South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[ImmortalFlame]

another strawman!

You really, REALLY don't understand what a strawman is.

Respond to the point being made. Don't just ignore the argument and baselessly throw around fallacies you don't understand.

Wait, in your last post to me you said that we shouldn't use control groups and now you're saying it's easy and we should?

Oo, a teachable moment. I can finally teach you what a strawman is!

It's what this sentence is. See how it makes the claim that I have said we "shouldn't use control groups"? Y'know, the thing I have never once said? Notice how I've also never said "it's easy" nor "we should". Those are total fictions, and things I have never said.

Those are ACTUAL strawman, right there.

I'm sincerely confused, can you rephrase your thoughts on the use of control groups in general and why we cannot use control groups in this case?

What's the point, when you clearly just make up things that I say in your head, and ignore the actual words that I use?

Again, my specific question is this: Why can't we compare the efficacy of GAC drugs / surgeries to the efficacy of talk therapy only?

We can. We can compare the healthcare outcomes both before and after GAC was introduced, like in those studies I showed you. You might as well ask why we don't compare healthcare outcomes when cancer is treated with standard cancer treatments compared to just trying to tell the cancer to leave.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

see post #682,

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

and STOP with the strawman arguments.

Literally not a strawman.

If the doctor does not allow the confused GD kid to go through puberty, then how does the doctor know if that kid is gay?

Firstly, what are you talking about? What does them being gay have to do with them being trans or going through puberty?

Secondly, the child can still have a normal puberty. All puberty blockers do is DELAY puberty until such a point as the child can make THEIR OWN, INFORMED DECISION about whether or not to transition surgically and/or have a natural puberty.

Because the point is that a lot of kids with GD have their GD dissipate naturally when they're allowed to go thru puberty without drugs.

Do you have a study to show this? Because all the studies I have presented (that you ignored) showed that GAC significantly diminishes negative mental health outcomes in kids with gender dysphoria compared to health outcomes before GAC was introduced.

And if you jump the gun and start giving them drugs before they've gone thru natural puberty, no one will ever know what would have happened to that kid without drugs.

The exact same thing can be said for giving literally any child any drugs for anything. That's literally why we have these things determined by medical experts after extensive consultation, review and examination. These decisions aren't made on a whim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

see my last question in post #682.

Again, a post that has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

Why can you never engage with facts? Why have you chosen to ignore the SEVEN MEDICAL STUDIES I provided?

 

[metis]

and yet more strawmen, yikes!

Notta "strawman"-- just reality. So, maybe answer the question: who's gonna check the genitals at the bathroom door?

I support teens, their parents, and their medical advisors.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well the article was written by someone who has drunk the gender ideology koolaid, so caution is appropriate.

Uh. WHAT?!?

 

[Laniakea]

And that's it in a nutshell -- the problem isn't with anyone else. The problem, if you find others uncomfortable to be around, is with YOU. (I don't mean you, personally, @Shadow Wolf.)

It's worse than that, @Shadow Wolf. @Laniakea makes a claim about "reality," which makes no allowance for the reality that is every person's own mind -- that (s)he gets to decide how you should feel and be, and you do not. That's not bigotry and intolerance, in my view -- that's violence.

Make up your mind, dude! You can't have it both ways.

 

[icehorse]

Uh. WHAT?!?

I'm not sure how much you know about gender affirming care (GAC), protocols in the US and Europe?

In a nutshell, the GAC protocol is supposed to proceed roughly like this:
1 - A kid with gender dysphoria (GD), gets talk therapy
2 - If - after talk therapy - the GD kid still is experiencing serious GD, the kid might proceed to social transitioning, e.g. wearing different clothes, changing their name, perhaps chest-binding.
3 - If the kid is still suffering, drugs might be added.
4 - If the kid is still suffeing, surgeries might be performed.

It should be obvious that even starting with step 2, GAC is a dangerous, irreversible protocol, correct?

What has NOT HAPPENED is to compare the efficacy of GAC against using only talk therapy. Because this has not happened in any meaningful way, it's fair to conclude that GAC researchers do not have high quality evidence of efficacy. In fact, many European countries tried versions of GAC for years, found that it just isn't effective, and are backing away from it.

