South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[icehorse]

It's how you try to say things like you aren't anti-trans but the activists are going too far, the activists are forcing things, the activists are distorting research and have politicized treatment.

There is a distinction between criticizing much of the trans activist agenda - which I do, and being anti-trans, which I'm not.

Do you think trans activists speak for all trans people?

You said kids don't have GD. That's denying we exist.

What are you smoking??? I have repeatedly, endlessly talked about how best to treat kids with GD.

You think going through the puberty of the sex we were born as is an ideal thing for us. That's denying we exist and not listening to us. That's also an indication of prejudice.

No, I do not think that.

What I think (and much of the European medical community agrees with me), is that - for any given GD kid - we do not know whether they will end up being trans of not. Some will, some will not. I have said this over and over again, ffs.

If we had a crystal ball, and knew for sure that GD kid #1 would end up trans and that GD kid #2 would not, then the European doctors would have a different opinion. But we do NOT have that crystal ball.

That's just the honest truth, it's not prejudiced.

Your claim of unproven is unfounded.

I have provided many citations. You have provided none.

This is merely your uninformed opinion that has refused to learn.

I can only guess that YOU have refused to read thru or watch the citations I've given. This is NOT my opinion, it's the opinion of many top doctors in Europe.

Like if you'd be listening nothing permanent is being done to kids.

Sorry, this is a dangerous lie put forth by trans activists. I have provided citation after citation showing how dangerous and irreversible GAC is.

If it turns out a medical transition isn't the best route then the puberty blocking meds are stopped and the birth sex puberty happens.

Sometimes puberty can be re-established, sometimes not. And there are other lifetime, bad side effects, even puberty does happen.

You biased, bigoted opinion that refuses ti learn.

Again, this is not MY opinion, it's the opinion of many top doctors in Europe.

So here we go again with ad hominem attacks. I'm reporting on what top doctors in Europe have discovered about the issues with GAC. And again, I have provided abundant citations.

When will you realize there's a lot of us who have always known? You say you want to protect the standing trans people in society, but what you insist we do is let us suffer.

This is a good point, and it's part of what makes this such a thorny issue.

For the sake of discussion let's say that some GD lids "know" for sure that they're trans. (The first problem with this is that many such kids go thru puberty and adolescence and end up changing their minds.) But for the sake of discussion, let's say some GD kids know for sure.

Many do not know for sure. Because we do not have a crystal ball, we have an ethical dilemma. Do we needlessly injure some GD kids to benefit others, or do we delay GAC, which we know is less than ideal for some kids?

 

[icehorse]

Prove to who?! Where did you get the idea that anyone needs to prove anything to you?

This is the problem. No one needs to prove to you that they need their heart medication, or their insulin, or asthma medication etc. But you feel they need to prove to you that they deserve the same privilege regarding gender affirming care. They don't! And the only reason you feel they do is your obvious anti-trans bigotry!

Sigh. This is not MY opinion, it's the opinion of many top doctors in Europe, and I've provided copious citations to that effect.

And again with the slander.

 

[fantome profane]

Sigh. This is not MY opinion, it's the opinion of many top doctors in Europe, and I've provided copious citations to that effect.

The "top doctors in Europe" can speak for themselves. You have a motive for what you are doing here, now, on this board.

And again with the slander.

Fact.

 

[icehorse]

You have a motive for what you are doing here, now, on this board.

Yes I do, and I've been quite transparent and consistent. I will state my motive again: Making kids with GD feel better mentally with the least invasive interventions possible. I want to stop the practice of giving GD kids dangerous drugs / surgeries until we know which kids need them, AND until we know that these interventions are significantly more effective than talk therapy alone.

What you appear to have missed in this conversation is that a lot of kids with GD are NOT trans. You have to let that fact rattle around in your brain for a while. We all do, because it's not how things are commonly painted.

A LOT of GD kids ARE NOT TRANS. Why would anyone want to subject those non-trans, GD kids to dangerous and irreversible interventions?

Any other motives you imagine me having are in your head, and if you repeat what you've said previously, it is indeed slander.

Time will tell, but I suspect you will not directly answer the question I posed to you above. If history is any indication, you will either ignore it, or attempt to deflect it in some way.

 

[fantome profane]

A LOT of GD kids ARE NOT TRANS. Why would anyone want to subject those non-trans, GD kids to dangerous and irreversible interventions?

Here is a direct answer to you question. No on does, and no one is.

