The witchhunt continues...

[Shadow Wolf]

I was mostly joking lol
The reactions I’ve seen from American blokes about wokeness or whatever lately does make one wonder
Just saying
Lol






I am joking. Just to be clear

Mine was a less than good attempt to keeo the humor going, as there is much of Frued that's a joke of itself.
And, yeah, there is much to wonder about woth those sorts. It's like their crude idea of what woke is that has replaced the Commies and the Red Scare.
But then again, this group loves their American Dream and know if they get Woke up their dream comes to an end.

 

[wellwisher]

Woke is about the Left trying to make new self serving customs, main stream. That of itself is not bad, but they crossed the line, when they started to censor the current mainstream. The censor tells us it is not organic, but contrived; doctrinarian. Organic will grow even among the current mainstream. Contrived needed to bull dose the land or it will die not take root. This dearth of contrived is what is happening, even with a little push back. It was more like an evasion weed, than a wild flower, that first needed stripe mining to start.

 

[Kenny]

No, you are falsely judging others, and accusing them of lying. And then you claim to have compassion for them.

NOPE

 

[icehorse]

Even Creationists cam scrape together some biologists amd such who are Creationists amd reject evolution.
21 is a sample size too unreasonably and unacceptably small to accept. I've seen almost half of that (endos) just because of insurance bouncing me around and providers moving to different networks.
You can find even more psychiatrists who cling to Fred's models and ideas even though he had scant few ideas that were right.

Let's review how science works:

1 - Using existing evidence, a new idea is proposed.
2 - People attack the idea and if ANY counter evidence is found, the idea must be revised or abandoned

There are aspects of "gender affirming care" that can fairly be categorized as new ideas. As such, they SHOULD be rigorously scrutinized. If a group of 21 professionals raises questions about some of these new ideas, that is not to be dismissed lightly.

==

Shadow, I normally wouldn't ask personal questions, but you have opened the door here. How old were you when you went through these bad experiences?

 

[metis]

Doncha think you and I have already had that discussion on another thread? And it was answered more than once.

"And IMO governments should stay out of it period. Its a medical desicion, not a political decision."

International endocrinologists speak out against US gender transition medicine

It seems to be more about politics than care. "A group of 21 international endocrinology clinicians and researchers from nine countries signed an open letter published yesterday arguing that gender transition medicine for minors has been pushed in the United States for political reasons rather...

www.religiousforums.com

Citing just one group and ignoring the others, such as what I posted from the Mayo Clinic plus other sources, is simply just "cherry picking". Hormone suppressants have been around a long time, and even though there are some negative side-effects, they are minor and generally reversable.

Hey, if you want BIG GOVERNMENT to make family and medical decisions, then that's obviously your choice. As for myself, I'll go with the family and the consensus of medical experts.

 

[F1fan]

NOPE

What a devastating rebuttal. I guess you are at a loss for words to finish your thought. You definiately have beliefs, but you don't seem able to explain why you have them.

 

[metis]

Woke is about the Left trying to make new self serving customs, main stream.

Obviously, you know nothing about the origins of "woke" and what it means as it is based on using basic information dealing with history, thus not propaganda: Woke - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

There are aspects of "gender affirming care" that can fairly be categorized as new ideas. As such, they SHOULD be rigorously scrutinized. If a group of 21 professionals raises questions about some of these new ideas, that is not to be dismissed lightly.

But these 21 do not represent the FDA and consensus of many more than just 21.

 

[F1fan]

Let's review how science works:

1 - Using existing evidence, a new idea is proposed.
2 - People attack the idea and if ANY counter evidence is found, the idea must be revised or abandoned

Where did you learn science? This is not even close to being accurate.

No, someone makes an observation, like whether attitudes towards science correlates to religiosity. So a hypothesis is formed that proposes a test. The test has to gather data like in the form of surveys that reveal what a large pool of random people believe. The experimenters have to account for ALL the data gathered, they can't pick the data they want. Then the analysis of the data and a report is written. This was the test I performed in college for my experimental psychology class and it revealed a strong correlation between attitudes about science to the degree of religiosity. The higher the religiosity the worse the person thinks of science.

There are aspects of "gender affirming care" that can fairly be categorized as new ideas. As such, they SHOULD be rigorously scrutinized. If a group of 21 professionals raises questions about some of these new ideas, that is not to be dismissed lightly.

From what I understand this whole phenomenon is fairly new and data is being collected. But experts think that the gender identity issue is genuine and not some quirk of mind. It is fringe conservatives who have a problem, and I suspect it is hightened anxiety about more diversty in society. Conservatives prefer more conformity to norms, and feel more anxiety as society becomes more diverse and open. So the problem is the mind et of conservatives and why they feel anxiety about there being more diversity. Why aren't they seeking ways to soothe their own discomfort without forcing others into hiding?

 

[We Never Know]

Citing just one group and ignoring the others, such as what I posted from the Mayo Clinic plus other sources, is simply just "cherry picking". Hormone suppressants have been around a long time, and even though there are some negative side-effects, they are minor and generally reversable.

Hey, if you want BIG GOVERNMENT to make family and medical decisions, then that's obviously your choice. As for myself, I'll go with the family and the consensus of medical experts.

Was this not clear..

"And IMO governments should stay out of it period. Its a medical desicion, not a political decision." As I said before, "it" being transgender care/decisions.

I have stated that over and over. Cite one place where I have said government should make those decisions...just one!

Here's another where I said....

"And IMO governments should stay out of it period. Its a medical desicion, not a political decision."

"It" being transgender care

I thought I was clear but..I reckon not to you so....

