The LGBTQ protest thread

[DinkleMouse]

So the question is actually simple. Is a 10/11 year old boy or girl mentally and emotionally capable of making the decision to get surgery a decade later?

Surely this varies by the person. But according to the professionals in the fields of physical and mental health, who unlike us are actual experts at answering these questions, they can be. And there are guidelines used by medical professionals (in both physical and mental fields) to make that determination.

What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows

Laws that ban gender-affirming treatment ignore the wealth of research demonstrating its benefits for trans people’s health

www.scientificamerican.com

"Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary."

The two phrases I want to emphasize there are "evidence-based", meaning the scientific method has been applied and a consensus exists among professionals, and "medically necessary" which means there must be a vast improvement of outcomes without sufficient risks of side effects or negative outcomes to offset it.

I say no.

Without even speaking to the individual in question? Without understanding the circumstances? Without any examination of any kind? Are you at all trained, educated or qualified to make that determination? Have you ever even watched a trans child grow from infancy to 10 or 11 to see how they behave? Because the experts have. Most have seen many. Formerly die-hard, anti-trans people have changed their opinion after watching their own child to through it so if you haven't I'm not sure why you think you're qualified.

What about if someone is born with both sets of reproductive organs? How old do they need to be before you think they have a say in what gender they are? Generally that assignment surgery is done at birth without their consent or input at all. You must have a problem with that too?

You say no. Is that "evidence-based"? How many people were in your study? How many formed the control group? How many times was your study replicated and by whom? Did they reach the same conclusions and find the same results? When outcomes are significantly improved, what negatives and at what percentage do they occur to render gender-affirming care not "medically necessary"? If your opinion is "evidence-based", what percentage had negative incomes that outweighed the positive outcomes? What percentage had positive outcomes too? Again, how big was your control group and how often were your results replicated?

Perhaps most importantly, in your own studies, what do you do that differed from the studies conducted by American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endochrine Society, et al to generate different results? Why do you think those changes matter and are relevant? Which peers validated those claims? And why didn't you publish in a scientific journal? Or did you, and if so, which journal?

But if you haven't conducted a study, what makes you think your opinion is more valid than those of the experts? What evidence do you have to support your opinion? Have you even raised children?

 

[Butler1000]

Surely this varies by the person. But according to the professionals in the fields of physical and mental health, who unlike us are actual experts at answering these questions, they can be. And there are guidelines used by medical professionals (in both physical and mental fields) to make that determination.

What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows

Laws that ban gender-affirming treatment ignore the wealth of research demonstrating its benefits for trans people’s health

www.scientificamerican.com

"Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary."

The two phrases I want to emphasize there are "evidence-based", meaning the scientific method has been applied and a consensus exists among professionals, and "medically necessary" which means there must be a vast improvement of outcomes without sufficient risks of side effects or negative outcomes to offset it.


Without even speaking to the individual in question? Without understanding the circumstances? Without any examination of any kind? Are you at all trained, educated or qualified to make that determination? Have you ever even watched a trans child grow from infancy to 10 or 11 to see how they behave? Because the experts have. Most have seen many. Formerly die-hard, anti-trans people have changed their opinion after watching their own child to through it so if you haven't I'm not sure why you think you're qualified.

What about if someone is born with both sets of reproductive organs? How old do they need to be before you think they have a say in what gender they are? Generally that assignment surgery is done at birth without their consent or input at all. You must have a problem with that too?

You say no. Is that "evidence-based"? How many people were in your study? How many formed the control group? How many times was your study replicated and by whom? Did they reach the same conclusions and find the same results? When outcomes are significantly improved, what negatives and at what percentage do they occur to render gender-affirming care not "medically necessary"? If your opinion is "evidence-based", what percentage had negative incomes that outweighed the positive outcomes? What percentage had positive outcomes too? Again, how big was your control group and how often were your results replicated?

Perhaps most importantly, in your own studies, what do you do that differed from the studies conducted by American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endochrine Society, et al to generate different results? Why do you think those changes matter and are relevant? Which peers validated those claims? And why didn't you publish in a scientific journal? Or did you, and if so, which journal?

But if you haven't conducted a study, what makes you think your opinion is more valid than those of the experts? What evidence do you have to support your opinion? Have you even raised children?

