"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[icehorse]

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

We're NOT talking about the entire history of medical interventions associated with trans people. We're talking about the CURRENT GAC protocol that was first established in the Netherlands in 2011.

I think the head of GD medicine for Finland is far, far, far, far, more credible than you are.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

bad faith editing on your part.

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

Believe it or not, medical science and research is a few years ahead of your Logic 101 course. Unless you can demonstrate a clear flaw in the methodology of these studies which demonstrates they are vulnerable to this very basic fallacy, you're just making an assumption.

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

Show me the studies that compare chemotherapy to rubbing pesto on your knees.

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

In your non-medical opinion, informed by dogma and anti-trans activists.

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.

You mean, the 300+ links to studies that show such things as the effect of "androgen deprivation therapy on PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS"?

A quick question: do you think the best way to study the effects of medical treatments on a specific group of people is to test those same treatments on CANCER PATIENTS? By way of analogy, do you think the best way to determine whether, for instance, chemotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for cancer patients is to point to a study that shows what happens when you give chemotherapy to, say, a person who doesn't have cancer or suffers from some form of non-cancer related illness?

Gee, I wonder.

I'm reminded of the time a Jehovah's Witness was debating the merits of blood transfusions with me, and they presented dozens of studies that they say demonstrated that blood transfusions weren't safe, even when properly applied, and it turns out all of the studies were actually studying what happens when blood transfusions go wrong or are not carried out in accordance with correct medical procedure and diagnosis. Which may be compelling evidence for people who don't understand how medicine works but not for people who actually want to know what happens when these procedures are APPLIED CORRECTLY to the people it is deemed MEDICALLY NECESSARY. It's almost as if that link you provided - an anti-trans blog with absolutely no medical expertise involved whatsoever - pulled these 300 studies together with some kind of agenda. I mean, it's not like you could just as easily do the exact same thing for blood transfusions, or chemotherapy, or amputation. But that couldn't possibly be true. Your logic 101-education would have caught sight of that immediately.

Another quick question: how many of those "300+ studies" are ACTUALLY studies on the treatment of TRANS PEOPLE and their MENTAL HEALTH OUTCOMES?

I'm rapidly losing interest in anything you have to say or offer. I am fairly convinced that you have no interest in actual facts, beyond the very selective use of them to present a conclusion you've already decided is the right one.

I go with the overwhelming consensus of medical opinion. Have your sources overturned the consensus of medical opinion? No? Then I will go with what you have already agreed: that the medical studies I provided show that GAC has benefits when applied correctly. Unless you want to retract your earlier statement, we no longer have anything to debate. You've literally conceded the point.

 

[icehorse]

Show me the studies that compare chemotherapy to rubbing pesto on your knees.

To reiterate, the above was in response to me asking for studies comparing GAC results to talk therapy results.

And to refresh the context here, GD is a mental condition. Last time I checked, mental conditions were often addressed by using talk therapy. (I must have missed all of the "pesto on your knees" studies )

So comparing GAC to talk therapy IS science 101 and logic 101.

Another quick question: how many of those "300+ studies" are ACTUALLY studies on the treatment of TRANS PEOPLE and their MENTAL HEALTH OUTCOMES?

Sigh. Again, the context of these 300+ studies was to assess the safety (or not) of the drugs used in GAC. So the study on prostate cancer patients is useful because in many cases THE SAME DRUGS ARE USED for GAC and for prostate cancer. doh!

I go with the overwhelming consensus of medical opinion. Have your sources overturned the consensus of medical opinion? No? Then I will go with what you have already agreed: that the medical studies I provided show that GAC has benefits when applied correctly. Unless you want to retract your earlier statement, we no longer have anything to debate. You've literally conceded the point.

Did you read the article I linked to?
Did you read any of the 300+ links I shared?
Have you answered the basic question, "For the mental condition that is GD, can you find studies comparing GAC outcomes to talk therapy?"
Can you explain how your studies are anything more than hoping that correlation means causation?

Can you explain how your detour into JWs applies at all to this debate?
Do you acknowledge that a LOT of GD kids receive only talk therapy and outgrow their GD without the use of drugs?

==

I have conceded nothing. GAC will ultimately be shown to be a scandal, as countries like Finland have already discovered.

You can go along and trust "the experts", the same experts that brought us the opioid crisis. The same experts who are using protocols established by activists. You can continue to dodge answering basic questions.

have a fine day

 

[SkepticThinker]

To reiterate, the above was in response to me asking for studies comparing GAC results to talk therapy results.

