I have some bad news for you, @Father Heathen -- there are those (usually religious) who believe that teaching children who to blindly hate is an essential part of proper indoctrination, and that critical thinking works contrary to that worthy goal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.
- Thread starter libre
- Start date
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
Speaking for myself, I do oppose infant circumcision. Let me ask you, in your view, what is the youngest age a child should be allowed to undergo full gender transition surgery?
I already addressed this ask.
I'm not sure I asked for that, but for the sake of discussion, let's say I did. It's not my main point.
My main point is that no one knows WHY these people feel better. Perhaps it was because of the GAC, perhaps it was for another reason.
What we know in general is that GD often resolves on its own.
Just a quick analysis of the ToC:
- There are roughly 300 studies summarized, most summaries take only one page.
- Of those 300, roughly 50 are concerned with medical complications. Here's an example:
"Hemotoma development site after male-type thorocoplasty for trans male ; clinical study"
You might have "addressed" it, but you did not produce a link to a meta study.
You did.
Do you think you've responded to all of my requests?
Do you think gender is fluid?
Can you link to a meta study comparing GAC to talk therapy only?
What's the goal of treating GD?
That's true, and I wouldn't want to deny complications exist.
That said, I don't think the existence of complications is sufficient in-itself for classifying a procedure as dangerous.
In the words of the study's background:
"Surgical treatment is effective for obtaining male-type chest walls, which are their original shapes, reducing mental stress and increasing sexual happiness. For male type thoracoplasty for trans men, it is safe to obtain good results by determining the surgical method using an algorithm depending on the morphology of the breast. However, it is also clear that various complications occur at a certain rate."
So the study summary you selected argues that it's effective and determining the surgical method using their algorithm is generally safe.
For some reason, I expect you to ignore both of those facts to use the complication only to suit an argument the summary does not align with.
No, answering questions takes longer than asking them.
I have chosen to ignore a few questions that you posed to others that I consider to be non-starters.
As for the talk of talk therapy control groups with GAC, this pet argument has already been thoroughly explored in the previous thread. I don't see any point in going over it further, we're talking in circles.
Again, we're agreed.
Now all you have to do is show us the meta study that compares GAC to talk therapy only
No, I don't have to do that. I already explained this to you.
I explained to you why such a thing isn't necessary.
Is that from the study I literally just posted for you?
Was there a statistically significant decrease in SI, or wasn't there?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? What is your formal education in these fields?
Control groups are necessary. Without them all you have is correlation, which we know does NOT mean causation
Again, you seem to be willing to needlessly perform dangerous, unproven interventions on gay kids.
Are you homophobic? I doubt that, so what gives?
The study I showed you had a control group. You don't know what you're talking abour, sir.Control groups are necessary. Without them all you have is correlation, which we know does NOT mean causation
False on multiple levels. It's not needless, it's not unproven, and it's not dangerous (any more than all medical interventions carry risks).
I'm gay. Please stop your silly caricatures.
Back in post #485 you linked to a JAMA study.
That study was done on adults.
Is there another study you want to provide, one for kids?
To recap, this thread is about GAC for kids, not adults.
If I show you another study that shows that trans kids are helped by GAC, will it change your mind?
Only if it compares its results to a control group of kids that received only talk therapy.
Without a control group the data is said to be of "low quality". That's one way that studies are assessed.
And to be on a fair playing field, what you really need to show is a meta study of studies that used control groups on kids.
I've explained to you why that's not necessary to assess GAC.
If I want to assess the efficacy of drug A on condition X, the experimental group gets the drug and the control group doesn't. I don't need to give the control group some other intervention B (that would actually render them no longer a control group). That can be helpful as a comparison, but it's not scientifically necessary to determine if drug A works.
First off, I want to thank you for having a civil discussion. This is a very charged topic, I know it's not easy. So thank you.
Okay, I must be missing something here, but your first sentence above seems to be in conflict with your 2nd sentence?
==
More or less, what I'm advocating for is studies in which one group gets drugs and talk therapy and the other group gets only talk therapy. If I'm understanding you, you would agree to that approach?
Just for clarification, what you are talking about is studying those who opt for a talk therapy only approach and comparing that group to those who opt for talk therapy plus other treatments.
The point I am making is the the choice must be up to the family, it can't be imposed on them.