Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[ShanDog]

Why is it appropriate for trans kids though

Why is this treatment safe for everyone but trans kids

Look, it might turn out that after a whole lot of actual research specific to their use in gender affirming care and not other tangential uses that are often incorrectly cited as a justification for them, that some adolescents are absolutely going to benefit from puberty blockers. However, that research doesn't exist yet, which is why they shouldn't be used. The main reason people seem to argue that it shouldn't matter is because of the repeated lies that taking puberty blockers doesn't have any long term effects and they are therefore completely reversible, as if (putting aside the well known side effects that can be horrible) we can simply turn back time and stop people aging and simply have them go through puberty later with no negative repercussions.

Evidence first, THEN use them. Particularly when there are very legitimate questions about what the best treatment methods are and what the subsistence rates are without medicinal intervention

 

[Gralin]

Look, it might turn out that after a whole lot of actual research specific to their use in gender affirming care and not other tangential uses that are often incorrectly cited as a justification for them, that some adolescents are absolutely going to benefit from puberty blockers. However, that research doesn't exist yet, which is why they shouldn't be used. The main reason people seem to argue that it shouldn't matter is because of the repeated lies that taking puberty blockers doesn't have any long term effects and they are therefore completely reversible, as if (putting aside the well known side effects that can be horrible) we can simply turn back time and stop people aging and simply have them go through puberty later with no negative repercussions.

Evidence first, THEN use them. Particularly when there are very legitimate questions about what the best treatment methods are and what the subsistence rates are without medicinal intervention

just out of interest shan

how do you get evidence of the benefits of something without using it

and that ignoring how they threw away all the research that did already exist on the topic as "not good enough" so that they could say there was no research on the topic

why is treating gender dysphoria for an intersex kid with puberty blockers different to treating a trans kid with puberty blockers

why are the experts who work in the field dismissed for findings from people who don't work in the field?

 

[ShanDog]

just out of interest shan

how do you get evidence of the benefits of something without using it

I'm so glad you asked, thanks Gralin.

They're called studies. I'm surprised that this is the first you've heard of them, but nevertheless, that's how treatment protocols are established for good reason.

and that ignoring how they threw away all the research that did already exist on the topic as "not good enough" so that they could say there was no research on the topic

Probably because the research wasn't good enough. I don't know what else you want from me or anyone else here. If you disagree with the Cass report (which apparently you only do at cherry picked times when it doesn't suit your views), that's great but ultimately meaningless without any sort of authority to go with it.

why is treating gender dysphoria for an intersex kid with puberty blockers different to treating a trans kid with puberty blockers

A kid with a DSD has a known physiological disorder that MAY require hormone blocking treatment. There are many types of DSD. Some might benefit from puberty blockers and some might not. Same goes for the individual involved. However, the key difference is that a person with gender dysphoria (particularly an adolescent) is basing this of their own self perception. There is very little research and evidence suggest there are any physiological differences in them that justify a medicinal intervention to make physiological changes to their normal developmental pathway when the bulk of evidence suggests that it's a psychological issues.

The difference is very easy to see.

why are the experts who work in the field dismissed for findings from people who don't work in the field?

Sometimes experts in a field are the right people to go to, of course. Sometimes, external reviews are more likely to achieve unbiased results too. This is a well established principle. Your question can be turned around very easily too - why should we trust those with vested interests in the field to produce their own unbiased findings? I'm sure you'd be one of the first people to cry foul when police investigate themselves and then miraculously clear themselves of any wrongdoing. How is this substantially different?

 

[Gralin]

I'm so glad you asked, thanks Gralin.

They're called studies. I'm surprised that this is the first you've heard of them, but nevertheless, that's how treatment protocols are established for good reason.

Yes and those studies would require treating kids with puberty blockers to see whether it helps

neonatal care would basically not exist if we took this method for that though

lets not pretend this is actually about safety or the best interests of these kids, its politics

Probably because the research wasn't good enough. I don't know what else you want from me or anyone else here. If you disagree with the Cass report (which apparently you only do at cherry picked times when it doesn't suit your views), that's great but ultimately meaningless without any sort of authority to go with it.

there has been criticism of the Cass methodology from actual scientists and people that have authority

there should also be critisicm of both the Torries and Labors polices they are using Cass to justify when it doesn't even line up with what Cass recommended

A kid with a DSD has a known physiological disorder that MAY require hormone blocking treatment. There are many types of DSD. Some might benefit from puberty blockers and some might not. Same goes for the individual involved. However, the key difference is that a person with gender dysphoria (particularly an adolescent) is basing this of their own self perception. There is very little research and evidence suggest there are any physiological differences in them that justify a medicinal intervention to make physiological changes to their normal developmental pathway when the bulk of evidence suggests that it's a psychological issues.

