The dark side of gender change for minors. Chloe Cole sues doctors and blames Biden.

[Subduction Zone]

I have little doubt you trust Peers too. Or do you wait for the pope to tell you your opinion?

I see that you are still having a hard time understanding how science is done. There are no "Peers" in science with an upper case P. You post tells us that you believe in conspiracy theories.

 

[cladking]

Science can address the question of whether a particular medical procedure is healthy for those who undergo it. That's the function of the medical sciences.

No, not really. They can't even assess which medication is effective for any given individual. They make medications without knowing what they are for so must administer them to populations to see what if any effect they have. Most real progress in "medical science" doesn't come from doctors but from outsiders in biology, anatomy, physics, etc etc etc. Obviously doctors often have a great deal of expertise but which of them have degrees in ethics and why would you assume that any course in Ethics is the final word in what's right and what's wrong?

It is the responsibility of EVERY individual to think for himself. I am merely exercising my duty. Where I come from it is wrong to mutilate children and whether I profit from it or not it is still wrong.

There is no experiment that says any child should or should not be fixed. There is no science outside of experiment.

You don't understand science, ethics, or medicine in all probability.

It's a Red Herring because the root of why these operations are supported is due to the evidence for their efficacy given to us by medical research.

No. It is no longer my contention that it is necessarily wrong to operate on children. It is my contention that those who stand to profit should have no say in the decision other than to nix it.

100 years ago if a boy had trouble keeping it in his pants a parent would offer to amputate for him. Apparently today children are encouraged to accept.

Schools indoctrinate children into whom to vote for, what products to buy, and that "diversity" is the goal of all people. They teach children that if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. They teach them submit to bullies from classmates to principals armed with zero tolerance policies. They teach them to think like machines and that they are each cogs in a mary go round. Many young people forego sex altogether even in their 20's. It's sick. Various perversions are celebrated by Hollywood and the news gets stranger by the day. Schools don't teach critical thinking or reading and writing for that matter. Many are ill prepared for the job market and a lifetime of dependence and minimum wage. Drug use, suicide, and asocial behavior are rampant and many are doing less well than their parents. There are more children being born to those least fit to be parents than to others. Each generation will have more problems if the cycle isn't affected. Instead we continue the status quo as though diversity alone is sufficient to cure every ailment of a society operated as an ideocracy where there is no responsibility among the leaders.

The red herring here, if there is one, is the suggestion that kids will kill themselves if they aren't allowed to have their way. Perhaps if we quit bullying children there wouldn't be so much need for sex changes.

None of this is relevant to the point that the consequence of denying children life-saving surgery is their deaths. You can call medical procedures mutilation, but it does not change the ethical character of your argument. You are calling for a genocide against transgender children.

Yeah, right. Kill the kids instead of providing life changing operations. You have to be kidding. Why not just call me "Adolph".

It should be apparent that some kids' lives are in danger if it's true that any are. Otherwise they should wait for the age of consent. It's probably time to give 18 year olds full legal status and lower the age of consent to 16.

The status quo that you want to protect so badly is killing people and wrecking the commonweal. It is destroying entire generations with diets of sugar and fat (they all have Earl Butz). It is making citizens who can't read, write, or understand a republic. It is making the pursuit of life liberty and happiness more problematical with each passing year. The mutilation of children would be the tip of the problem.

 

[cladking]

In the past men wanted to dress as women.

In that era skin ailments sexual diseases rife also. Painted faces put rouge on bright lipsticks men and women.

Men trans do the same now. Same behaviours grotesque makeup in fact. Not really how a woman was meant to be Idealised.

Is a teaching position. Behaviours of humans changing. Right in front of you.

Men not being allowed pretending to be women was a sexual problem in society only. Had to be reviewed what was considered behaviour and belief and conning another.

As clothing change also alters identification of the self. Just realisations of social problems.

Free will of human rights hence had always been reviewed as a legal precedence as proven.

I'm sure I see a couple of your points.

While adults should have carte blanche to do anything not proscribed by laws that are as little restrictive as possible, children are to be protected in all ways until they can fend for themselves and sign contracts, or at least to vote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have little doubt you trust Peers too. Or do you wait for the pope to tell you your opinion?

