South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[icehorse]

You mean, the society made up of medical experts?

You're right, what right do they have to determine best medical practice?

What part of "advocating for transitioning" did you not understand?

The REAL GOAL for helping kids with GD is NOT to transition them, it's to make them feel better, right?

You don't use "control groups" to study the effects of policies and practices at a societal level.

Why not?

 

[icehorse]

So, you are going to be one who accredits which doctors are supposedly qualified and which aren't? Nope, you're just grasping at straws.

That's one of the more egregious strawman arguments I've seen in a long time.

congrats??!

 

[icehorse]

Oh, and here is a study that DOES have control groups:

hahaha - so we can't use control groups, except apparently you discovered that we can ? hahaha

Ok, so here's the thing with this study, it's also ASSUMING that transitioning is the answer. It's a study that looks at social transitioning.

A confused gay kid with GD does NOT benefit from social transitioning, ffs.

 

[metis]

That's one of the more egregious strawman arguments I've seen in a long time.

congrats??!

You've done nothing here but pretend that you know what you're talking about in the medical field. I go by the science since that was my field, although not in medicine. You, otoh, cherry-pick evidence that fits the agenda you want to push.

I've posted sources from medical centers here, and yet you just blow them off. To me, the only question as to what your real motive is that feeds your agenda? That I'm not sure about.

 

[icehorse]

I understand that this video is anecdotal. But it turns out that there are many stories like this, and we should think twice when we hear that GAC is safe...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750337403896709177

 

[fantome profane]

Why not? {in reference to use of control groups}

Because we are dealing with people here, not laboratory mice. Using human beings in a control group can only be done ethically in very limited ways usually for short term studies.

Are you familiar with the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study where a group of human beings were denied treatment as part of a study? This study has been deemed extremely unethical.

 

[icehorse]

You've done nothing here but pretend that you know what you're talking about in the medical field. I go by the science since that was my field, although not in medicine. You, otoh, cherry-pick evidence that fits the agenda you want to push.

I've posted sources from medical centers here, and yet you just blow them off. To me, the only question as to what your real motive is that feeds your agenda? That I'm not sure about.

I might have missed something, if so, I apologize. But as I recall, all the studies that members of your cohort have linked to have failed the simple test I've proposed:

Compare long term mental health benefits between kids that got drugs / surgeries per GAC, to kids that received only talk therapy.

And I have to tell you, I'm sincere. I believe that GAC ends up ruining the lives of confused kids - often gay - with GD. It's that simple. GAC was developed and championed by advocates whose goal is to transition kids, not help them improve their mental health. For these advocates, transitioning is the goal.

 

[icehorse]

Because we are dealing with people here, not laboratory mice. Using human beings in a control group can only be done ethically in very limited ways usually for short term studies.

Are you familiar with the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study where a group of human beings were denied treatment as part of a study? This study has been deemed extremely unethical.

Yes, I understand and agree with those ideas.

But doesn't that cut both ways? We also do not treat people using dangerous interventions until we know they work, correct?

Giving GAC drugs and surgeries to kids is a new idea. GD is not a new condition so we have centuries of evidence that most kids grow out of GD.

So why is it unethical to compare talk therapy to dangerous drugs and surgeries. If anything it's unethical to be using GAC at all.

Because GAC's efficacy is unproven. By your own logic, wouldn't you say it's unethical to use human beings to test dangerous, unproven interventions?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, I understand and agree with those ideas.

But doesn't that cut both ways? We also do not treat people using dangerous interventions until we know they work, correct?

Giving GAC drugs and surgeries to kids is a new idea. GD is not a new condition so we have centuries of evidence that most kids grow out of GD.

So why is it unethical to compare talk therapy to dangerous drugs and surgeries. If anything it's unethical to be using GAC at all.

Because GAC's efficacy is unproven. By your own logic, wouldn't you say it's unethical to use human beings to test dangerous, unproven interventions?

I am in favour of letting those who are qualified to access the risks and benefits of any medical treatment to do so. I am not at all interested in the medical assessment of either politicians or random internet commentators.

