To Be or Not To Be: your gender (Vivek R.)

[Argentbear]

I have thousands of years of evidence to back up my assertion. We haven't even tiptoed into the social contagion aspect of this situation yet, but ultimately the apologists have to answer the question: why do we see such a huge surge in GD and only in certain areas and mostly with adolescent girls...

Yeah the contagion thing. Based on a retracted study Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria by Lisa Littman. Littman surveyed parents of trans youth but recruited her sample from websites aimed at parents who reject the idea that their children could be transgender and opened the interview with a statement of exactly what she was looking to find.

So no, the apologists have to provide extraordinarily good evidence that the best way to help confused kids with GD in this social media rich world, is thru drugs and sometimes surgeries. THAT is an extraordinary claim. And I await your best studies...

First you have again made the unsupported claim that children presenting with gender dysphoria are just "confused"

Second you have again presented the false claim that gender affirming care prioritizes drugs and surgery for every one

==

As for the studies you linked to - do you understand the idea of meta-studies? We all have to rely on them, not a cherry picked handful.

I posted "DO I think for one second you will be honest enough to look at it? Nope, You will dismiss it out of hand" and you have proven me correct.

 

[stvdv]

Then don't hold this stance.

Let the individual and health care providers guide and decide these things. That is the only appropriate response to healthcare, especially when it's other people.

So, I'll share my "stance", then there is no confusion from now on (I tried to be as precise as I could). This is how I believe, and that will never change I think (core beliefs)

From my Spiritual POV:
IF there was a God (as in person) then this God would Love gay, lesbian, transgender, xxx all the same ... unconditional, no exception

No one has the right to criticize the feelings or beliefs of others (you can criticize actions)

Everyone was granted this life, so all are free to choose for themselves and I have no right to even critique them; meaning whatever you do, know, that I don't criticize you for it

I don't impose on others how they should feel
I don't want others to impose on me how to feel

So: in short, this is my stance
I don't criticize you for your choice of Gender Dysphoria
You don't criticize me for my choice of Trump (example)
AND of course
I am free to not choose for Gender Dysphoria
You are free to not choose for Trump (example)

 

[icehorse]

That's absurd. If you were going by thousands of years you'd see people we'd call trans and you'd know there absolutely nothing new about trans care. But all you keep giving is the same debunked rubbish.

Sooooo many fallacies in that post I don't know where to start.

But I will say this: We've been over this ground before and you consistently strawman my claims. So once again - with jazz hands:

- I'm NOT saying that trangenderism doesn't exist
- I'm NOT saying it's new

- I AM saying that in the last 10-15 years there has been an ENORMOUS increase in GD, and that it "mysteriously" it centers around financially secure girls in affluent countries. (social contagion seems an extremely parsimonious explanation for this.)
- I AM saying that GAC is only about 13 years old - it started with the "Dutch Protocol"

 

[icehorse]

Let the individual and health care providers guide and decide these things. That is the only appropriate response to healthcare, especially when it's other people.

There have been medical scandals in the past, and IMO we're experiencing one now with GAC. In the US, the business of medicine is entrenched in defending GAC. It's a cash cow via the abhorrent mechanism of medicalizing kids for life. And when GAC collapses, the business of medicine in the US will be facing a tidal wave of lawsuits.

On this issue, "healthcare providers" if not corrupt themselves are driven by those who are corrupt. And again, medicine is an extremely broad discipline. It is extremely common for individual healthcare providers to rely on the protocols of specialists. But in this case, the "specialists" are corrupt.

So no, let's not sit back and let this scandal proceed. Let's put an end to it ASAP.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey, an honest post!

The GAC propaganda would have us believe that we can eat our cake and have it too. We cannot. Hormones are dangerous and have irreversible side effects.

So IF, and it's a big, huge, gravel-hauling IF, we could find ways to make social transitioning, and puberty blockers and hormones all safe and reversible, you might have an argument in favor of GAC for kids.

But none of those interventions are safe or reversible.

In your opinion.
You are not a medical professional, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't see puberty blockers or hormones as safe or reversible. Can you provide evidence? Thanks.