I trust solid, peer reviewed evidence that has been examined, replicated, and found to be statistically significant in results. There is no "pope" to this process.
And, yes, of course people who study such things are going to know more about the subject and have greater insights than total armchair laymen such as yourself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, not really. They can't even assess which medication is effective for any given individual. They make medications without knowing what they are for so must administer them to populations to see what if any effect they have. Most real progress in "medical science" doesn't come from doctors but from outsiders in biology, anatomy, physics, etc etc etc. Obviously doctors often have a great deal of expertise but which of them have degrees in ethics and why would you assume that any course in Ethics is the final word in what's right and what's wrong?

Physicians tend not to study biochemistry or other areas that study how substances/medications effect the body. That's another area of research entirely.
And no. They don't just make medications and start handing them out. They first experiment with animals, and then if that is safe then they move to SMALL scale human tests before moving onto larger scale tests, and then if the meds are safe then they can be prescribed to people. And, of course, those biologists, physicists, chemists, legions and scores of them are also doctors.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Detransitioned teen bashes Biden on 'gender-affirming' care


Transgender critic sues doctors who performed transgender surgery on her when she was minor


Something to consider.

Now why would she be blaming Biden? She's 18, and had her surgery at 15, and other proceduress prior to that -- all before Biden took office. If I'm not mistaken, there was another POTUS at the time, of a slightly more orange color...

 

[cladking]

And, yes, of course people who study such things are going to know more about the subject and have greater insights than total armchair laymen such as yourself.

I assume you have an advanced degree in the recognition of armchair laymen.

They don't just make medications and start handing them out.

And you missed the point again. They often don't set out to make a substance that affects a specific disease but rather make a chemical and then test to see if it affects any humans and their diseases. Most of what people call "Science" has nothing at all to do with experiment or theory so it is not science.

And here is a case in point;

I trust solid, peer reviewed evidence that has been examined, replicated, and found to be statistically significant in results

Neither Peer review nor statistics are necessarily science at all. For example statistics are used to segregate effects of medications from placebo effect. Yet we don't even have a working definition for "consciousness" to begin to understand placebo effect or to determine that some meds require some placebo effect or the differences between individuals. Making a bunch of chemicals and throwing them at populations is at best witch doctory and certainly not "science".

Many laymen can't tell science from belief or from statistics. Many laymen would support a reincarnation of Dr Mengele because he has "doctor" in his name and is a "scientist".

It is wrong to indoctrinate children in "inclusion" while they allow bullies to ply their trade. It is wrong to not teach children how to read and write and then to perform cruel experiments on demand.

And, of course, those biologists, physicists, chemists, legions and scores of them are also doctors.

Semantics! They often have higher degrees and are usually college graduates, they are not medical degrees. You seem to think that only people who went to school for 20 years have their heads screwed on correctly. Only their opinions matter at all and anyone who doesn't regurgitate the company line must be a laymen. To an extent you are right about this last because the status quo has become so deeply entrenched no expert would dare contradict any prevailing opinion about anything at all no matter how poorly understood or how poorly that opinion is actually evidenced or supported by experiment.

I don't believe in any opinion even my own.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I assume you have an advanced degree in the recognition of armchair laymen.

I even have professional experience in the field.

And you missed the point again. They often don't set out to make a substance that affects a specific disease but rather make a chemical and then test to see if it affects any humans and their diseases. Most of what people call "Science" has nothing at all to do with experiment or theory so it is not science.

That is not at all how it works. Such as, they CANNOT legally or ethically begin with humans. They CANNOT just make something and test it out and see what happens. And what do you think people researching things like cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, and diabetes are doing? They are making stuff in attempts to specifically treat those diseases.

Neither Peer review nor statistics are necessarily science at all.

They are inherently a part of science and you can't properly do science without.

For example statistics are used to segregate effects of medications from placebo effect. Yet we don't even have a working definition for "consciousness" to begin to understand placebo effect or to determine that some meds require some placebo effect or the differences between individuals. Making a bunch of chemicals and throwing them at populations is at best witch doctory and certainly not "science".

