The witchhunt continues...

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that makes you happy! I just can't agree to a lie just because someone believes the lie. So we agree to disagree and still love people through their lives and living.

Makes me happy? What kind of an answer was that?

You wrote, "When someone says she, an XX, wants me to participate in her declaring she is an XY - she is asking me to join her in a lie" and I replied, "It's you misrepresenting reality, not her. Her truth includes that she has XY chromosomes. Ask her."

You haven't tried to defend your use of the word lie. You ignored my rebuttal to your claim and repeated the scurrilous charge.

Others have already commented on your reply above, and I agree.

And you and I have discussed my objections to what is meant by love to the church here, and you exemplify nicely why that is an inadequate model for love:

You: "we can spread the love that the message of Jesus brings."
Me: "That's not love as I use the word. Christians say that God is love, but its actions are seen as immoral from a humanist perspective. The love of God includes damnation. Love in Christianity includes blood sacrifice. I like the "message of love" that humanism embodies better. Love is about making other lives better."

This is why I am an antitheist. I object to people with bigoted views teaching the hatreds of this religion to susceptible minds. That's why I wrote this post - to underscore the moral failings of what is going on in churches and the poverty of ideas like love and truth (or lie) in that culture.

So, no, I guess I don't agree to disagree if that means that's the end of it. I agree to go on opposing that institution and the vectors of its destructive doctrine.

 

[crossfire]

You must have missed it in the multiple posts. Let me be clear for you:

When someone says she, an XX, wants me to participate in her declaring she is an XY - she is asking me to join her in a lie.


WOW! How you went from point a to point b, is beyond me.

Is calling the SS Abraham Lincoln she even though she has a masculine name and is filled with sea-men (pardon the off-color pun) a lie?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is calling the SS Abraham Lincoln she even though she has a masculine name and is filled with sea-men (pardon the off-color pun) a lie?

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies!

 

[icehorse]

But part of me wonders if this might be more of a thing in the US. Not saying that it would be uniquely American, obviously, but that the for profit healthcare system the US uses maybe allows for this to occur more frequently, perhaps?

I mean, our medical experts aren’t exactly begging on the streets. Don’t get me wrong. They’re rolling in the cash, certainly
But it’s not like you hear of them getting “sponsored” or getting big cash incentives from medical companies to promote X. I have heard of companies doing this in the US, though.
Since our government buys most if not all of our medicine and indeed all medicine has to first prove its cost effective before it’s even considered. I don’t know if big brand companies can even do this in my country. At least not legally

Here's a paper I found quickly with an internet search. The summary is that in Europe, the rates of hip replacements vary SUBSTANTIALLY from country to country.

International variation in hip replacement rates | Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

I think that "gender affirming care" has become extremely politicized.

So on the one hand, we see that all across the medical profession there are common practices that might be suspicious. Wherever it might happen in the world.

But when it comes to extreme interventions for trans-youth, the apologists argue that the medical experts should not be questioned.

So for some reason, on this one topic, the medical experts cannot be questioned? Hmmm...

 

[fantome profane]

I think that "gender affirming care" has become extremely politicized.

And you think the solution to that is to get politicians involved?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But when it comes to extreme interventions for trans-youth, the apologists argue that the medical experts should not be questioned.

Who says that? As far as I can tell, it's uneducated laymen who just learned of puberty blocking meds a few months ago and let their ignorance shine everytime they open their mouths.
Should Creationists be taken seriously, with thsir obvious lack of biology knowledge, when they try to refute evolution and reject it? Does anyone actually say you can't question them, or is it just partisan nutjobs insisting "no creation allowed"?

 

[SomeRandom]

Here's a paper I found quickly with an internet search. The summary is that in Europe, the rates of hip replacements vary SUBSTANTIALLY from country to country.

International variation in hip replacement rates | Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

I think that "gender affirming care" has become extremely politicized.

So on the one hand, we see that all across the medical profession there are common practices that might be suspicious. Wherever it might happen in the world.

But when it comes to extreme interventions for trans-youth, the apologists argue that the medical experts should not be questioned.

So for some reason, on this one topic, the medical experts cannot be questioned? Hmmm...

That could actually just come down to different countries having differing healthcare options. Europe isn’t a monolith and their laws and applications vary widely. In fact that’s what your link indicates in its very own conclusion.

That doesn’t mean that doctors worldwide differ in their actual consensus on hip replacements, it just means they work under different healthcare systems and might just slightly differ on their coding and applications (which may come down more to budget than anything actually scientific.)