You are right about one thing, you motive is extremely transparent. Not just on this issue but on any issue related to transgender individuals or the transgender community. You don't want transgender women to use the women's bathrooms or change rooms because you deny that transgender women are women. You don't want transgender youth participating in sports because you don't consider the possibility that they could benefit from that, or you don't care. You don't want transgender individuals to be allowed to use the proper pronouns and you cruelly mock them when they do.

Don't try to convince me that you are motivated by some concern for gay children, cuz I ain't buyin dat. Your sole motivation, in this thread and all the other threads on transgender topics is to spread and promote anti-trans bigotry.

Any other motives you imagine me having are in your head, and if you repeat what you've said previously, it is indeed slander.

Sue me. The ultimate defense against accusations of slander is truth.

 

[icehorse]

Here is a direct answer to you question. No on does, and no one is.

But the reality is that it's happening. Regret is rising and detransitioning is rising. And common sense tells us that as kids make it to their late 20s and their brains finish developing, we'll see a lot more regret, and a lot more lawsuits.

Why do you want to exacerbate this horrible problem?

You don't want trans gender women to use the women's bathrooms or change rooms because you deny that transgender women are women.

hooray, another strawman! (if I had a nickle..) I don't want it to become normal for people who look like men to be able to go into women's safe spaces unquestioned.

And yes, I do deny that trans women are women, and many trans women agree with me. It's mostly the trans activists who beat this divisive, dangerous, misogynistic drum.

You don't want transgender youth participating in sports because you don't consider the possibility that they could benefit from that, or you don't are.

Not sure what "or you don't are" means, but I think I get the gist here: I'm fine with trans women competing, but they should not punch down.

You don't want transgender individuals to be allowed to use the proper pronouns and you cruelly mock them when they do.

You are correct on the first part, it is not proper to call a trans women "she". It's unnecessary and misogynistic. But I don't "mock" anyone, I point out the issues.

That's a whole lot of strawman arguments, sigh.

Don't try to convince me that you are motivated by some concern for gay children, cuz I ain't buying that. Your sole motivation, in this thread and all the other threads on transgender topics is to spread and promote anti-trans bigotry.

you're seeing phantoms.

 

[fantome profane]

Not sure what "or you don't are

I missed a "c". should have said "or you don't care".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not ignoring them, I'm saying that they do not study the question that many healthcare systems in Europe say they should be studying.

I'm summarizing here, but your studies set out to prove that kids end up feeling better if they go through GAC.

But Europe and I are calling for is to compare GAC to talk therapy only.

Those are two different questions.

You're literally ignoring the positive impacts of GAC in order to fallaciously and baselessly argue that a non-fact based alternative MAY be superior.

You ignore all facts that don't support your presupposition.

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

Again, I have provided seven studies. The fact that you get all your "knowledge" from anti-trans sources doesn't suddenly make the wealth of evidence we have not exist.

Many kids experience SEVERE GD that does not resolve itself until they go through puberty and adolescence. To start such a kid on the dangerous, one-way path of GAC

It's not dangerous nor one-way. These are just lies. The vast majority of GAC for minors is reversible.

before they've gone through puberty, is to jump the gun.

No more than starting a child on any kind of medication is. You are not qualified to determine whether a particular medical course of action is "jumping the gun" or not. Fortunately, doctors are.

Remember, GD is entirely a mental condition. There are no tests that can be run. The only tool we have is therapy and therapy is often not a 100% perfect diagnostic tool.

And yet we still provide treatments for children suffering from mental conditions, and yet I see you're not railing against the use of antidepressants.

Why are you in such a rush to get GD kids started on GAC?

I'm not. That's a lie. I want doctors to be able to make the best decisions possible about the best treatments on an individual basis for the best of their patients. I don't want people like you denying them the ability to pursue the best care for their patients.

What's your goal?

More kids not killing themselves would be a good start, but I get that your slimy insinuation that I am some kind of pervert wanting to "force kids to transition" won't be missed.

Meanwhile, you're the one jumping up and down to accuse trans people of being sex criminals when they commit suicide.

Again with the strawman arguments.

Stop using that phrase. You don't know what a strawman is.

I'm not anti-trans, I'm pro-healthy kids.

Unless it's determined that what could make those kids healthier is GAC, in which case you're in favour of denying doctors the ability to help them and instead letting the child kill themselves.

Do you think that subjecting non-trans kids to GAC will ultimately benefit trans people?