No prescribed meds require a placebo. If a medication being experimented on can't out perform the placebo group then it's a failed performance of the experimental medication. This sometimes happens because animals such as rats are tested on long before human trials can begin.

Many laymen can't tell science from belief or from statistics. Many laymen would support a reincarnation of Dr Mengele because he has "doctor" in his name and is a "scientist".

So? If you aren't specialized in a field there's going to be things you won't know as well because you aren't constantly exposed to the subject and frequently studying it. Such as, an expert in electrical engineering is very likely to be a layman when it comes to biochemistry. But that's ok as long as each other realizes their own strengths and shortcomings when it comes to their own fields and the fields of others.

It is wrong to indoctrinate children in "inclusion" while they allow bullies to ply their trade. It is wrong to not teach children how to read and write and then to perform cruel experiments on demand.

You can't even get what science and medicine do right and you think we should consider your opinions with the same weight we would give to someone like John Dewey?
Absolutely not.

Semantics! They often have higher degrees and are usually college graduates, they are not medical degrees.

It's not semantics, but your ignorance of college degrees and titles showing through. Ph.D.s are doctors. Psy.D.s are doctors. M.D.s are doctors. Ed.D.s are doctors. Anyone who has completed a program for a doctorates degree at an accredited college/university is a doctor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I even have professional experience in the field.

That is not at all how it works. Such as, they CANNOT legally or ethically begin with humans. They CANNOT just make something and test it out and see what happens. And what do you think people researching things like cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, and diabetes are doing? They are making stuff in attempts to specifically treat those diseases.

They are inherently a part of science and you can't properly do science without.

No prescribed meds require a placebo. If a medication being experimented on can't out perform the placebo group then it's a failed performance of the experimental medication. This sometimes happens because animals such as rats are tested on long before human trials can begin.

So? If you aren't specialized in a field there's going to be things you won't know as well because you aren't constantly exposed to the subject and frequently studying it. Such as, an expert in electrical engineering is very likely to be a layman when it comes to biochemistry. But that's ok as long as each other realizes their own strengths and shortcomings when it comes to their own fields and the fields of others.

You can't even get what science and medicine do right and you think we should consider your opinions with the same weight we would give to someone like John Dewey?
Absolutely not.

It's not semantics, but your ignorance of college degrees and titles showing through. Ph.D.s are doctors. Psy.D.s are doctors. M.D.s are doctors. Ed.D.s are doctors. Anyone who has completed a program for a doctorates degree at an accredited college/university is a doctor.

As usual he has his "facts" backwards. Academic doctors did not copy medical doctors. They preceded medical doctors. Originally the term "Doctor" was reserved for eminent academic scholars:

Whom should we really call a “doctor”?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Now why would she be blaming Biden? She's 18, and had her surgery at 15, and other proceduress prior to that -- all before Biden took office. If I'm not mistaken, there was another POTUS at the time, of a slightly more orange color...

I dunno. It's what the article reports.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As usual he has his "facts" backwards. Academic doctors did not copy medical doctors. They preceded medical doctors. Originally the term "Doctor" was reserved for eminent academic scholars:

Whom should we really call a “doctor”?

Yeah, amd then of course that ridiculous and absurd scenario of someone needing an MD for CPR or something even though tons of non-doctors who can do it no problem. And, of course, an OBGYN is not the same as an oncologist is not the same as a cardiologist.

 

[syo]

Surgery hysteria.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I dunno. It's what the article reports.

Well, then, perhaps it should alert you to the article's bias.

 

[cladking]

They are inherently a part of science and you can't properly do science without.

Nonsense.

What statistics do you think Newton gathered. Einstein?

Statistics are largely to show correlations, not causality.

No prescribed meds require a placebo.

More nonsense.

Do you really believe placebo effect goes away just because a medication gets approval or works.

Maybe you believe that when it gets it's blessing from Peers that it no longer needs placebo effect so it is extracted and sold elsewhere.

If you aren't specialized in a field there's going to be things you won't know as well because you aren't constantly exposed to the subject and frequently studying it.

Sigh. I'm a generalist and a metaphysician, not a "specialist". I guess that makes me a layman and an idiot to you.

You can't even get what science and medicine do right and you think we should consider your opinions with the same weight we would give to someone like John Dewey?

