't view the study and can't review their citations.

I'm not sure what's wrong with your .pdf viewer? Mine allows me to copy and paste links. Here, I just did that for one of the 300+ links I provided:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2265.2002.01551.x

 

[icehorse]

There is such evidence. And it's been provided for you over and over again in these threads.

Talk therapy is always a component of GAC.

You're making many of the same points as @ImmortalFlame .

Can you review my recent post #795 to see if I've addressed most of your points?

And if I haven't, let me know, and I will. thanks

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. We tell cancer patients that the chemo drugs we're going to give them have dangerous side effects. But we also tell them that the upside of curing cancer is better than the dangerous side effects. But we don't say that chemo drugs are SAFE.

I refuse to engage in these stupid word games. You know what is meant by "safe" in a medical capacity, and you have no idea what doctors tell their patients. You're just grasping at straws.

If you want to say that drugs like chemo drugs are BENEFICIAL, I could accept that to move our conversation forward.

So is GAC.

No I have not. What I've done is characterized those studies.

No, you haven't read those studies. You just dismissed them for not meeting some arbitrary standard you set to avoid acknowledging their validity.

So here, I'll do it again:

Yes, you have provided studies that show that kids that go thru GAC often end up with improved mental health. Agreed.

End of discussion.

I am glad you finally admitted the benefits of medicine.

 

[icehorse]

End of discussion.

bad faith editing on your part.

You are claiming that correlation is causation, and we know that that is often not the case.

Your studies all boil down to correlation equaling causation.

So again - with jazz hands -

Show me studies that compare the efficacy of GAC vs talk therapy only.

Until you do that, you're just playing dangeous games with the lives of confused GD kids


BTW, were you able to access the 300+ links I sent you? Earlier you were claiming that these GAC drugs are not dangerous, so I'm curious of you're interested in learning why that claim is wrong. To be clear, it's a common claim, but that does not make it accurate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

did you read the article I just linked to?

Given the obvious lie of "I helped pioneer it," no (such a person would necessarily be a supercentenarian).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

confusing teen years.

The idea of teen years being confusing is a myth, and this myth isn't universally found or known.