trans in Texas schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You are arguing with people not able to critically assess your points because they have fully bought into the idea that if you dont trans the kids, they will die. They think that if you don't rush to surgery, the kid will commit suicide. So when you say, hold up, the evidence of this being helpful is weak and the evidence of it being harmful is much stronger, they can't comprehend how that is a reasonable and indeed compassionate concern. They literally think these kids are dropping like flies, dying off due to a lack of affirmation-- surgical and otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you stop to ask yourself why that was in quotation marks? It denotes the use of sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

It has helped them find a treatment plan that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You are arguing with people not able to critically assess your points because they have fully bought into the idea that if you dont trans the kids, they will die. They think that if you don't rush to surgery, the kid will commit suicide. So when you say, hold up, the evidence of this being helpful is weak and the evidence of it being harmful is much stronger, they can't comprehend how that is a reasonable and indeed compassionate concern. They literally think these kids are dropping like flies, dying off due to a lack of affirmation-- surgical and otherwise.

Way to project. We don’t all think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

It has helped them find a treatment plan that works.

You found a treatment plan for a trans kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

It has helped them find a treatment plan that works.

You found a treatment plan for a trans kid?

No, I am not a doctor specializing in this. When the research looks at outcomes for the use of puberty blockers or surgeries, they determine the efficacy of the treatment. And then based on those studies, the medical community is able to determine which treatments work in various circumstances. This helps doctors come up with more effective treatment plans for their patients. All medical research works this way, BTW. Not unique to gender dysphoria treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You are arguing with people not able to critically assess your points because they have fully bought into the idea that if you dont trans the kids, they will die. They think that if you don't rush to surgery, the kid will commit suicide. So when you say, hold up, the evidence of this being helpful is weak and the evidence of it being harmful is much stronger, they can't comprehend how that is a reasonable and indeed compassionate concern. They literally think these kids are dropping like flies, dying off due to a lack of affirmation-- surgical and otherwise.

Way to project. We don’t all think that.

What would be your reason for not wanting treatments to be based on the best available research, then? I could see if you are so terrified that kids will kill themselves that you wouldn't care that much about efficacy of treatment because you believe the alternative is death. It is much less clear why you'd be supportive of treatments that the best research shows tends to be ineffective and comes with very high health risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You are arguing with people not able to critically assess your points because they have fully bought into the idea that if you dont trans the kids, they will die. They think that if you don't rush to surgery, the kid will commit suicide. So when you say, hold up, the evidence of this being helpful is weak and the evidence of it being harmful is much stronger, they can't comprehend how that is a reasonable and indeed compassionate concern. They literally think these kids are dropping like flies, dying off due to a lack of affirmation-- surgical and otherwise.

Way to project. We don’t all think that.

What would be your reason for not wanting treatments to be based on the best available research, then? I could see if you are so terrified that kids will kill themselves that you wouldn't care that much about efficacy of treatment because you believe the alternative is death. It is much less clear why you'd be supportive of treatments that the best research shows tends to be ineffective and comes with very high health risks.

This is the exact question I’m wondering as well. Without solid protocols based on longterm studies and research doctors are essentially experimenting on kids hoping for the best. Some of the potential longterm health risks can be osteoporosis, infertility, increase risk of heart disease and stroke, cancer, inability to orgasm if puberty blockers started early, sexual dysfunction, uterine atrophy leading to a need for a hysterectomy and premature death. A body is not designed to run on cross sex hormones and there is always a price to be paid. You better be sure it is worth it and for some adults it is but there’s no way a child can consent to all of that especially when we don’t have longterm studies.

[Anonymous]

This thread isn’t about medical transitioning. It’s about a teacher refusing to use a preferred name. Regardless of how you feel about medical treatment for trans kids, can’t we all agree it’s rude to single out one child and not use the name they prefer while allowing other kids to use nicknames? Especially after the parents approved the name and school administrators told the teacher to use the name?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You are arguing with people not able to critically assess your points because they have fully bought into the idea that if you dont trans the kids, they will die. They think that if you don't rush to surgery, the kid will commit suicide. So when you say, hold up, the evidence of this being helpful is weak and the evidence of it being harmful is much stronger, they can't comprehend how that is a reasonable and indeed compassionate concern. They literally think these kids are dropping like flies, dying off due to a lack of affirmation-- surgical and otherwise.

Way to project. We don’t all think that.

What would be your reason for not wanting treatments to be based on the best available research, then? I could see if you are so terrified that kids will kill themselves that you wouldn't care that much about efficacy of treatment because you believe the alternative is death. It is much less clear why you'd be supportive of treatments that the best research shows tends to be ineffective and comes with very high health risks.

I do want treatments based on studies and clinical knowledge. I don’t think you are qualified to make decisions or even treatment suggestions for other people. Unless you’re a doctor specializing in this, your opinion isn’t needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

The problem is a different issue. It’s the individual that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

It has helped them find a treatment plan that works.

You found a treatment plan for a trans kid?

No, I am not a doctor specializing in this. When the research looks at outcomes for the use of puberty blockers or surgeries, they determine the efficacy of the treatment. And then based on those studies, the medical community is able to determine which treatments work in various circumstances. This helps doctors come up with more effective treatment plans for their patients. All medical research works this way, BTW. Not unique to gender dysphoria treatment.

There you have it. These rest if pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

It has helped them find a treatment plan that works.

You found a treatment plan for a trans kid?

No, I am not a doctor specializing in this. When the research looks at outcomes for the use of puberty blockers or surgeries, they determine the efficacy of the treatment. And then based on those studies, the medical community is able to determine which treatments work in various circumstances. This helps doctors come up with more effective treatment plans for their patients. All medical research works this way, BTW. Not unique to gender dysphoria treatment.

There you have it. These rest if pointless.

By that standard, you also are not entitled to have an opinion on the issue either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

That doesn’t answer my question. What has opposing medical treatment for trans kids done to help this problem? Literally, what has it done for anyone?

The problem is a different issue. It’s the individual that matters.

I’m asking for specifics on specifically how that poster opposing gender affirming care made one bit of different to anyone?