I understand that just because I'm saying these things, that doesn't make them true. (There is a recent thread here concerning low quality evidence for GAC. That thread provides many links supporting my claims.)

But for the sake of discussion, let's assume my claims are accurate.

If you read the article from that perspective, you'll see that the journalist is mostly just parroting the unfounded claims of GAC advocates.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not sure how much you know about gender affirming care (GAC), protocols in the US and Europe?

In a nutshell, the GAC protocol is supposed to proceed roughly like this:
1 - A kid with gender dysphoria (GD), gets talk therapy
2 - If - after talk therapy - the GD kid still is experiencing serious GD, the kid might proceed to social transitioning, e.g. wearing different clothes, changing their name, perhaps chest-binding.
3 - If the kid is still suffering, drugs might be added.
4 - If the kid is still suffeing, surgeries might be performed.

It should be obvious that even starting with step 2, GAC is a dangerous, irreversible protocol, correct?

What has NOT HAPPENED is to compare the efficacy of GAC against using only talk therapy. Because this has not happened in any meaningful way, it's fair to conclude that GAC researchers do not have high quality evidence of efficacy. In fact, many European countries tried versions of GAC for years, found that it just isn't effective, and are backing away from it.

I understand that just because I'm saying these things, that doesn't make them true. (There is a recent thread here concerning low quality evidence for GAC. That thread provides many links supporting my claims.)

But for the sake of discussion, let's assume my claims are accurate.

If you read the article from that perspective, you'll see that the journalist is mostly just parroting the unfounded claims of GAC advocates.

Step Two (according to you) is: 2 - If - after talk therapy - the GD kid still is experiencing serious GD, the kid might proceed to social transitioning, e.g. wearing different clothes, changing their name, perhaps chest-binding.


What about that do you think is "dangerous" and\or "irreversible?"

 

[icehorse]

Step Two (according to you) is: 2 - If - after talk therapy - the GD kid still is experiencing serious GD, the kid might proceed to social transitioning, e.g. wearing different clothes, changing their name, perhaps chest-binding.


What about that do you think is "dangerous" and\or "irreversible?"

A couple of things:

A - At this stage of the protocol, no one knows whether this kid will still be experiencing GD once they've gone through puberty and adolescence. So "assuming" that they're trans is just a bad assumption and sets them up to stay that course, when that course is likely inappropriate.
B - chest-binding has a number of negative health side effects.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is the natural evolution of language that's quite distinct from the forcing of new terms - that are inconsistent with reality - at gunpoint.

Gunpoint! LMFAO!

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure how much you know about gender affirming care (GAC), protocols in the US and Europe?

In a nutshell, the GAC protocol is supposed to proceed roughly like this:
1 - A kid with gender dysphoria (GD), gets talk therapy
2 - If - after talk therapy - the GD kid still is experiencing serious GD, the kid might proceed to social transitioning, e.g. wearing different clothes, changing their name, perhaps chest-binding.
3 - If the kid is still suffering, drugs might be added.
4 - If the kid is still suffeing, surgeries might be performed.

It should be obvious that even starting with step 2, GAC is a dangerous, irreversible protocol, correct?

No, it is not obvious at all.

I strongly advise you to meet some transgenders in person and talk with them some before deciding to continue speaking so hard of transitioning.

What has NOT HAPPENED is to compare the efficacy of GAC against using only talk therapy. Because this has not happened in any meaningful way, it's fair to conclude that GAC researchers do not have high quality evidence of efficacy. In fact, many European countries tried versions of GAC for years, found that it just isn't effective, and are backing away from it.

I have to wonder were you got all that certainty from. You are making serious accusations against the methodology of a delicate work, and I am not sure that you are not contradicting yourself while at it. How and why do you think the efficacy of talk therapy has been neglected?

I understand that just because I'm saying these things, that doesn't make them true. (There is a recent thread here concerning low quality evidence for GAC. That thread provides many links supporting my claims.)

