"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[icehorse]

You should really learn what that term means.

No, I think YOU should, you're frequently guilty of doing it.

Looking at your last post, one or more things might be going on:

1- you're referring to other posters in a backhanded way.
2- you're not referring to other posters, but you ARE guessing at and explaining other people's motivations.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I think YOU should....

Channeling Pee Wee Herman there?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your example is logically different than the prostate drug example, try again.

Nope, the logic used and your logic are identical.

You try again.

I'm USING science, not denying it. Science uses control groups. Your studies do not.

Except the ones that do use control groups, yet you dismiss them too. Meanwhile, the studies you provide don't use control groups either, but that doesn't seem a problem for you.

It's almost as if you just reject science that you feel contradicts your beliefs, and only accept science that you feel supports your belief (which it only does because you deliberately misrepresent it).

I'm done with you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're strawmanning most of us who oppose trans activism.

If a grown up wants to transition, if that let's him or her live his or her best life, that's cool.

But trans activists are trying to warp reality and that's dangerous and selfish.

So if the headline read "Trans woman claims HE was kicked in the testicles...", then that could be true. There are no lies in that headline.

But to say "Trans woman claims SHE was kicked in the testicles.." is a LIE. HE might have been kicked, but there was no SHE to get kicked. The second headline is not reality. Reality always wins in the end, and when we lie about reality, it always comes with bad consequences.

The mask slips again.

Remember, folks. Referring to a trans woman with female pronouns is "dangerous, selfish" and "a lie". Y'know, literally doing the one simple thing that acknowledges the reality of trans people's existence. We shouldn't do that, because of "bad consequences" that will never be elaborated on or expressed in reality.

It's just transphobia, people. No matter how you disguise it, it will always come out. People can bleat about "minors" or "language" or "medicine" but it all really loops back to the point they want to actually make, which is that they don't want trans people to exist in the first place. They want a biological binary, and they want that socially enforced, and to do anything other than that is a "dangerous lie".

Do we need a clearer example?

 

[Brian2]

This is literally just a letter to the editor, not a study. Present facts, not "concerns" and "possible impacts". I have presented several studies in this thread that clearly demonstrate a positive relationship between current gender affirming care and positive health and mental well-being outcomes.

It is a letter to the editor but has more than opinions.
eg. Over 95% of youth treated with GnRH-analogs go on to receive cross-sex hormones.15 By contrast, 61-98% of those managed with psychological support alone reconcile their gender identity with their biological sex during puberty.

and
Multiple European countries that were pioneers in youth medical transition are now adopting a more cautious approach to the use of GnRH-analogs and cross-sex hormones after their own evidence reviews failed to show mental health benefits and highlighted a profound lack of knowledge about harms.

and
The NHS updated guidance on treatment of gender dysphoria removed statements about the reversibility of GnRH-analogs and now states, “little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.”

and
The Swedish Health Authority no longer offers GnRH-analogs to minors except in exceptional cases stating, “the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits.”

and
Finland has severely restricted their use and now recommend psychotherapy as first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

and
Lastly, the French Académie Nationale de Médecine recently issued a press release stating, “great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects, and even serious complications, that some of the available therapies can cause.”5 Although puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones will still be available, the Académie emphasized, “the greatest reserve is required in their use, given side effects such as impact on growth, bone fragility, risk of sterility, emotional and intellectual consequences and, for girls, symptoms reminiscent of menopause.”5

and
Uncertainties about long-term risks of medical transition are often overshadowed by the most potent argument provided by advocates of the affirmative model: failure to affirm a young person's transgender identity may result in suicide. Suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviors have been found to be higher than age-matched peers, but comparable to nongender dysphoric youth referred for management of other mental health diagnoses.26 However, the relevant question is whether affirmative care reduces suicide risk. Mills and colleagues assertion that GnRH-analogs have been shown to decrease lifetime suicidal ideation stems from a nonrepresentative, low-quality survey of transgender adults that has been thoroughly critiqued by others.27, 28 Moreover, their claim that these drugs are effective for other mental health outcomes is at odds with recent systematic reviews that concluded there is little change from baseline to follow-up in depression, anxiety, body image, gender dysphoria, or psychosocial functioning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is a letter to the editor but

But nothing. Provide facts, not claims. I have presented several studies. One "letter to the editor" doesn't refute any of it.