And to refresh the context here, GD is a mental condition. Last time I checked, mental conditions were often addressed by using talk therapy. (I must have missed all of the "pesto on your knees" studies )

So comparing GAC to talk therapy IS science 101 and logic 101.



Sigh. Again, the context of these 300+ studies was to assess the safety (or not) of the drugs used in GAC. So the study on prostate cancer patients is useful because in many cases THE SAME DRUGS ARE USED for GAC and for prostate cancer. doh!



Did you read the article I linked to?
Did you read any of the 300+ links I shared?
Have you answered the basic question, "For the mental condition that is GD, can you find studies comparing GAC outcomes to talk therapy?"
Can you explain how your studies are anything more than hoping that correlation means causation?

Can you explain how your detour into JWs applies at all to this debate?
Do you acknowledge that a LOT of GD kids receive only talk therapy and outgrow their GD without the use of drugs?

==

I have conceded nothing. GAC will ultimately be shown to be a scandal, as countries like Finland have already discovered.

You can go along and trust "the experts", the same experts that brought us the opioid crisis. The same experts who are using protocols established by activists. You can continue to dodge answering basic questions.

have a fine day

GAC INCLUDES talk therapy.
You speak of it as though it's GAC versus talk therapy, when talk therapy is actually a huge component of GAC.
GAC itself is a therapeutic stance.
So "comparing" GAC versus talk therapy doesn't really even make any sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To reiterate, the above was in response to me asking for studies comparing GAC results to talk therapy results.

And to refresh the context here, GD is a mental condition. Last time I checked, mental conditions were often addressed by using talk therapy. (I must have missed all of the "pesto on your knees" studies )

So comparing GAC to talk therapy IS science 101 and logic 101.

You're not understanding my point, and that's okay. I can only advise you to talk the time to re-read what I am saying and eventually it might click.

Sigh. Again, the context of these 300+ studies was to assess the safety (or not) of the drugs used in GAC. So the study on prostate cancer patients is useful because in many cases THE SAME DRUGS ARE USED for GAC and for prostate cancer. doh!

And so you think that these studies shed negative light on the use of the same drugs in ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF PEOPLE.

See, your claim is not "these drugs are dangerous when used as a treatment for things other than GD". It's that they are dangerous WHEN USED AS A TREATMENT FOR GD. I provided studies that showed this was false.

And the fact that you haven't answered my question is a pretty obvious admission that NONE of them deal with the relevant group. So your source was lying. Like I said, there are very few forms of medical intervention that don't have any negative consequences when given to particular kinds of patients, or forgoing proper medical recommendation or review. It's arbitrary to point to a single form of intervention and say "Because it produces negative outcomes in this one specific range of patients, it is therefore too dangerous for the entire range of patients, regardless of what any other systemic reviews suggest". This is a common dishonest tactics of ideologues and activists. They claim to have a multitude of studies on the dangers of anything from blood transfusion to anti-depressants, but when you review the actual studies it turns out they're studies on the effects of these things only in specific groups of people and in specific circumstances, or when not carried out according to best medical practice. This is why medical review exists, and why the decisions about who we give certain treatments to are not made on a whim or a roll of the dice. They're made by medical experts who have access to and are aware of these studies, so they don't make decisions that aren't in the best interest of the patient.

Now, you would do well to stop spreading the scaremongering of anti-trans activists. I accept your apology for bringing anti-medical propaganda into this debate about medicine.

Ay caramba.

Did you read the article I linked to?
Did you read any of the 300+ links I shared?

You shared one link.

Have you answered the basic question, "For the mental condition that is GD, can you find studies comparing GAC outcomes to talk therapy?"

Have you answered my question about comparing chemotherapy to rubbing pesto on your knees? If you cannot find a single study that says that chemotherapy is more effective than rubbing pesto on your knees, then we should disregard all research on the topic and assume it was all a result of a basic fallacy a three-year old understands yet somehow slipped under the radar of the global medical community.

Can you explain how your studies are anything more than hoping that correlation means causation?

You seriously, unironically, believe that these medical institutions, carrying out extensive review and study under the scrutiny of the global medical community and published in peer-reviewed medical journals, don't account for something as simple as the correlation/causation conflation in their systemic analysis of medical outcomes?

And yet, miraculously, this problem appears to vanish whenever YOU present a paper on the dangers of giving androgen deprivation therapy to prostate cancer patients. Nope! No possible correlation/causation there!