 

[icehorse]

In your opinion.
You are not a medical professional, as far as I'm aware.

Pretty much everyone on this site is relying on authorities. I think the US's healthcare system is corrupt, do you disagree? Further, I think the European countries who have backed away from GAC provide better healthcare then the US does.

Finally, it defies common sense to imagine we can screw around with extremely complex human bodies using crude drugs and NOT have negative side effects.

So again, those who claim "no side effects" are making an extraordinary claim, and I await their extraordinarily good evidence. All the evidence the Cass report found was of low quality, i.e. not good enough to base medical interventions on.

 

[Argentbear]

I don't see puberty blockers or hormones as safe or reversible. Can you provide evidence? Thanks.

Puberty blockers have been in use for over 40 years and tens of thousands of children have been on them usually for medical conditions like precocious puberty. Puberty blockers pause puberty and when you stop taking the medication puberty picks up where it lest off.

 

[Argentbear]

Pretty much everyone on this site is relying on authorities. I think the US's healthcare system is corrupt, do you disagree? Further, I think the European countries who have backed away from GAC provide better healthcare then the US does.

Finally, it defies common sense to imagine we can screw around with extremely complex human bodies using crude drugs and NOT have negative side effects.

So again, those who claim "no side effects" are making an extraordinary claim, and I await their extraordinarily good evidence.

the claim that the US's healthcare system is corrupt is an extraordinary claim

All the evidence the Cass report found was of low quality, i.e. not good enough to base medical interventions on.

except the Cass report refused to look at the majority of studies

 

[icehorse]

the claim that the US's healthcare system is corrupt is an extraordinary claim

Really? Why are our prescription drug prices many times higher than in so many other countries? Why does getting ill bankrupt so many families? I could go on and on. The US healthcare system is run like a for-profit business, not like a human right all people should have.

except the Cass report refused to look at the majority of studies

I will ask you again, what are your specific thoughts about the process Cass's team used? It is outlined in pages 46-64 of the report as I recall.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason why I like the idea is, it is logical and reasonable. But, obviously this depends on what meaning we give to the word "gender". If there is more than 2 genders, I think the word gender has no reasonable use or meaning.

Other ideas are as logical & reasonable.
I'm only objecting to dogmatic devotion
to a single of the several approaches.
To include non-binary is useful.
To discard it as not one of the 2 genders
strikes me as unnecessary & dysfunctional.

 

[Kathryn]

Puberty blockers have been in use for over 40 years and tens of thousands of children have been on them usually for medical conditions like precocious puberty. Puberty blockers pause puberty and when you stop taking the medication puberty picks up where it lest off.

Please give me a source. Thanks.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah the contagion thing. Based on a retracted study Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria by Lisa Littman. Littman surveyed parents of trans youth but recruited her sample from websites aimed at parents who reject the idea that their children could be transgender and opened the interview with a statement of exactly what she was looking to find.

Are you denying that in the last 10-15 years there has been an exponential growth in reports of GD?

If you don't deny that, then to what do you attribute this massive spike?

First you have again made the unsupported claim that children presenting with gender dysphoria are just "confused"

For the most part they are. Maybe they will end up being trans, but if given talk therapy, most will not. And couple that with the fact that most of these GD kids also have other mental health comorbidities, and I think "confused" is a fair generalization.

Second you have again presented the false claim that gender affirming care prioritizes drugs and surgery for every one

We're in a long exchange here. It is common in such conversations / debates to build new statements on prior statements. In this case I've said several times earlier, that I'm in favor of talk therapy for kids with GD. And I have been clear that I opposed those instances in which social transitioning, and/or drugs, and/or surgeries are used. So there, I'm not going to keep repeating myself, keep up with the conversation.

I posted "DO I think for one second you will be honest enough to look at it? Nope, You will dismiss it out of hand" and you have proven me correct.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand, I did simple math. Let me put this a different way: You provided a list of perhaps a dozen studies, correct? Cass looked at hundreds of studies.

And again, Cass describes the team's methodology on pages 46-64. What aspoects of that methodology do you disagree with? How would you suggest improving the methodologies of meta-studies?