Whereas I can totally refute your letter to the editor with one link:

https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1690

 

[Brian2]

The mask slips again.

Remember, folks. Referring to a trans woman with female pronouns is "dangerous, selfish" and "a lie". Y'know, literally doing the one simple thing that acknowledges the reality of trans people's existence. We shouldn't do that, because of "bad consequences" that will never be elaborated on or expressed in reality.

It's just transphobia, people. No matter how you disguise it, it will always come out. People can bleat about "minors" or "language" or "medicine" but it all really loops back to the point they want to actually make, which is that they don't want trans people to exist in the first place. They want a biological binary, and they want that socially enforced, and to do anything other than that is a "dangerous lie".

Do we need a clearer example?

The definition changes to words are being made by those who want those changes socially enforced.
The claim that the king is dressed in fine clothes was socially enforced but the obvious fact that the child could see was that the king was naked.
Shouting "bigot, bigot" does not change the facts of the matter.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The definition changes to words are being made by those who want those changes socially enforced.

There has been no change. Literally none.

The claim that the king is dressed in fine clothes was socially enforced but the obvious fact that the child could see was that the king was naked.

The claim that "woman" is a social label and that the pronoun "she" is used to refer to them is not a lie. And anyone who says that acknowledging this fact is a lie, or suggests we should deliberately refer to transgender people with pronouns contrary to their gender, is a transphobe and a bigot. They are explicitly denying the very concept of social categorisation to stigmatise and harm a group of people who do not subscribe to their set ideas about gender. It's just bigotry.

Shouting "bigot, bigot" does not change the facts of the matter.

Unless it's at a bigot.

 

[Brian2]

But nothing. Provide facts, not claims. I have presented several studies. One "letter to the editor" doesn't refute any of it.

Whereas I can totally refute your letter to the editor with one link:

https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1690

This seems to indicate that psychological support alone for youth is a better option:
Over 95% of youth treated with GnRH-analogs go on to receive cross-sex hormones.15 By contrast, 61-98% of those managed with psychological support alone reconcile their gender identity with their biological sex during puberty.

and surely all those countries that are changing their policies because of the uncertainty of the risks or the certainty of risks must give even you, reason to pause.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This seems to indicate that psychological support alone for youth is a better option:
Over 95% of youth treated with GnRH-analogs go on to receive cross-sex hormones.15 By contrast, 61-98% of those managed with psychological support alone reconcile their gender identity with their biological sex during puberty.

Gee, it's almost as if doctors only gave cross-sex hormones to patients they believed, upon investigation, were likely to benefit from them and did, and didn't give cross-sex hormones to people who, it turned out, didn't end up needing them.

What a conundrum.

In other news, did you know that overall health outcomes for people who have heart diseases are significantly higher for people who are treated with basic medications than those who receive open heart surgery? I guess that means open heart surgery is bad, huh? We should set about making it so that anybody doctors may perform open heart surgery on should, instead, just be given basic heart medication, right? Or, y'know, it could mean that the overall health of people whose heart disease is not deemed as significant or immediate a risk to warrant surgery tend to be healthier than patients whose heart disease is deemed serious enough to warrant surgery.

But, who knows? Medicine sure is complicated.

and surely all those countries that are changing their policies because of the uncertainty of the risks or the certainty of risks must give even you, reason to pause.

So you're just going to ignore my response and hyper-fixate on one assumption you have adopted and make that your hill to die on?

Cool. Call me when you have facts.

 

[Brian2]

There has been no change. Literally none.