Welcome to the very real consequences of capitalism interfering with healthcare applications

I have yet to see an indication that there is a large disagreement about actual gender affirming care among the medical community, both in my country and worldwide.
I have seen politicians utilise it for their own ends, but they’re not scientists or medical professionals. They should butt out

 

[icehorse]

And you think the solution to that is to get politicians involved?

Hmmm, I don't recall saying that?

 

[fantome profane]

Hmmm, I don't recall saying that?

So what are you saying?

 

[icehorse]

Who says that?

The apologists on this very forum say that. Your partners in apology say that.

 

[icehorse]

That could actually just come down to different countries having differing healthcare options.

The paper cited ranges that amount to 3 and 1/3 times as many hip replacements in one country vs. another. Can both countries be "correct"? Either one country is doing it too often or another country not enough. That cannot both be right, correct?

I have yet to see an indication that there is a large disagreement about actual gender affirming care among the medical community, both in my country and worldwide.

Hmmm. I've provided many links.

 

[icehorse]

So what are you saying?

In what context? I'm saying many things.

At the moment I'm saying that I've been told repeatedly to "trust the expert consensus". Well I've posted many links that show the consensus is breaking apart. And I'm also asking why "sometimes" apologists choose to trust the experts and sometimes they don't.

 

[fantome profane]

In what context? I'm saying many things.

At the moment I'm saying that I've been told repeatedly to "trust the expert consensus". Well I've posted many links that show the consensus is breaking apart. And I'm also asking why "sometimes" apologists choose to trust the experts and sometimes they don't.

But what do you think should be done?

If your point is that the consensus is breaking apart, I don't know it that is true, but that is the way science works, when more data is available, positions change. If that is what is happening, what are you complaining about?

People sometimes make the mistake of thinking that science is a body of knowledge, that it is static, like a book of facts. But science is a process.

When we are dealing with medicine, we are dealing with peoples lives. Medical decisions need to be made based on the best scientific information at the moment. Medical experts are not infallible, but they are in the best position to give medical advice. If not medical experts, who?

If a parent has a sick child, who is best to advise them? I don't care if it is gender dysphoria or meningitis, who do you think should be giving advice on how to treat it? Medical experts or politicians? Medical experts or internet pundits? Medical experts or religious leaders? Medical experts or computer programmers? Medical experts or chefs?

 

[Stevicus]

This thread about the witch hunt has gone on for quite some time, but I don't think anyone has posted as to whether the witch has been found. She turned me into a Newt.

 

[fantome profane]

This thread about the witch hunt has gone on for quite some time, but I don't think anyone has posted as to whether the witch has been found. She turned me into a Newt.

A newt?

 

[icehorse]

But what do you think should be done?

If your point is that the consensus is breaking apart, I don't know it that is true, but that is the way science works, when more data is available, positions change. If that is what is happening, what are you complaining about?

People sometimes make the mistake of thinking that science is a body of knowledge, that it is static, like a book of facts. But science is a process.

Medical decisions need to be made based on the best scientific information at the moment.

When we are dealing with medicine, we are dealing with peoples lives. Medical experts are not infallible, but they are in the best position to give medical advice. If not medical experts, who?

If a parent has a sick child, who is best to advise them? I don't care if it is gender dysphoria or meningitis, who do you think should be giving advice on how to treat it? Medical experts or politicians? Medical experts or internet pundents? Medical experts or religious leaders? Medical experts or computer programmers? Medical experts or chefs?

Sadly, right now the medical experts are being strongly coerced by ideologues, activists, advocacy groups, and profiteers.

I agree with you that science is not static. I also agree with you that we are dealing with people's lives. And in the case of gender dysphoria, the issue is heavily politicized. In the past several weeks, what I've seen overwhelmingly on this forum is dogmatic clinging to the claim that "extreme interventions for trans youths saves lives". Of course, if this claim is true, we need to take it seriously. But this IS an extraordinary claim, and it's also an extremely dangerous and consequential one. Because the extreme interventions I'm talking about are irreversible and come with a lifetime of side effects and ongoing medical issues.

So if the evidence is NOT that strong, these extreme interventions are nothing short of horrific. Most of the posters in these threads would agree that European healthcare is better than the healthcare in the US. I've posted several links that show that many countries in Europe are rethinking and strongly restricting these extreme interventions. A lot of the support for these interventions has been based on a few studies, and as these studies are being reviewed, their conclusions are being questioned. I suspect that in several years it will be well known that these extreme interventions were a mistake.