 

[Argentbear]

Really? Why are our prescription drug prices many times higher than in so many other countries? Why does getting ill bankrupt so many families? I could go on and on. The US healthcare system is run like a for-profit business, not like a human right all people should have.



I will ask you again, what are your specific thoughts about the process Cass's team used? It is outlined in pages 46-64 of the report as I recall.

The Review talks about evidence quality and does not define it. Standard research evaluation uses designations “high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “very low” are used to describe evidence. Cass uses its own quality descriptors “weak” and “poor” over 30 times in the report.

The Review fixates on evidence quality to the exclusion of many other factors that are rigorously considered by the developers of clinical practice guidelines In developing guidelines that provide recommendations on clinical care, panels of experts consider the evidence of a treatment’s efficacy. They also consider the benefits and harms of both treatment and no treatment, patients’ values and preferences, and the resources required to offer treatment. This is why evidence quality is not synonymous with clinical recommendations.

The Review does not describe the positive outcomes of gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youth, including improved body
satisfaction, appearance congruence, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, and mental health, as well as reduced suicidality. The Review does not consider the harms of not offering gender-affirming medical care to a young person with gender dysphoria. The Review does engage with transgender young people, but it often makes recommendations that conflict with their expressed values and wants. The Review completely disregards the expressed values and preferences of transgender youth in its most emphatic recommendation, which is to limit care to research settings that do not exist.

Proponents of restrictions on healthcare for transgender youth often call attention to the purported absence of high-quality evidence in this field. If high-quality evidence were a prerequisite for medical care, half of medicine woudl vanish. There is no high quality evidence for example that statin drugs reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease

 

[Argentbear]

Are you denying that in the last 10-15 years there has been an exponential growth in reports of GD?

3% growth is not exponential

If you don't deny that, then to what do you attribute this massive spike?

3% isn't massive.

but that aside how about increased societal awareness, acceptance of transgender identities, and improved access to healthcare related to gender affirming care

For the most part they are.

no evidence

Maybe they will end up being trans, but if given talk therapy, most will not.

no evidence

And couple that with the fact that most of these GD kids also have other mental health comorbidities, and I think "confused" is a fair generalization.

It isn't. The label is used to diminish the kids as either living in a fantasy or just to stupid to know what they experience.

We're in a long exchange here. It is common in such conversations / debates to build new statements on prior statements. In this case I've said several times earlier, that I'm in favor of talk therapy for kids with GD. And I have been clear that I opposed those instances in which social transitioning, and/or drugs, and/or surgeries are used. So there, I'm not going to keep repeating myself, keep up with the conversation.

Personal prejudice is not a reason to deny anyone the opportunity to make informed choices

I didn't dismiss it out of hand, I did simple math. Let me put this a different way: You provided a list of perhaps a dozen studies, correct? Cass looked at hundreds of studies.

The Cass study didn't look at any studies on mental health outcomes

 

[icehorse]

The Review talks about evidence quality and does not define it. Standard research evaluation uses designations “high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “very low” are used to describe evidence. Cass uses its own quality descriptors “weak” and “poor” over 30 times in the report.

Doesn't seem like much of a problem. Are you struggling to compare "low" with "weak" or "poor"?

The Review fixates on evidence quality to the exclusion of many other factors that are rigorously considered by the developers of clinical practice guidelines In developing guidelines that provide recommendations on clinical care, panels of experts consider the evidence of a treatment’s efficacy. They also consider the benefits and harms of both treatment and no treatment, patients’ values and preferences, and the resources required to offer treatment. This is why evidence quality is not synonymous with clinical recommendations.

I'm guessing that you're other people's reviews of Cass as opposed to reading or skimming the report yourself? I ask because in my reading / skimming of the report, they spend a lot of time discussing all the things above that your source says they don't discuss.

