trans in Texas schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t, thanks for your concern.

[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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

[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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

Exactly. You’re supporting treatments not based on studies and clinical knowledge despite claiming that’s what you want. You’re contradicting yourself. People who are professionals and qualified in this area have already done a systemic review of existing research and concluded there is poor evidence to support the gender affirmation model. What you are really in favor of is medical experimentation on children based on ideology not science.

[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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

No, I’m not. What I’m doing is challenging your poorly informed ideas. What I hear from people like you, and the other people obsessed with trans kids does not even closely resemble the trans people I know in real life. You are on this rampage, and haven’t even noticed the difference in a social transition vs a medical one. You think there’s a one-size-fits-all care approach to non-binary and trans people, when I know that is not true. You are claiming to be concerned about kids, but I find that claim to be dubious. If you cared about what this kind of rhetoric does to trans kids, you’d shut your mouth. You’d realize that “opposing” treatment protocols is nothing more than you spewing your non-medical opinion on the internet. It’s not actually helping anyone. It makes the conversation harder to have when everyone thinks they get a say in how trans people are allowed to exist. You don’t get a say. No one asked you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

No, I’m not. What I’m doing is challenging your poorly informed ideas. What I hear from people like you, and the other people obsessed with trans kids does not even closely resemble the trans people I know in real life. You are on this rampage, and haven’t even noticed the difference in a social transition vs a medical one. You think there’s a one-size-fits-all care approach to non-binary and trans people, when I know that is not true. You are claiming to be concerned about kids, but I find that claim to be dubious. If you cared about what this kind of rhetoric does to trans kids, you’d shut your mouth. You’d realize that “opposing” treatment protocols is nothing more than you spewing your non-medical opinion on the internet. It’s not actually helping anyone. It makes the conversation harder to have when everyone thinks they get a say in how trans people are allowed to exist. You don’t get a say. No one asked you.

I'm literally saying there needs to be more medical research before we settle on surgery and puberty blockers as the regular course of treatment. That's it. You are opposing the use of medical research. Not by me, moron, by medical researchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

No, I’m not. What I’m doing is challenging your poorly informed ideas. What I hear from people like you, and the other people obsessed with trans kids does not even closely resemble the trans people I know in real life. You are on this rampage, and haven’t even noticed the difference in a social transition vs a medical one. You think there’s a one-size-fits-all care approach to non-binary and trans people, when I know that is not true. You are claiming to be concerned about kids, but I find that claim to be dubious. If you cared about what this kind of rhetoric does to trans kids, you’d shut your mouth. You’d realize that “opposing” treatment protocols is nothing more than you spewing your non-medical opinion on the internet. It’s not actually helping anyone. It makes the conversation harder to have when everyone thinks they get a say in how trans people are allowed to exist. You don’t get a say. No one asked you.

I'm literally saying there needs to be more medical research before we settle on surgery and puberty blockers as the regular course of treatment. That's it. You are opposing the use of medical research. Not by me, moron, by medical researchers.

+100 The poster clearly lacks reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

+1
Every thread dissolves to this regardless if medical transition was ever mentioned. This teacher was nothing but a hateful bully. Sees the kid in front of him yet marks him absent. That’s a dick move and it was meant to be.

[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."

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.

Man, the absolute blinders you want people to adopt is bonkers. “Shut up, sit down, don’t think” is the new motto of the left I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

No, I’m not. What I’m doing is challenging your poorly informed ideas. What I hear from people like you, and the other people obsessed with trans kids does not even closely resemble the trans people I know in real life. You are on this rampage, and haven’t even noticed the difference in a social transition vs a medical one. You think there’s a one-size-fits-all care approach to non-binary and trans people, when I know that is not true. You are claiming to be concerned about kids, but I find that claim to be dubious. If you cared about what this kind of rhetoric does to trans kids, you’d shut your mouth. You’d realize that “opposing” treatment protocols is nothing more than you spewing your non-medical opinion on the internet. It’s not actually helping anyone. It makes the conversation harder to have when everyone thinks they get a say in how trans people are allowed to exist. You don’t get a say. No one asked you.