The difference is very easy to see.

yes this is what it appears to boil down to for you
you can't quantify it so its not real so it should be treated as such

same arguments were used with gay people as well, conversion therapy was pushed on gay people as well, it was considered a mental illness for decades, laws were made about being gay

its all very familiar but you seem to think this is an entirely new and different thing

Sometimes experts in a field are the right people to go to, of course. Sometimes, external reviews are more likely to achieve unbiased results too. This is a well established principle. Your question can be turned around very easily too - why should we trust those with vested interests in the field to produce their own unbiased findings? I'm sure you'd be one of the first people to cry foul when police investigate themselves and then miraculously clear themselves of any wrongdoing. How is this substantially different?

How is scientific study different to being a cop?

Well Shan if you're making that comparison I have to think you're just being a twat

 

[ShanDog]

Yes and those studies would require treating kids with puberty blockers to see whether it helps

Yes.

there has been criticism of the Cass methodology from actual scientists and people that have authority

there should also be critisicm of both the Torries and Labors polices they are using Cass to justify when it doesn't even line up with what Cass recommended

Yes and also support for the findings by those with authority. So who is right and who is wrong?

I agree with your second point - they should be following the recommendations. That's what they were for.

yes this is what it appears to boil down to for you
you can't quantify it so its not real so it should be treated as such

same arguments were used with gay people as well, conversion therapy was pushed on gay people as well, it was considered a mental illness for decades, laws were made about being gay

its all very familiar but you seem to think this is an entirely new and different thing

I completely reject your assertion that talk and other forms of therapy for gender dysphoric people is conversion therapy, and akin to what happened to homosexuals. That's just not reality.

Why is it that you are so keen to point towards the science until it doesn't suit, such as whether gender dysphoria is a psychological condition? As far as I'm tracking, there's no evidence to suggest anything different.

How is scientific study different to being a cop?

Well Shan if you're making that comparison I have to think you're just being a twat

It's a comparison of PRINCIPLES regarding self-policing or investigation. It could relate to any two organisations with vested interests in not producing adverse findings on themselves (which is basically every bloody organisation of course). That's what makes it a principle...

 

[Gralin]

Yes and also support for the findings by those with authority. So who is right and who is wrong?

the support tends to be from groups that were indirectly involved in the review or that want trans healthcare banned

I agree with your second point - they should be following the recommendations. That's what they were for.

but not how they are being used at all

I completely reject your assertion that talk and other forms of therapy for gender dysphoric people is conversion therapy, and akin to what happened to homosexuals. That's just not reality.

I'm not talking about a purely medical based treatment, that wasn't happening before
I'm talking about the promotion of conversion therapy which is happening, ie not gender affirming care but taking trans kids to a clinic to talk them out of it

not explore their feelings and understanding of the topic, not assessing their reasons and mental health as part of an overall treatment plan that may end up involving puberty blockers and HRT and surgery, but also may not.

just a blanket send them to the people that say its a contagion and they need to be reprogrammed

Why is it that you are so keen to point towards the science until it doesn't suit, such as whether gender dysphoria is a psychological condition? As far as I'm tracking, there's no evidence to suggest anything different.

again i just shared an article by a psychologist talking about their experience working in the NHS in relation to the current ban on puberty blockers and the Cass review

It's a comparison of PRINCIPLES regarding self-policing or investigation. It could relate to any two organisations with vested interests in not producing adverse findings on themselves (which is basically every bloody organisation of course). That's what makes it a principle...

This was also covered in the article I shared. A level of expertise in the field is required, if you bring in someone who a) doesn't have it, and b) doesn't talk to people that have it or that used the service to come to their findings then what are they doing

cops investigating cops is not the same as scientists or medical professionals with experience in the same field reviewing current practices

 

[ShanDog]

This was also covered in the article I shared. A level of expertise in the field is required, if you bring in someone who a) doesn't have it, and b) doesn't talk to people that have it or that used the service to come to their findings then what are they doing

cops investigating cops is not the same as scientists or medical professionals with experience in the same field reviewing current practices

The Cass Review was a literature review, was it not?

You are saying they aren't the same but not providing any reason why that isn't the case. Are you suggesting that medical professionals are so virtuous that they are incapable of having conflicts of interest? Because that's the only possible explanation I can think of that would justify what you're saying, and that's obviously not true.