Gender Fluidity is a recent idea and the push is to make it into a fact, by social means, shame, laws etc

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gender Fluidity

I'm not talking about gender fluidity, I'm talking about trans people more broadly.

is a recent idea

False. Trans people have existed for generations, and many civilisations don't have similar conceptions with regards to gender categorisations.

and the push is to make it into a fact, by social means, shame, laws etc

Even if these claims were true (which they demonstrably aren't), where's the harm in that? What does it matter to you if some people wish to be associated with a gender label that is not the same as their biological sex? Why do you care so much that you're willing to explicitly deny their existence as a legitimate category of person?

 

[Brian2]

So you're just going to ignore my response and hyper-fixate on one assumption you have adopted and make that your hill to die on?

Cool. Call me when you have facts.

Over 95% of youth treated with GnRH-analogs go on to receive cross-sex hormones.15 By contrast, 61-98% of those managed with psychological support alone reconcile their gender identity with their biological sex during puberty.
Why are you calling this an assumption?
Or are all those countries changing to more cautious policies, just an assumption?
You should send them your link to the letter to the editor rebutting the letter to the editor I cited.
Why do you want my opinion on the pros and cons of the letter you posted? That would just be opinion.
I prefer the simple facts in the letter I posted and which you are ignoring.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Over 95% of youth treated with GnRH-analogs go on to receive cross-sex hormones.15 By contrast, 61-98% of those managed with psychological support alone reconcile their gender identity with their biological sex during puberty.
Why are you calling this an assumption?

I'm calling your assumption an assumption. You're assuming this statement means that psychological support is an alternative to cross-sex hormones. It isn't. They're different patients, and their diagnoses and treatments will be different. See the expanded argument I edited into the above post:

"Gee, it's almost as if doctors only gave cross-sex hormones to patients they believed, upon investigation, were likely to benefit from them and did, and didn't give cross-sex hormones to people who, it turned out, didn't end up needing them.

What a conundrum.

In other news, did you know that overall health outcomes for people who have heart diseases are significantly higher for people who are treated with basic medications than those who receive open heart surgery? I guess that means open heart surgery is bad, huh? We should set about making it so that anybody doctors may perform open heart surgery on should, instead, just be given basic heart medication, right? Or, y'know, it could mean that the overall health of people whose heart disease is not deemed as significant or immediate a risk to warrant surgery tend to be healthier than patients whose heart disease is deemed serious enough to warrant surgery.

But, who knows? Medicine sure is complicated."

Or are all those countries changing to more cautious policies, just an assumption?

Nope. But "more cautious policies" isn't a refutation of what has been presented as the benefits of GAC as it currently exists.

You should send them your link to the letter to the editor rebutting the letter to the editor I cited.

Again, your assumption is that the claims of this letter; claims which, according to the conclusion of a thorough refutation I provided, are:

"a biased review with egregious misinformation."

https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1690

has literally anything to do with medical policy. It doesn't.

You're grasping at straws.

Or, maybe not. Perhaps you ought to send YOUR letter to the editor to the WHO and overturn literally all trans medical care. Except, that argument doesn't work, does it?

Why do you want my opinion on the pros and cons of the letter you posted? That would just be opinion.
I prefer the simple facts in the letter I posted and which you are ignoring.

Literally, "the letter to the editor I provided is fact, but the letter to the editor you provided is JUST OPINION".

I wonder if there is a really, really obvious bias rearing its head, there.

 

[icehorse]

The mask slips again.

Remember, folks. Referring to a trans woman with female pronouns is "dangerous, selfish" and "a lie". Y'know, literally doing the one simple thing that acknowledges the reality of trans people's existence. We shouldn't do that, because of "bad consequences" that will never be elaborated on or expressed in reality.

How on earth is lying about pronouns denying existence? When we agree that there are trans women and trans men - an idea that I do not think anyone here is debating, we are EXACTLY agreeing to their existence.

You seem to be just parroting a slogan you've heard trans activists use. A slogan that makes no sense. A slogan that attempts, rather hamhandedly, to alter reality.