I'm literally saying there needs to be more medical research before we settle on surgery and puberty blockers as the regular course of treatment. That's it. You are opposing the use of medical research. Not by me, moron, by medical researchers.

Why do you believe it’s the regular course of treatment?

[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."

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.

Man, the absolute blinders you want people to adopt is bonkers. “Shut up, sit down, don’t think” is the new motto of the left I guess.

It’s almost as if I have a whole lifetime of experience of being in the LGBT community, and I’m tired of the cis-het keyboard warriors drawing boxes for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

No, I’m not. What I’m doing is challenging your poorly informed ideas. What I hear from people like you, and the other people obsessed with trans kids does not even closely resemble the trans people I know in real life. You are on this rampage, and haven’t even noticed the difference in a social transition vs a medical one. You think there’s a one-size-fits-all care approach to non-binary and trans people, when I know that is not true. You are claiming to be concerned about kids, but I find that claim to be dubious. If you cared about what this kind of rhetoric does to trans kids, you’d shut your mouth. You’d realize that “opposing” treatment protocols is nothing more than you spewing your non-medical opinion on the internet. It’s not actually helping anyone. It makes the conversation harder to have when everyone thinks they get a say in how trans people are allowed to exist. You don’t get a say. No one asked you.

It may come as a brutal shock to you, but stamping your feet and demanding that people don’t think, don’t read, don’t have opinions, and basically act as intelligently as a potted plant is not really going to convince people you have the winning argument.

There are extremely detailed articles and books written by very good investigative journalists on this topic. Hannah Barnes’s book is getting shortlisted for prestigious awards for investigative journalism. Well-respected mainstream publications are discussing the lack of evidence for medical transition of children. But you maintain that those books shouldn’t be published, that people shouldn’t read, that newspapers shouldn’t have even mildly critical articles, that all dissent on this topic be silenced unless you are the treating physician of a trans person or the trans child themselves?

Here is an answer: No. Absolutely not. I will never, ever turn off my brain the way you are demanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

Man, the absolute blinders you want people to adopt is bonkers. “Shut up, sit down, don’t think” is the new motto of the left I guess.

It’s almost as if I have a whole lifetime of experience of being in the LGBT community, and I’m tired of the cis-het keyboard warriors drawing boxes for us.

Good luck with telling people not to read, analyze, or think. That will certainly convince people you know what you are talking about!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

No, I’m not. What I’m doing is challenging your poorly informed ideas. What I hear from people like you, and the other people obsessed with trans kids does not even closely resemble the trans people I know in real life. You are on this rampage, and haven’t even noticed the difference in a social transition vs a medical one. You think there’s a one-size-fits-all care approach to non-binary and trans people, when I know that is not true. You are claiming to be concerned about kids, but I find that claim to be dubious. If you cared about what this kind of rhetoric does to trans kids, you’d shut your mouth. You’d realize that “opposing” treatment protocols is nothing more than you spewing your non-medical opinion on the internet. It’s not actually helping anyone. It makes the conversation harder to have when everyone thinks they get a say in how trans people are allowed to exist. You don’t get a say. No one asked you.

It may come as a brutal shock to you, but stamping your feet and demanding that people don’t think, don’t read, don’t have opinions, and basically act as intelligently as a potted plant is not really going to convince people you have the winning argument.

There are extremely detailed articles and books written by very good investigative journalists on this topic. Hannah Barnes’s book is getting shortlisted for prestigious awards for investigative journalism. Well-respected mainstream publications are discussing the lack of evidence for medical transition of children. But you maintain that those books shouldn’t be published, that people shouldn’t read, that newspapers shouldn’t have even mildly critical articles, that all dissent on this topic be silenced unless you are the treating physician of a trans person or the trans child themselves?

Here is an answer: No. Absolutely not. I will never, ever turn off my brain the way you are demanding.

Do you get legal advice from your dentist? Tax advice from your lawn guy?

No one gives a shit what you think, and you believing your opinion matters does actual harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very well stated.

[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."

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.

You're the one that is backing a specific regime of treatments.

I think it's the Texas legislature which is banning a specific regime of treatments.