Everyone reviewing themselves is at risk of bias.

Being external to a system that you are reviewing neither makes you unbiased nor does it make you incapable of producing an unbiased review (or as close to that as humanly possible).

Both of those things are true at the same time.

 

[Sully111]

Is this your way of expressing doubt?

Let me know if I'm right wing. I believe:

There shouldn't be billionaires
More money needs to be spent on welfare and social services
Reduce how much government subsidies dinosaur industries
Increase unemployment benefits substantially
Determine if a UBI is workable
Decriminalisation of the use and posession of hard drugs (but not the sale)
Legalise marijuana use
Abortions should be easy to access by all who want them
Complete separation of church and state
More investment in renewable energies and the industries that make them
Significant government subsidies for installing solar and batteries in homes
Limit investment properties to a certain threshold of value
Totally support same sex marriage
There should be an official treaty signed with the indigenous people of Australia
Australia Day should be moved to a day that actually reflects Australia and not the British

How much more do you want? Or am I still right wing because I don't like the idea of children receiving what amounts to experimental treatment for gender dysphoria and the apparent erasure of the category of womanhood that women spent so long trying to fight for?

You don't need to justify or explain your political leanings because people want to label anyone who cares about what this issue is doing to women and children as hateful.

Rational people who refuse to be caught up in the madness need to stop giving value to the labels thrown at them.

That's honestly the only way we move forward. When the average person feels they can speak honestly without worrying about the viciousness of what will come their way. For too long people have stayed quiet because they really don't care how a transgender person wants to identify. Unfortunately now though things are so insanely out of control if we want to protect our kids we don't have that luxury.

The labels will come. Just don't accept them.

 

[Gralin]

You don't need to justify or explain your political leanings because people want to label anyone who cares about what this issue is doing to women and children as hateful.

Rational people who refuse to be caught up in the madness need to stop giving value to the labels thrown at them.

That's honestly the only way we move forward. When the average person feels they can speak honestly without worrying about the viciousness of what will come their way. For too long people have stayed quiet because they really don't care how a transgender person wants to identify. Unfortunately now though things are so insanely out of control if we want to protect our kids we don't have that luxury.

The labels will come. Just don't accept them.

Protect your kids?
What do you think you're protecting your kids from?

 

[Gralin]

The Cass Review was a literature review, was it not?

You are saying they aren't the same but not providing any reason why that isn't the case. Are you suggesting that medical professionals are so virtuous that they are incapable of having conflicts of interest? Because that's the only possible explanation I can think of that would justify what you're saying, and that's obviously not true.

Everyone reviewing themselves is at risk of bias.

Being external to a system that you are reviewing neither makes you unbiased nor does it make you incapable of producing an unbiased review (or as close to that as humanly possible).

Both of those things are true at the same time.

Keep not replying to what I wrote I guess.

Interesting that you think the best way to review medical treatments or scientific research is by getting people who aren't experts in the field though

 

[ShanDog]

When the average person feels they can speak honestly without worrying about the viciousness of what will come their way.

I 100% agree with this. I also think that the centrists and centre left & right need to recognise that it's ok to not pander to the most extreme in their political "side", hence it's important to establish that yes, and left-leaning person can in fact have dissenting opinions on gender treatment for kids.

 

[ShanDog]

Keep not replying to what I wrote I guess.

Interesting that you think the best way to review medical treatments or scientific research is by getting people who aren't experts in the field though

What didn't I reply to?

Apparently some key people thought Cass was expert enough. Silly them, they should have consulted Gralin about how to go about all this science-y writing stuff.

 

[Gralin]

What didn't I reply to?

Apparently some key people thought Cass was expert enough. Silly them, they should have consulted Gralin about how to go about all this science-y writing stuff.

Some politicians who wanted to ban gender affirming care

Keep making jokes campaigner

 

[Gralin]

Suggesting that research being reviewed by other people with qualifications in the same field is the same as cops investigating themselves is pretty anti science shan

If a government banned treatment for cancer in children after getting a pediatrician who used researchers that didn't support medical interventions for cancer to help them disqualify all research I don't think you'd be being the little joker you are with this

But apparently when it lines up with your ideology it's principles

 

[ShanDog]

Some politicians who wanted to ban gender affirming care

Keep making jokes campaigner

Did I not say politicians should be following the Cass report?

Calm down sunshine. It's unbecoming.