So what do you think we should do? I've been told many times on this forum "well I'M not aware...". Why would a poster say that? Are they trying to dodge guilt? Have they spend hours researching this? It strikes me that there is a LOT of virtue signaling going on, and as you say, the stakes are incredibly high!

 

[SomeRandom]

The paper cited ranges that amount to 3 and 1/3 times as many hip replacements in one country vs. another. Can both countries be "correct"? Either one country is doing it too often or another country not enough. That cannot both be right, correct?

The paper indicates in its conclusion, there are many various factors that can account for this. Differing coding, which again could just come down to budgetary reasons more than actual scientific disagreements. Differing healthcare systems and indeed budget can play a role.
Again, medical application is often interfered with by monetary resources. Welcome to capitalism, what can I say?
Even universal healthcare is not immune to this.

Hmmm. I've provided many links.

Forgive my short memory. But I can’t recall any legitimate referral to a breaking apart of said consensus in the links. There were folks questioning the conclusions sure. But that’s just science being science.
The only disagreements I can find are from ideologies and the practical application of therapy, hormone treatments and indeed surgery (at what age is it considered properly consensual. But that may be more to do with differing international laws on informed consent.)
But that’s hardly surprising, if I’m honest. Doctors will argue over all sorts of applications of medicine. That doesn’t mean they disagree with the medicine, per se. Just the best way to treat a specific condition.

Are you talking about Finland? They are very strict about hormone therapy. Much more strict than the US from what I can gather. But they’re not arguing against gender affirming care. Simply arguing for a much more strict criteria to meet and they want further research. Which is entirely unsurprising since the phenomenon is fairly recent (insofar as it’s not pushed into the closet by society at large. Transgenderism has existed in human culture for thousands of years, technically.)

 

[Stevicus]

A newt?

Got better...

 

[fantome profane]

Sadly, right now the medical experts are being strongly coerced by ideologues, activists, advocacy groups, and profiteers.

I don't believe this is true. But let me rephrase the question(s) I asked you?

Who do you think would be better at resisting the pressures of political advocacy or the temptation of profit? Medical experts or politicians? Medical experts or internet pundits? Medical experts or religious leaders? Medical experts or computer programmers? Medical experts or chefs?

In the past several weeks, what I've seen overwhelmingly on this forum is dogmatic clinging to the claim that "extreme interventions for trans youths saves lives". Of course, if this claim is true, we need to take it seriously. But this IS an extraordinary claim, and it's also an extremely dangerous and consequential one. Because the extreme interventions I'm talking about are irreversible and come with a lifetime of side effects and ongoing medical issues.

And who do you think is in the best position to evaluate the truth or falsity of this claim. Medical experts or politicians? Medical experts or internet pundits? Medical experts or religious leaders? Medical experts or computer programmers? Medical experts or chefs?

So if the evidence is NOT that strong

Thank you for sharing with us your expert opinion of the evidence. But you do you think is in the best position to evaluate how strong the evidence is or isn't? Medical experts or politicians? Medical experts or internet pundits? Medical experts or religious leaders? Medical experts or computer programmers? Medical experts or chefs?

So what do you think we should do? I've been told many times on this forum "well I'M not aware...". Why would a poster say that? Are they trying to dodge guilt? Have they spend hours researching this?

Just think for a minute how pathetic that sounds. How dangerous would it be for someone to get medical advice from someone who has "spend hours researching"? How many hours? Two hours? Ten hours? How many hours of "research" do you think it would take to have sufficient expertise to give medical advice? And what kind of "research" are we talking about? Skimming a few papers online?

Here is a riddle for you. What do you call a chef who has spent hours researching medicine?

Answer, you call them Chef.

 

[icehorse]

Who do you think would be better at resisting the pressures of political advocacy or the temptation of profit? Medical experts or politicians? Medical experts or internet pundits? Medical experts or religious leaders? Medical experts or computer programmers? Medical experts or chefs?

Of course unbiased, un-coerced medical and psychiatric experts would be best. But again, the coercion is strong on this topic.

As for the rest of your post:

Do you always follow authority, or do you sometimes question it?

Do you think there is no profiteering or coercion in the medical industry?

If you think that the medical industry is NOT above reproach then do you advocate doing nothing?