But for the sake of discussion, let's assume my claims are accurate.

Let's not.

If you read the article from that perspective, you'll see that the journalist is mostly just parroting the unfounded claims of GAC advocates.

Not playing this game.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A couple of things:

A - At this stage of the protocol, no one knows whether this kid will still be experiencing GD once they've gone through puberty and adolescence. So "assuming" that they're trans is just a bad assumption and sets them up to stay that course, when that course is likely inappropriate.

So ... totally reversible then.

B - chest-binding has a number of negative health side effects.

Such as irritating one's skin or overheating. So, not overly dangerous and definitely not irreversible.


Neither of these seem like very "dangerous" and/or "Irreversible" concerns to me.

 

[icehorse]

No, it is not obvious at all.

I strongly advise you to meet some transgenders in person and talk with them some before deciding to continue speaking so hard of transitioning.

For example, a practice like chest-binding might seem benign, but it's not. It often causes many health issues, and that's before we even get to the drugs.

As for talking to trans people, I've talked to a few. But that doesn't matter when it comes to public policy. In science, we call talking to a few people "anecdotal evidence", that is to say evidence of low quality.

I have to wonder were you got all that certainty from. You are making serious accusations against the methodology of a delicate work, and I am not sure that you are not contradicting yourself while at it.

Here's just a sample of the reading I've done (the list of links in the OP):

The evidence supporting "gender affirming care" is of very low reliability

How and why do you think the efficacy of talk therapy has been neglected?

That's not exactly what I said, but close. Steps 2,3, and 4 come with irreversible, negative side effects, that get more and more severe the further a kid goes thru the process. The next fact is crucial in understanding this situation: Many kids who experience GD, even severe GD, grow out of it naturally as they go thru puberty and adolescence. (As an aside, many of those kids end up being gay.)

The professionals do NOT know ahead of time which kids will grow out of GD and which will not. The people who established and promote GAC did not use control groups to compare the efficacy of GAC against talk therapy only. They have no proof that GAC is more effective than talk therapy alone. Many countries in Europe tried GAC, found no benefits, and are stepping away from using it.

Not playing this game.

This is no game Luis. They are sterilizing and sometimes mutilating gay kids for no reason.

==

I understand that if we had a crystal ball and could determine which kids would not grow out of GD, then there are advantages to starting GAC early. But we do NOT have such a crystal ball. So we're betting, using the lives of kids,and favoring the lives of potential trans kids over of the lives of non trans kids who have GD.

This is a needless, zero-sum, abhorrent non-solution. That's why it's being abandoned in more forward thinking countries.

 

[icehorse]

So, not overly dangerous and definitely not irreversible.

As I understand it, chest binding comes with a host of irreversible medical issues. And there are other aspects in step 2 that can also cause harm.

The practice of medicine states "first, do no harm". Since you're supporting these steps, it's up to you that these interventions are safe. If you're honest, and find research stating otherwise, then you have to abandon this protocol. No big deal, lots of protocols get abandoned. So go do your homework and see if you can find health issues associated with chest binding.

 

[icehorse]

We can. We can compare the healthcare outcomes both before and after GAC was introduced, like in those studies I showed you. You might as well ask why we don't compare healthcare outcomes when cancer is treated with standard cancer treatments compared to just trying to tell the cancer to leave.

Using that logic we can also compare healthcare outcomes both before and after jumping on pogo sticks for 15 minutes a day.

Guess what, we'd find out that statistically healthcare outcomes will improve if all we do is get kids with GD to jump on pogo sticks everyday.

Those studies you've shown all make inappropriate assumptions. They APPEAR to assume that the goal is to transition kids. Or they APPEAR to assume that GAC improves mental health. But without comparing GAC to basically no-GAC, that might be an activist's goal, but it's an invalid healthcare goal.

The healthcare goal SHOULD BE improved mental health, full stop. Transitioning kids should be the intervention of last resort because it's dangerous, and subjects kids to a lifetime of medical issues.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I understand it, chest binding comes with a host of irreversible medical issues. And there are other aspects in step 2 that can also cause harm.