Suggesting that research being reviewed by other people with qualifications in the same field is the same as cops investigating themselves is pretty anti science shan

If a government banned treatment for cancer in children after getting a pediatrician who used researchers that didn't support medical interventions for cancer to help them disqualify all research I don't think you'd be being the little joker you are with this

But apparently when it lines up with your ideology it's principles

You don't understand the point is about conflict of interest and are stuck in this mental loop regarding police when they were used as a simple example. I understand that. It's ok, I forgive you.

 

[10571z]

“The Flying Bats have five transgender players, scored an impressive 59 goals in the Premier League Women’s Division, conceding only three. But their latest 12-0 victory has some continuing to question their participation in female competition.”

Seems fair

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/insulting-womens-soccer-team-with-transgender-players-continue-undefeated-run-in-sydney-league/news-story/efee82f25b57d32dc939539c25084de9?amp&nk=4648cee2be583a11437cbca7586711bc-1721853956

 

[Gralin]

I agree it seems fair

 

[Gralin]

Did I not say politicians should be following the Cass report?

Calm down sunshine. It's unbecoming.


You don't understand the point is about conflict of interest and are stuck in this mental loop regarding police when they were used as a simple example. I understand that. It's ok, I forgive you.

No I keep referring to expertise in a field and you keep calling that a conflict of interest

Like I said if you're not going to reply to the content if my post then whats the point of replying

 

[ShanDog]

No I keep referring to expertise in a field and you keep calling that a conflict of interest

Like I said if you're not going to reply to the content if my post then whats the point of replying

And I clearly acknowledged that expertise within a field was a valid way to review things. I also said that sometimes it's good to have external reviews completed to avoid conflicts of interest, which is such a long-standing and known process that I assume you are taking the absolute piss right now, particularly since you're accusing ME of not replying to the content of your posts. Have a look in the mirror and pull your head in.

 

[10571z]

I agree it seems fair

You are welcome to your opinion. For me it’s not fair and shows the real threat to women’s sports.

 

[Gralin]

You are welcome to your opinion. For me it’s not fair and shows the real threat to women’s sports.

thats the end result of reading the daily telegraph a masthead renowned for its strong feminist ideals

 

[10571z]

thats the end result of reading the daily telegraph a masthead renowned for its strong feminist ideals

Which part of the article was wrong?

 

[Gralin]

And I clearly acknowledged that expertise within a field was a valid way to review things. I also said that sometimes it's good to have external reviews completed to avoid conflicts of interest, which is such a long-standing and known process that I assume you are taking the absolute piss right now, particularly since you're accusing ME of not replying to the content of your posts. Have a look in the mirror and pull your head in.

So you really think that getting someone with no expertise in the medical field being reviewed is the best way to conduct a review that impacts the health of children

That the review using researchers that are linked to gender critical organizations isn't a conflict of interest, but that interviewing trans kids and their families and people that work in the clinics is a conflict of interest

You think that in the field of scientific research that anyone with experience in the field is going to have a conflict of interest that means they can't be impartial but anyone that doesn't work in that field is going to have no bias?

And you like to think you're the adult in the room yeah?

You have no issues with how the Cass review was run or the results or what is happening now in the UK?

 

[Gralin]

Which part of the article was wrong?

It's paywalled

It's also the daily telegraph and I don't need to read the article to know the kind of content they run with daily

Why is a LGBTQIA team being successful in a local football competition even on your radar?

Could it be because the culture war muck rakers at the daily tele found it and published an article?

 

[ShanDog]

So you really think that getting someone with no expertise in the medical field being reviewed is the best way to conduct a review that impacts the health of children

We're talking about principles and processes - it doesn't matter what it affect. Bringing up "the health of children" is just a sensationalist appeal to emotion.

That the review using researchers that are linked to gender critical organizations isn't a conflict of interest, but that interviewing trans kids and their families and people that work in the clinics is a conflict of interest

I don't know about these links. They would be a conflict, yes.

A literature review doesn't interview people. You should know that.

You think that in the field of scientific research that anyone with experience in the field is going to have a conflict of interest that means they can't be impartial but anyone that doesn't work in that field is going to have no bias?

For the nth time, I've quite clearly not said this. IF I PUT IT IN ALL CAPS WILL YOU ACTUALLY GO BACK AND READ THE THINGS I SAID AND WHERE I ALREADY ADDRESSED IT? OR WILL YOU JUST IGNORE THEM AND ACCUSE ME OF BEING THE ONE WHO DOESN'T READ?

And you like to think you're the adult in the room yeah?

When it comes to this conversation, I am quite sure it's not going to be you at the very least.