Curiously, you seem to unquestionably accept any source - medical or otherwise - that agrees with your a priori assumptions, but desperately try to scramble for reasons to reject any medical source that contradicts your assumptions.

I say "curiously", but really it's not curious at all. It's par for the course with you. You're just a dogmatic anti-trans activist spreading propaganda and ignoring facts.

Your goose is cooked.

 

[icehorse]

Now, you would do well to stop spreading the scaremongering of anti-trans activists. I accept your apology for bringing anti-medical propaganda into this debate about medicine.

I'm operating in good faith here, so please, do not take what I'm about to say out of context. These are not simple ideas, and it takes more than one sentence to explain them. So thanks in advance for taking the following explanations in their entirety.

1 - I agree that we often use drugs that have negative side effects if we conclude that the benefits outweigh the side effects. So, for example, we know that chemo drugs for cancer have a wide range of negative side effects, but we use them anyway because we've weighed the pluses and minuses, and we think the pluses outweigh the minuses.

That's point 1, agree or disagree?

2 - Next, if a drug has negative side effects, it has those side effects regardless of the condition being treated. For example, there are drugs used to treat prostate cancer that are also used in GAC. If these drugs have negative side effects for prostate patients they are likely to have negative side effects for GAC patients as well.

That's point 2, agree or disagree?

3 - In general, good research tends to address very focused questions, and the results of those studies are then frequently used to address other situations. For example, as I stated above, drugs intended for prostate patients are also used in GAC (and as it turns out, also as chemical castration for sex offenders). So doctors often take the results of studies and then apply them to different situations.

That's point 3, agree or disagree?

4 - In general an underlying principle of medicine is "first, do no harm". So if doctors are treating a patient and they have several courses of action that are roughly as effective, they will usually choose the option that's least dangerous.

That's point 4, agree or disagree?

5 - Hypothetically, if we knew that - when treating GD - talk therapy was as effective as GAC, we would usually use talk therapy because it is far less dangerous than GAC.

That's point 5, agree or disagree?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm operating in good faith here,

No, you're not. I will not allow you to distract from your multiple failed talking points, your use of biased, non-medical sources, your selective use of studies and flagrantly manipulative tactics.

I will not play your game any more, icehorse. I have exposed you as a flagrantly bad faith debater too many times to be suckered in by this faux civility. You are not in good faith until you demonstrate good faith after the countless times I outed you being deliberately manipulative.

 

[icehorse]

No, you're not. I will not allow you to distract from your multiple failed talking points, your use of biased, non-medical sources, your selective use of studies and flagrantly manipulative tactics.

I will not play your game any more, icehorse. I have exposed you as a flagrantly bad faith debater too many times to be suckered in by this faux civility. You are not in good faith until you demonstrate good faith after the countless times I outed you being deliberately manipulative.

Well THAT was amazingly slanderous!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well THAT was amazingly slanderous!

Didn't look slanderous to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well THAT was amazingly slanderous!

Everything I said was true. In my experience, the people who most often claim to be debating "in good faith" rarely actually do.

If you actually want to debate in good faith, admit that your talking points so far have been refuted, acknowledge that your sources are biased and unscientific, that your opinion runs counter to medical research and expertise, and that you have engaged in this topic with an a priori assumption that you are unwilling to be moved on while knowingly presenting misinformation in the hopes of spreading anti-trans sentiment. Once you demonstrate the ability to admit when you are wrong, I will be willing to accept you are capable of debating in good faith.

But you can't, and you won't. You're not here to debate. You're just a dogmatic anti-trans activist. And I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated this in this thread and multiple others. I can provide receipts if need be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well THAT was amazingly slanderous!

That was written, so it can't be slander.
Libel is written.
It's not that either.

I'm here to educate.

 

[icehorse]

That was written, so it can't be slander.
Libel is written.
It's not that either.

I'm here to educate.

I'm okay with saying that mister mortal's post was libelous.

As for you, I've read many of your posts over the last 10 years or so and you seem much more about obfuscation than education.

 

[Revoltingest]

As for you, I've read many of your posts over the last 10 years....

Too bad they didn't affect you for the better, eh.

 

[icehorse]

Everything I said was true. In my experience, the people who most often claim to be debating "in good faith" rarely actually do.

If you actually want to debate in good faith, admit that your talking points so far have been refuted, acknowledge that your sources are biased and unscientific, that your opinion runs counter to medical research and expertise, and that you have engaged in this topic with an a priori assumption that you are unwilling to be moved on while knowingly presenting misinformation in the hopes of spreading anti-trans sentiment. Once you demonstrate the ability to admit when you are wrong, I will be willing to accept you are capable of debating in good faith.