No, which is why I support proper medical care, diagnosis and intervention.

Because every doctor who starts a kid on GAC is rolling the dice, and sometimes they will be wrong.

Literally true of all medical intervention. They don't make these determinations by rolling a dice. That's why they're doctors.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A couple of points:

- defending biological sex is NOT anti trans.

Suuuure, and "defending white culture isn't racist".

It boils down to the same thing. It's just a euphemism. It's utterly transparent.

- the paper has - if I recall - over 140 citations.

That's a mountain of factual claims.

So, we can add "citations" to the list of things you don't understand.

Hey, remember those seven studies I posted earlier? why does this ONE TECHNICAL PAPER with a little over a hundred citations beat out literally ALL OF THOSE MEDICAL STUDIES?

Gee, I wonder if the principle at play here is bias?

Except the ones that disagree with your dogma?

The dogma that medicine should be determined by medical experts? Rather than your opinion, which is that we should ignore medicine and go off vibes, because trans people are scary?

I have provided many citations.

You've provided a litany of anti-trans websites. Meanwhile, I provided published medical papers from actual medical sources.

Your citations are worthless.

I await your citations comparing GAC with talk therapy.

I provided seven studies.

I await your citations comparing cancer treatments with rubbing butter on your knees. Oh, no such studies exist? Well, I guess all cancer research is suspect then.

This is not dogma on my part, this is how science works.

Nope, it's literally dogma. You're just repeating the lies of anti-trans websites and rejecting any science or studies that contradict your beliefs.

It's pure dogma.

We do not subject people to dangerous interventions until we know these interventions are better than less dangerous alternatives.

You know literally nothing about medicine.

You have provided no quality evidence to support your dangerous interventions.

I have provided seven studies.

*shrug*

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was the corrected version of it.

No, it was the wrong version of it.
Try addressing what I actually said. Thanks.

P.S. You know the US is basically the only country with a for-profit healthcare industry, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Doctors are effectively bound by prevailing protocols. The GAC protocol has NO good quality evidence to support it, which is why it's being abandoned across Europe.

As we've seen on this and many related threads, dangerous propaganda has spread concerning the efficacy and safety of GAC. GAC's efficacy is dubious, and it is patently dangerous.

If you can - for a moment - detach yourself from the talking points and step back, you can see that GAC defies common sense:

- How can constricting a child's torso and lungs for extended periods be safe?
- How can ongoing applications of sex hormones be safe?
- How can cutting off healthy body parts be beneficial?
- How can sterilizing kids who have never experienced sex or romantic love be a good call?

These are the claims made by GAC advocates and they are indeed extraordinary and need to be criticized vigorously.

The burden is on the GAC advocates to provide extraordinarily good evidence that GAC is more effective than talk therapy. They have not.

On this forum GAC advocates put forth studies that boil down to this:

"Kids with GD that are subjected to GAC feel better mentally after a while."

Guess what?

Kids with GD that are NOT subjected to GAC feel better mentally after a while.

It's like you've never read anything I've ever typed to you and you're just repeating the same "talking points" you accuse others of doing.

 

[icehorse]

It's like you've never read anything I've ever typed to you and you're just repeating the same "talking points" you accuse others of doing.

ditto, i think we're at loggerheads, thanks.

 

[icehorse]

@ImmortalFlame - we're at loggerheads, have a fine day.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@ImmortalFlame - we're at loggerheads, have a fine day.

Thank you for conceding.

 

[icehorse]

@ImmortalFlame - we're at loggerheads, have a fine day.

immortal flame: "Thank you for conceding."

A truly fine and concise strawman, well done.

 

[Laniakea]

Suuuure, and "defending white culture isn't racist".

What's wrong with white culture, or defending it? Or any other culture? Is culture suddenly a bad thing now? Or is being white bad?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What's wrong with white culture, or defending it? Or any other culture? Is culture suddenly a bad thing now? Or is being white bad?

Why does it need defending? From what? What even is "white culture?" Is it even a thing?

 

[icehorse]

Why does it need defending? From what? What even is "white culture?" Is it even a thing?

@Laniakea

Sorry for jumping in here, but how about defending enlightenment values.

 

[Laniakea]

Why does it need defending? From what? What even is "white culture?" Is it even a thing?

I guess it's not racist then, as the person I responded to was claiming.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess it's not racist then, as the person I responded to was claiming.

Perhaps you could answer the questions posed to you.