I do not think.that the government should tell someone whether or not they can recievce or can't receive transgender treatment. Its up to their medical professionals, not politics"

International endocrinologists speak out against US gender transition medicine

***Mod Post*** Thread closed for review.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[icehorse]

But these 21 do not represent the FDA and consensus of many more than just 21.

Einstein was just one guy, and he broke consensus.

Electroshock treatments used to be the consensus. Thalidomide used to be the consensus...

Sticking just with puberty blockers for now, "gender affirming care" says that puberty blockers save lives by reducing suicides. If so, that's an important, consequential claim. But puberty blockers come with a cost that should not be dismissed. Puberty blockers are NOT benign.

So it's abundantly scientific to rigorously re-examine the evidence underlying the "saves lives" claim, correct? And if the evidence is shaky, the claim must be revised or abandoned, correct?

 

[icehorse]

Where did you learn science? This is not even close to being accurate.

I recently have a talk on using cognitive science in teaching. There was a neuro-scientist and a cognitive scientist present, and I asked them for their feedback. They said the same thing: "You simplified the topic, but you were not wrong".

So of course I simplified the topic, but are your corrections more than distinctions without a difference - for the purposes of this debate?

 

[icehorse]

From what I understand this whole phenomenon is fairly new and data is being collected. But experts think that the gender identity issue is genuine and not some quirk of mind.

I'm not disagreeing with these points.

 

[metis]

Was this not clear..

"And IMO governments should stay out of it period. Its a medical desicion, not a political decision." As I said before, "it" being transgender care/decisions.

I have stated that over and over. Cite one place where I have said government should make those decisions...just one!

Here's another where I said....

"And IMO governments should stay out of it period. Its a medical desicion, not a political decision."

"It" being transgender care

I thought I was clear but..I reckon not to you so....

I do not think.that the government should tell someone whether or not they can recievce or can't receive transgender treatment. Its up to their medical professionals, not politics"

International endocrinologists speak out against US gender transition medicine

***Mod Post*** Thread closed for review.

www.religiousforums.com

Sorry, but I misread your post #1095. I seem to need more coffee!

 

[metis]

Einstein was just one guy, and he broke consensus.

Electroshock treatments used to be the consensus. Thalidomide used to be the consensus...

Sticking just with puberty blockers for now, "gender affirming care" says that puberty blockers save lives by reducing suicides. If so, that's an important, consequential claim. But puberty blockers come with a cost that should not be dismissed. Puberty blockers are NOT benign.

So it's abundantly scientific to rigorously re-examine the evidence underlying the "saves lives" claim, correct? And if the evidence is shaky, the claim must be revised or abandoned, correct?

It is not you, I, nor the 21 that decide what's safe enough to use. Not only are hormone suppressants used here but also thoroughly in most of Europe. If the 21 and others want to challenge this, there are steps that can be used to review the FDA research.

But stop and think about this, namely that up until this political debate dealing with transgender, how many appeals were there to possibly ban the suppressants? Did you hear of any? I didn't, and I check science sources regularly.

Thus, it's important that we not blindly accept the opinions and even research of a group without review, and there are procedures that can and have been used for this. Was the motive of the 21 just political? I don't know, and I would not make that charge without knowing.

 

[F1fan]

I recently have a talk on using cognitive science in teaching. There was a neuro-scientist and a cognitive scientist present, and I asked them for their feedback. They said the same thing: "You simplified the topic, but you were not wrong".

So of course I simplified the topic, but are your corrections more than distinctions without a difference - for the purposes of this debate?

Irrelevant. You misrepresented science. What I posted was simple.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Einstein was just one guy, and he broke consensus.

Electroshock treatments used to be the consensus. Thalidomide used to be the consensus...

Sticking just with puberty blockers for now, "gender affirming care" says that puberty blockers save lives by reducing suicides. If so, that's an important, consequential claim. But puberty blockers come with a cost that should not be dismissed. Puberty blockers are NOT benign.

So it's abundantly scientific to rigorously re-examine the evidence underlying the "saves lives" claim, correct? And if the evidence is shaky, the claim must be revised or abandoned, correct?

Sounds like epistemic egalitarianism.

Epistemic Egalitarianism

www.theatlantic.com

 

[icehorse]

Irrelevant. You misrepresented science. What I posted was simple.

this is non-responsive

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow, I normally wouldn't ask personal questions, but you have opened the door here. How old were you when you went through these bad experiences?

Bad experiences?

Let's review how science works:

1 - Using existing evidence, a new idea is proposed.
2 - People attack the idea and if ANY counter evidence is found, the idea must be revised or abandoned

As I said, even Creationists manage to scrape togather a handful of biologists to state evolution isn't real.
21 isn't a large enough sample, especially when they ignore transyouth are treated in other countries, not just America.

 

[icehorse]

Sounds like epistemic egalitarianism.

Epistemic Egalitarianism

www.theatlantic.com

Never heard that phrase before, but this sort of thing does come up a lot on RF. I'm going to quot from the article you just linked to:

There's a whole worldview that's shared by many programmers although not all of them, of course and by many young intellectuals that I characterize as "epistemic egalitarianism." 1 - They're greatly offended by the idea that anyone might be regarded as more reliable on a given topic than everyone else. 2 - They feel that for everything to be as fair as possible and equal as possible, the only thing that ought to matter is the content [of a claim] itself, not its source.

I added the numbers 1 and 2. 1 and 2 should be taken as independent claims or stances.

I will admit that I disagree with 1, but largely agree with 2.

In other words, I hold expertise in high regard, and I also think that in general claims should be evaluated on their own merit, independent of who made the claim.