But you can't, and you won't. You're not here to debate. You're just a dogmatic anti-trans activist. And I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated this in this thread and multiple others. I can provide receipts if need be.

Bring it dude. Go find one part of this conversation that proves what you're saying.

Or, to save us both time, just answer the questions I posted in post #806.

Being a self-described member of the "woke" as you are, what is obvious in this and other threads is that you will shamelessly use an avalanche of fallacy arguments and personal attacks when any of your woke dogma is questioned. You don't seem to care about kids with GD, all you seem to care about is defending trans activists

 

[icehorse]

Too bad they didn't affect you for the better, eh.

I've observed the many creative ways you've come up with to obfuscate debates, and since I don't care to do that your posts are of no use to me.

What has been a bit surprising however is how much you've become woke. I have to say, I didn't see that coming.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've observed the many creative ways you've come up with....

And still, my meaning was lost on you.
All you & I have now is this tit for tat sniping.
(I'm OK with it.)

 

[icehorse]

GAC INCLUDES talk therapy.
You speak of it as though it's GAC versus talk therapy, when talk therapy is actually a huge component of GAC.
GAC itself is a therapeutic stance.
So "comparing" GAC versus talk therapy doesn't really even make any sense.

Sigh. I've made this challenge soooo many times. Let me rephrase the challenge a bit to clarify (although I don't think it should be necessary 820 posts in, my challenge has been consistent throughout):

First off, YES, I understand that GAC is supposed to start with talk therapy. And I think we'd all agree that such talk therapy ought to be extensive. Sadly, it's often quite brief.

There are at least three approaches to GD whose mental health results we need to compare:

1 - talk therapy only
2 - talk therapy followed by drugs
3 - talk therapy followed by drugs followed by surgeries

What I've seen - for instance in the parallel thread below, is studies that tout how GAC is effective. But without comparing it to other approaches all you have is the HOPE that correlation is causation.

Given that approaches 2 and 3 are dangerous and irreversible, would you agree that if we discover that approach 1 is also effective, we should stop using approaches 2 and 3?

Why would be use a dangerous approach when a safe approach is just as good?

Let's re-think South Carolina ban on gender-affirming care

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bring it dude. Go find one part of this conversation that proves what you're saying.

When asked for sources, you provided an anti-trans website with sources that did not support your claims. You ignore actual medical studies, and only choose to believe medical studies that you believe (wrongly) support your arguments. You link to anti-trans articles and websites in lieu of actual medical citation. You misrepresent studies that show the negative efficacy of hormone treatments in one situation as evidence of its negative efficacy when used as a treatment for GD. You equated puberty blockers to castration without explaining that's what you were doing, essentially misrepresenting anybody who supports the medical use of puberty blockers as being in favour of castrating minors. You literally responded to a thread about a non-gender conforming person committing suicide with a link about rape statistics committed by men in women's spaces. You couch every debate about trans rights in terms of the negative theoretical impact it can have on non-trans people, and ignore all studies that suggest these fears are baseless.

**mod edit**

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sigh. I've made this challenge soooo many times. Let me rephrase the challenge a bit to clarify (although I don't think it should be necessary 820 posts in, my challenge has been consistent throughout):

First off, YES, I understand that GAC is supposed to start with talk therapy. And I think we'd all agree that such talk therapy ought to be extensive. Sadly, it's often quite brief.

There are at least three approaches to GD whose mental health results we need to compare:

1 - talk therapy only
2 - talk therapy followed by drugs
3 - talk therapy followed by drugs followed by surgeries

What I've seen - for instance in the parallel thread below, is studies that tout how GAC is effective. But without comparing it to other approaches all you have is the HOPE that correlation is causation.

Given that approaches 2 and 3 are dangerous and irreversible, would you agree that if we discover that approach 1 is also effective, we should stop using approaches 2 and 3?

Why would be use a dangerous approach when a safe approach is just as good?

Let's re-think South Carolina ban on gender-affirming care

I don't accept your premise.
GAC doesn't "start with" talk therapy and then move on from there, never to be visited again.
GAC itself is a medical and psychosocial approach to care and treatment. As in, the two (medical and psychological) are intertwined.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your refusal to read outside source material makes this claim laughable

I read linked material regularly.
But videos far far less so.
It's good to see you laughing for a change.