The Review does not describe the positive outcomes of gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youth, including improved body
satisfaction, appearance congruence, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, and mental health, as well as reduced suicidality. The Review does not consider the harms of not offering gender-affirming medical care to a young person with gender dysphoria. The Review does engage with transgender young people, but it often makes recommendations that conflict with their expressed values and wants. The Review completely disregards the expressed values and preferences of transgender youth in its most emphatic recommendation, which is to limit care to research settings that do not exist.

Again, that's simply wrong. For example the report discusses the fact that there just isn't much data of any kind concerning long term outcomes.

Do you think we have good data on long term outocmes? That would be interesting given how recent the spike in GD is...

Proponents of restrictions on healthcare for transgender youth often call attention to the purported absence of high-quality evidence in this field. If high-quality evidence were a prerequisite for medical care, half of medicine woudl vanish. There is no high quality evidence for example that statin drugs reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease

In general doctors balance risk and benefits, correct? The big problem the GAC cohort has is that they have no good data on the benefits, and we know the risks are high. So we hear from the likes of WPATH that GAC "saves lives", but there is no good evidence to support that claim. Further, we have no good evidence about long term benefits of GAC. And as the wave of detransers grows we are likely to find that the long term benefits are dubious for many kids.

Let me ask you this, do you agree that GD is a mental health disorder?

 

[icehorse]

3% isn't massive.

but that aside how about increased societal awareness, acceptance of transgender identities, and improved access to healthcare related to gender affirming care

The graph on page 72 of the Cass report shows that in 2009 in the UK there were ~50 GD referrals and by 2016 there were over 1700 referrals.

So we're using different sources to get our data. Where exactly did oyu get your 3% number?

The rest of your responses aren't worth my time to respond to. I've made my points on this thread. I will summarize them one last time, not for your benefit, you seem to be locked in to supporting the corrupt WPATH organization for reasons I cannot guess at.

My summary points:

- The WPATH files clearly show that WPATH does NOT do quality research, they make it up as they go along.
- WPATH has an outsized influence on GAC throughout the west. (It's interesting to note that GD mostly occurs only in Europe and NA.)

- There has been a huge spike in GD in the last 10-15 years - social contagion is the most parsimonious explanation for this.
- The Cass report - which has been well received by many countries in Europe with superior healthcare systems - summarizes that the evidence for the benefits of GAC are of consistently low quality.
- The dangers of most of the GAC protocols (social transitioning, drugs, and surgeries) are well known.

So we have a corrupt group (WPATH), acting as "specialists" for GD, and we have overworked doctors assuming that WPATH's protocols are in fact based in good science, which they are not.

You get the last word, all of my claims are easy for interested people to verify.

Have yourself a fine day @Argentbear

 

[SkepticThinker]

Already answered.

Being transgender affects one physically, medically and psychologically. Being left handed does not.

So what?

Use google.for normal medical definition.

What on earth does left-handedness have to do with anything medical?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, within XX and XY - it is that simple and we should be kind to those who are struggling with idendity.

It's actually much more complicated that that.
Biology can be very messy.

What you are referencing are “anomalies” to which have to be medically treated.to bring them back to what it was suppose to be.

Being left-handed is an anomoly.
Being gay is an anomaly.
Being extremely tall or short is an anomaly.
Etc.

It's as though the characteristics of human beings fall along a spectrum or something.

But it is a one way street. You try to bring anomalies back to normalcy not normalcy to anomalies.

Who says?

 

[Kenny]

It's actually much more complicated that that.
Biology can be very messy.

Not really… science is science.

Being left-handed is an anomoly.

No… it isn’t an anomaly any more than being brown is an anomaly. Going by common understanding of what anomaly is.

Being gay is an anomaly.

No. It isn’t an anomaly, it is a choice.

Being extremely tall or short is an anomaly.

No… it isn’t necessarily an anomaly. It can be if you are 15 feet tall due to or 3 feet tall due to anomalies in genetic makeup which aren’t normal.

Etc.

It's as though the characteristics of human beings fall along a spectrum or something.

There is a spectrum of normal but I wouldn’t call them anomalies.

Who says?

Logic and science. If you have a tumor, it is an anomaly of what the body is supposed to do. You take out the anomaly to conform the body to what is normal. You don’t put tumors in people. It is a one way street.