Nonsense.

This isn't about medicine so much as it's about ethics and common sense.

It's not semantics, but your ignorance of college degrees and titles showing through. Ph.D.s are doctors.

I have to defer to the expert in armchair laymen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you really believe placebo effect goes away just because a medication gets approval or works.

Do you even know what the placebo effect is, what it does and how it works? That "it doesn't go away" and "needs placebo" parts makes me unsure, especially in regards to medical research.

 

[cladking]

Do you even know what the placebo effect is, what it does and how it works? That "it doesn't go away" and "needs placebo" parts makes me unsure, especially in regards to medical research.

Nonsense! Read it again;

I said: "Maybe you believe that when it [new medication] gets it's blessing from Peers that it no longer needs placebo effect so it is extracted and sold elsewhere.".

Perhaps you don't know what "consciousness" or "placebo effect" means.

 

[Ella S.]

Nonsense! Read it again;

I said: "Maybe you believe that when it [new medication] gets it's blessing from Peers that it no longer needs placebo effect so it is extracted and sold elsewhere.".

Perhaps you don't know what "consciousness" or "placebo effect" means.

Why continue making claims on topics you know so little about? Nobody is forcing you to do that.

Do you feel embarrassed that everyone in this thread is more knowledgeable on this subject than you and that I pointed out the heavy real-world consequences of your ignorance?

If so, you don't have to be. We're all misinformed and ignorant on a wide range of topics. This is why we need specialists in the modern age. Gone are the days where someone like Leonardo da Vinci could use his wealth to study the cutting edge of every field of his era; we know too much more about the world now that a single person can't possibly know all of it.

You aren't stupid for being a layman on some fields. Everyone is a layman on most fields. That's why we have to defer to the consensus of expert opinions.

At this rate, it's better to admit that you don't know what you're talking about and save yourself further shame. If you're interested in learning more about these subjects, some of us might be able to recommend resources on them where you can learn about them for free.

Unfortunately, there are monetary barriers to degree programs but much of the information in these programs are still freely accessible. With that background knowledge, you could begin reading meta-studies on the subject and actually understand them. Right now, you don't even know what a placebo is, which is core to understanding much of medical research. That is fixable, though. Your ignorance isn't a fixed state.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said: "Maybe you believe that when it [new medication] gets it's blessing from Peers that it no longer needs placebo effect so it is extracted and sold elsewhere.".

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. It no longer needs placebo effect. What does that mean?

Perhaps you don't know what "consciousness" or "placebo effect" means.

Yeah, no. Medications don't really have a placebo effect. It's all a trick our mind plays on us. In medical research the control group is given the placebo, a sugar pill, and it is against this group that is taking nothing of medical benefit that the experiment medication is compared.

 

[cladking]

Why continue making claims on topics you know so little about? Nobody is forcing you to do that.

Do you feel embarrassed that everyone in this thread is more knowledgeable on this subject than you and that I pointed out the heavy real-world consequences of your ignorance?

If so, you don't have to be. We're all misinformed and ignorant on a wide range of topics. This is why we need specialists in the modern age. Gone are the days where someone like Leonardo da Vinci could use his wealth to study the cutting edge of every field of his era; we know too much more about the world now that a single person can't possibly know all of it.

You aren't stupid for being a layman on some fields. Everyone is a layman on most fields. That's why we have to defer to the consensus of expert opinions.

At this rate, it's better to admit that you don't know what you're talking about and save yourself further shame. If you're interested in learning more about these subjects, some of us might be able to recommend resources on them where you can learn about them for free.

Unfortunately, there are monetary barriers to degree programs but much of the information in these programs are still freely accessible. With that background knowledge, you could begin reading meta-studies on the subject and actually understand them. Right now, you don't even know what a placebo is, which is core to understanding much of medical research. That is fixable, though. Your ignorance isn't a fixed state.

So everyone here has an advanced degree in ethics and I have no right to an opinion in the face of so much expertise. I bet they didn't teach you this in Ethics 101.

 

[cladking]

Medications don't really have a placebo effect.

So, placebo effect only works in the placebo group! Good to know.

Either that or everyone's perceived reality is a result of our beliefs.