trans in Texas schools

[Anonymous]

Major medical associations — including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry — agree that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate and can be life-saving treatment for children and adults.

——-
CNN. August 4, 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

That’s what happens when you politicize medical care. Did you want to do the same for the leprosy problem in Florida too?

I’m opting out of your stupid, f-n game.

I wonder how a disease endemic in third world countries suddenly started becoming endemic in Florida? How how how???

Armadillos + poverty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors…”

Who says this is the case? Other than people like Matt Walsh.

Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Major medical associations — including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry — agree that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate and can be life-saving treatment for children and adults.

——-
CNN. August 4, 2023

Ideological capture. They are refusing requests by their own members to review the evidence.

https://genspect.org/an-open-letter-to-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Major medical associations — including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry — agree that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate and can be life-saving treatment for children and adults.

——-
CNN. August 4, 2023

Ideological capture. They are refusing requests by their own members to review the evidence.

https://genspect.org/an-open-letter-to-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/

+100 Stop blindly following and believing everything you read and hear from so called "authorities" and look at the actual research and history of this whole movement. Learn about the powerful people and money behind it. Jennifer Bilek has done extensive research on this. The lack of critical thinking and dumbing down of Americans has led people to be easily manipulated and swayed by emotional arguments while reality and actual science is ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors…”

Who says this is the case? Other than people like Matt Walsh.

Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/amp/

They still allow blockers. They haven’t outright banned them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors…”

Who says this is the case? Other than people like Matt Walsh.

Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/amp/

They still allow blockers. They haven’t outright banned them.

“Currently, minors in most European countries can access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, but only if they meet stringent eligibility conditions. And, this is increasingly done in the context of a tightly controlled research setting.”

Ask yourself why are the US medical associations not adopting similar protocols? It’s because of ideological capture not science and idiot sheep are going along with it. It’s the same reason why people thought Lia Thomas had no biological advantages and agreed with her competing. I’m embarrassed how dumb people have become by going along with this stuff.

[Anonymous]

What has opposing these things done to help you “solve” the problem of kids being trans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This situation seems very silly. I sympathize with the teacher.

Says a lot about you and your mean spiritedness. You think bullying minors is fine. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors…”

Who says this is the case? Other than people like Matt Walsh.

Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/amp/

They still allow blockers. They haven’t outright banned them.

They have severely restricted their use. Effectively they have outright banned them for children. They will only be permitted in exceptionally rare cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation seems very silly. I sympathize with the teacher.

Says a lot about you and your mean spiritedness. You think bullying minors is fine. Wow.

Nothing in the OP indicates bullying. Just that when this teacher reads the roster for attendance, he reads the name that the parents submitted.

It's hard not to sympathize with teachers these days. They can get sued for reading the legal name submitted; sued for using a preferred name that wasn't submitted. This teacher is just trying to stay on the right side of the law and keep his job, and everyone is attacking him and not questioning why the parents didn't just submit the preferred name to the school. It's wrong to expect teachers to go out on a limb legally in order to accommodate people who are frankly too lazy to correct the name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

That’s what happens when you politicize medical care. Did you want to do the same for the leprosy problem in Florida too?

I’m opting out of your stupid, f-n game.

So, let me get this straight. You don’t want to ask any questions at all about the current protocols of medicalized transition for children in the US — despite growing international consensus that the US protocol of care is both wrong and harmful — because you are mad that the Republicans politicized abortion? Is that what you mean? That you will blindly accept literally anything the Democrats support in healthcare because abortion?

I’m sorry, but that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve read in a long, long time. Just use your head for once. Try it.

I’m very pro-choice. And I also look at the growing international evidence of the harms of medicalized youth transition—which are well-documented by rational experts abroad—and I think the US has a very serious problem. What we are doing here is medically wrong, and it’s hurting children. I can be both pro-choice and look at scientific evidence of something “my side” is pushing and say it’s wrong and hurting children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

That’s what happens when you politicize medical care. Did you want to do the same for the leprosy problem in Florida too?

I’m opting out of your stupid, f-n game.

So, let me get this straight. You don’t want to ask any questions at all about the current protocols of medicalized transition for children in the US — despite growing international consensus that the US protocol of care is both wrong and harmful — because you are mad that the Republicans politicized abortion? Is that what you mean? That you will blindly accept literally anything the Democrats support in healthcare because abortion?

I’m sorry, but that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve read in a long, long time. Just use your head for once. Try it.

I’m very pro-choice. And I also look at the growing international evidence of the harms of medicalized youth transition—which are well-documented by rational experts abroad—and I think the US has a very serious problem. What we are doing here is medically wrong, and it’s hurting children. I can be both pro-choice and look at scientific evidence of something “my side” is pushing and say it’s wrong and hurting children.

It's also disturbing that the term "just asking questions" is now seen as sinister. A curious mind used to be considered essential; liberal arts education focused entirely on building the skill of critical analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What has opposing these things done to help you “solve” the problem of kids being trans?

The medical establishment needs to provide care based on science and research not ideology. When the care deviates from science trouble will ensue. Part of what also needs to be done is understanding why there has been a surge of teenagers identifying as transgender especially girls when it used to be very rare primarily affecting males. A good start would be the US adopting a more cautious approach similar to other countries. A child's future fertility and sexual function is potentially on the line along with other permanent effects. Why would you not want protocols based on strong science and research?

"A series of Europe-based systematic reviews of evidence for the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have shown a low certainty of benefits. Specifically, longitudinal data collected and analyzed by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and England have concluded that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

That’s what happens when you politicize medical care. Did you want to do the same for the leprosy problem in Florida too?

I’m opting out of your stupid, f-n game.

So, let me get this straight. You don’t want to ask any questions at all about the current protocols of medicalized transition for children in the US — despite growing international consensus that the US protocol of care is both wrong and harmful — because you are mad that the Republicans politicized abortion? Is that what you mean? That you will blindly accept literally anything the Democrats support in healthcare because abortion?

I’m sorry, but that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve read in a long, long time. Just use your head for once. Try it.

I’m very pro-choice. And I also look at the growing international evidence of the harms of medicalized youth transition—which are well-documented by rational experts abroad—and I think the US has a very serious problem. What we are doing here is medically wrong, and it’s hurting children. I can be both pro-choice and look at scientific evidence of something “my side” is pushing and say it’s wrong and hurting children.

Are you an endocrinologist? Pediatrician?

I don’t have an opinion on trans kids and their healthcare, because I’m not qualified to give an informed opinion. I do know several trans people. Only one takes hormones, and didn’t start until she was an adult. The absolute obsession with sex reassignment surgery is absurd when most trans people don’t ever get that surgery. Like, it’s definitely creepy.

You invited yourself into a space where you weren’t invited to tell trans people how they should and should not live. “But who will think of the children!!” is disingenuous.