Such as?

The practice of medicine states "first, do no harm". Since you're supporting these steps, it's up to you that these interventions are safe. If you're honest, and find research stating otherwise, then you have to abandon this protocol. No big deal, lots of protocols get abandoned.

This is being done by qualified medical professionals and institutions who specialize in such things.

So go do your homework and see if you can find health issues associated with chest binding.

I did my homework. I didn't see anything that was "dangerous" or "irreversible" about chest binding, which of course, doesn't even apply to transwomen.

If someone wants to bind their chest, that's their decision to make. Why should you or I be making it for them?

 

[icehorse]

Such as?

Here's a link to a document that details some of these issues. At the end of the document is a lost of 146 citations, including health problems associated with chest binding.

Teenagers and gender identity: the evidence base – part 2 - Sex Matters

If someone wants to bind their chest, that's their decision to make. Why should you or I be making it for them?

Any adult who wants to do that I have no problem with.

But again, GAC is dangerous and irreversible and there is no proof that it is any more effective at improving mental health than talk therapy.

Our healthcare system is seriously flawed. To be clear, I have nothing but respect and admiration for individual practioners, doctors and nurses. But above their pay grade are the profiteering middle men and big pharma and so on. Are you a fan of extraordinarily high prescription medications? Were you a fan of the opioid crisis? Do you understand that every kid that gets put on GAC drugs is being committed to a lifetime dependency on expense and dangerous drugs?

 

[Father Heathen]

Looks like I triggered something in you for you to say something like that.

Her point hit the nail right on the head.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's a link to a document that details some of these issues. At the end of the document is a lost of 146 citations, including health problems associated with chest binding.

Teenagers and gender identity: the evidence base – part 2 - Sex Matters

Can you just list some?

Any adult who wants to do that I have no problem with.

Good, it's none of your concern.

But again, GAC is dangerous and irreversible and there is no proof that it is any more effective at improving mental health than talk therapy.

We're debating something you are asserting as "dangerous and irreversible" but haven't shown that is indeed the case.

Our healthcare system is seriously flawed. To be clear, I have nothing but respect and admiration for individual practioners, doctors and nurses. But above their pay grade are the profiteering middle men and big pharma and so on. Are you a fan of extraordinarily high prescription medications? Were you a fan of the opioid crisis?

Yes, the American healthcare system is seriously flawed.
The rest of the world has a more universal approach where these issues don't come into play.

I live in Canada, we have somewhat reasonable prescription prices because our government negotiates reduced drug prices our our behalf.

Do you understand that every kid that gets put on GAC drugs is being committed to a lifetime dependency on expense and dangerous drugs?

That's their decision to make - not mine or yours.

Just like it's my decision to decide if I want to take the heart medication I have to take, based on its side effects versus advantages to my health. That's not anyone's decision but mine.

 

[icehorse]

Firstly, what are you talking about? What does them being gay have to do with them being trans or going through puberty?

This conversation is all about GAC, which is about a way to treat kids with GD, correct?

One huge issue is that when a kid has GD it is UNKNOWN whether that kid is really trans or not. A LOT of kids with GD, when allowed to go thru puberty and adolescence naturally, end up having their GD resolve on its own. Many of those kids end up being gay. For that subset of kids, GAC would have unnecessarily damaged their lives forever.

Secondly, the child can still have a normal puberty. All puberty blockers do is DELAY puberty until such a point as the child can make THEIR OWN, INFORMED DECISION about whether or not to transition surgically and/or have a natural puberty.

Yes, this is a standard bit of propaganda, but it's not true. Puberty blockers have a host of medical issues associated with them. See the link I provided in post #737.

Do you have a study to show this? Because all the studies I have presented (that you ignored) showed that GAC significantly diminishes negative mental health outcomes in kids with gender dysphoria compared to health outcomes before GAC was introduced.

I have provided links in the GAC low evidence thread which I've already linked to in this thread.

And again, you have no evidence that GAC is any better than the mythical pogo stick therapy that I'm proposing. Because - when left alone - a lot of GD resolves itself!!!