It's just transphobia, people. No matter how you disguise it, it will always come out. People can bleat about "minors" or "language" or "medicine" but it all really loops back to the point they want to actually make, which is that they don't want trans people to exist in the first place. They want a biological binary, and they want that socially enforced, and to do anything other than that is a "dangerous lie".

Nope, it's just you again with your transparent attempts to slur anyone who doesn't agree with your dangerous agenda.

It appears that you are misogynistic and homophobic? You appear to be using intersectionality theory, in that trans people are more oppressed than women and gays, so you can throw women and gays under the bus to bolster trans people.

If not, why do you seem so hell bent on allowing confused gay kids to undergo dangerous and unnecessary medical interventions and why do you seem so hell bent on making women's safe spaces less safe?

 

[icehorse]

The claim that "woman" is a social label and that the pronoun "she" is used to refer to them is not a lie. And anyone who says that acknowledging this fact is a lie, or suggests we should deliberately refer to transgender people with pronouns contrary to their gender, is a transphobe and a bigot. They are explicitly denying the very concept of social categorisation to stigmatise and harm a group of people who do not subscribe to their set ideas about gender.

You seem to be tying to conflate biological sex with gender.

 

[icehorse]

Except the ones that do use control groups, yet you dismiss them too. Meanwhile, the studies you provide don't use control groups either, but that doesn't seem a problem for you.

I anxiously await links to a metastudy reviewing the most ethical approach to treating GD.

As I have said over and over again: Show us studies that compare the use of GAC drugs to talk therapy only.

GAC drugs are dangerous and irreversible. Why would you use dangerous drugs on a kid before seeing if that kid will grow out of GD naturally, using only talk therapy?

Please answer that question. Because none of the studies you've linked to answer that question.

 

[Brian2]

Gee, it's almost as if doctors only gave cross-sex hormones to patients they believed, upon investigation, were likely to benefit from them and did, and didn't give cross-sex hormones to people who, it turned out, didn't end up needing them.

If the figures all came from the same study, that could be a possible analysis.
In that case it certainly would show that jumping in with puberty suppression is not a good approach.

In other news, did you know that overall health outcomes for people who have heart diseases are significantly higher for people who are treated with basic medications than those who receive open heart surgery? I guess that means open heart surgery is bad, huh? We should set about making it so that anybody doctors may perform open heart surgery on should, instead, just be given basic heart medication, right? Or, y'know, it could mean that the overall health of people whose heart disease is not deemed as significant or immediate a risk to warrant surgery tend to be healthier than patients whose heart disease is deemed serious enough to warrant surgery.

But, who knows? Medicine sure is complicated.

That looks like it would have little if anything to do with what we are talking about.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not talking about gender fluidity, I'm talking about trans people more broadly.

There is an overlap between people who are trans and those who just think they are not the gender their biology indicates.

False. Trans people have existed for generations, and many civilisations don't have similar conceptions with regards to gender categorisations.

Now YOU are mixing up 'gender fluidity' and 'trans sexuality' as if they are the same thing.

Even if these claims were true (which they demonstrably aren't), where's the harm in that? What does it matter to you if some people wish to be associated with a gender label that is not the same as their biological sex? Why do you care so much that you're willing to explicitly deny their existence as a legitimate category of person?

I don't deny the existence of legitimate trans sexuals or of those who just think they are not the gender of their biology.
Both categories exist and I am talking about them, whereas you want to blur them into one category, iow deny the existence of the category who have only the psychological signs.
It does not matter to me whether these people exist or not, but it becomes a problem in society when society is forced to change to cater to this small group, when the science around it is no more than hypothesis.
It becomes a problem when this hypothesis starts causing permanent problems in youth who might grow out of their confusion if left to mature.

 

[Brian2]

Nope. But "more cautious policies" isn't a refutation of what has been presented as the benefits of GAC as it currently exists.

True, there are no doubt benefits and problems and potential problems.

Literally, "the letter to the editor I provided is fact, but the letter to the editor you provided is JUST OPINION".

That sounds like an opinion to me.