But I have a question. If in your own mind you have already reached a conclusion as to the effectiveness of medical intervention, what do you imagine the purpose of a study would be?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agreed. But in this thread we're talking about GAC for kids, and that hasn't been standard for very long.

It been going on for longer than you realize. At that age its been social transition and therapy. And it's been that way for much, much longer than the sources misinforming you want you to know.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am in favour of letting those who are qualified to access the risks and benefits of any medical treatment to do so.

That's the only ethical and moral approach.

 

[icehorse]

I am in favour of letting those who are qualified to access the risks and benefits of any medical treatment to do so. I am not at all interested in the medical assessment of either politicians or random internet commentators.

But I have a question. If in your own mind you have already reached a conclusion as to the effectiveness of medical intervention, what do you imagine the purpose of a study would be?

I have a suspicion, but I will accept whatever good evidence comes to light.

But - for the sake of discussion - let's say that GAC is better than talk therapy alone. This raises a number of thorny ethical issues.

There will be categories of kids with GD:

A - some are just confused gay kids who need only talk therapy
B - some are kids who got GAC early and actually are trans
C - some are kids who got GAC after puberty, are trans, and have issues related to late-GAC

(Of course EVERYONE who undergoes GAC is signing up for a lifetime of medical issues, but we'll set that aside.)

But back to categories A, B, and C. If we don't know ahead of time which category a specific kid will fall into, how do we do the ethical math to decide which course of action is preferred? It strikes me that such decisions would be far easier and helpful if we had true statistics on how many kids fall into category A.

 

[icehorse]

It been going on for longer than you realize. At that age its been social transition and therapy. And it's been that way for much, much longer than the sources misinforming you want you to know.

You mean what WPATH says? ha

 

[icehorse]

I am in favour of letting those who are qualified to access the risks and benefits of any medical treatment to do so. I am not at all interested in the medical assessment of either politicians or random internet commentators.

I find this (common), response entertaining, given that we're on a debate forum

 

[fantome profane]

I find this (common), response entertaining, given that we're on a debate forum

Being in a debate forum is not evidence that you are qualified to debate.

 

[icehorse]

Being in a debate forum is not evidence that you are qualified to debate.

That's never stopped you before. Why start now?

 

[Left Coast]

Hmmm. So how would you be able to conclude anything if you have no basis for comparison?

You do have a basis for comparison. You compare the treatment group to the control group, as in the study I already showed you.

I'm happy to grant you that some kids that go through GAC report improved mental health. The billion dollar question is why? You think it's because of GAC, I think that a significant percentage of those kids would have achieved similar or better results using only talk therapy.

Yet you don't have the evidence to demonstrate that conclusion. And even if that were the case, what of the kids who don't improve through psychotherapy alone? This is the whole reason, again, that trans people are referred for medical interventions.

You have no evidence proving "why" some of your GAC kids ended up feeling better. We're both speculating to some degree.

You already conceded the basic point that leads us logically to support that conclusion. The experimental group receives a treatment for a condition, and their condition improves more than a control group that didn't receive the treatment. That is evidence the treatment worked. It isn't speculating, it's a direct logical inference from the results of the experiment.

BTW, there is a FAR more interesting and challenging question to discuss once we get past this log jam...

If you can't comprehend the basics of how to evaluate basic scientific study results, I suspect we won't get much further, unfortunately.

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, so we're both fans of evidence based interventions!

That's why I support the legality of GAC, of course. Bizarrely though, you don't.

 

[Left Coast]

Reading some posts here you'd think you can go to a doctor and say "hey, doc, gimme a sex change" and get scheduled for one as soon as the surgeon has an opening.

This is why I've told him repeatedly to actually talk to real trans people in his offline life. But when I suggest this it's dismissed as some kind of Marxism or something.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is why I've told him repeatedly to actually talk to real trans people in his offline life. But when I suggest this it's dismissed as some kind of Marxism or something.

You and a dozen others across dozens of threads.