It says right in your article THEY DO NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF PUBERTY BLOCKERS.

Beyond that I clearly stated I fully support the use of taxpayer dollars for supports. And eventual transitions.

So thank you for proving my point. I appreciate it.

 

[DinkleMouse]

It says right in your article THEY DO NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF PUBERTY BLOCKERS.

Beyond that I clearly stated I fully support the use of taxpayer dollars for supports. And eventual transitions.

Including age-appropriate treatment at or before age 10-11? The average age for girls to being puberty IS 10 and the guidelines say no puberty blockers or hormones "until the onset of puberty" (which you conveniently left it). You said you were against 10 years olds getting this treatment. You now say you fully support this and it proves your point.

So which is it? Is gender-affirming care, including hormones and puberty blockers, appropriate for 10-11 year olds as per the guidelines of professionals, acceptable, or do you still say no? Because you can't have it both ways.

 

[Butler1000]

Including age-appropriate treatment at or before age 10-11? The average age for girls to being puberty IS 10 and the guidelines say no puberty blockers or hormones "until the onset of puberty" (which you conveniently left it). You said you were against 10 years olds getting this treatment. You now say you fully support this and it proves your point.

So which is it? Is gender-affirming care, including hormones and puberty blockers, appropriate for 10-11 year olds as per the guidelines of professionals, acceptable, or do you still say no? Because you can't have it both ways.

Gender affirming care as a broad statement. Involving many things. I believe (as do the doctors) to NOT use puberty blockers. You give them the mental health support as they go through puberty. Then when they turn 18 they can make decisions about drugs and surgery.

There is evidence as well that naturally gay kids can confuse their natural attraction to the same sex and effeminate and masculine traits with actual transgenderism. And there is a difference.

So let them mature, explore their sexuality, and continue to recieve mental health support while it gets figured out. Because the drugs and surgery have very real consequences that can't be reversed.

 

[Valcazar]

Without even speaking to the individual in question? Without understanding the circumstances? Without any examination of any kind? Are you at all trained, educated or qualified to make that determination? Have you ever even watched a trans child grow from infancy to 10 or 11 to see how they behave? Because the experts have. Most have seen many. Formerly die-hard, anti-trans people have changed their opinion after watching their own child to through it so if you haven't I'm not sure why you think you're qualified.

These are not things that Butler feels he needs to concern himself with.

"I think this is icky and don't like it. Therefore it is bad. Therefore everything I believe might be secretly going on that proves it is bad is actually true."

That's how this works.

 

[Valcazar]

It says right in your article THEY DO NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF PUBERTY BLOCKERS.

Just because you have a track record of not reading things beyond the first line you think supports what you have already decided is true, or not understanding things you do bother to read, would you care to point out exactly where that is said in the article? (You can screenshot the whole paragraph, or give the paragraph number or whatever.)

 

[Butler1000]

Just because you have a track record of not reading things beyond the first line you think supports what you have already decided is true, or not understanding things you do bother to read, would you care to point out exactly where that is said in the article? (You can screenshot the whole paragraph, or give the paragraph number or whatever.)

Paragragh 9.

 

[Butler1000]

These are not things that Butler feels he needs to concern himself with.

"I think this is icky and don't like it. Therefore it is bad. Therefore everything I believe might be secretly going on that proves it is bad is actually true."

That's how this works.

So when I say I fully support it, that's your take away?

 

[Valcazar]

So when I say I fully support it, that's your take away?

That you're lying to yourself.
But I do generally think that if someone quietly transitions out of the way where you don't have to see it, you won't get too mad.
It's just when you have to notice it because it might disrupt something about the way you think the world works that it seems to upset you.

Paragragh 9.

Thanks.


So these places do support puberty blockers, according to your article.
Not until they start puberty, though, since "there are no hormonal differences among prepubertal children".

They even specify what stage of puberty they support (stage two - presumably Tanner stages).

Those guidelines provide the option of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas), which block the release of sex hormones, once young people are already into the second of five puberty stages—marked by breast budding and pubic hair.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement to Dinklemouse, but the doctors clearly support puberty blockers here, where appropriate (" nly if a teen is not ready to make decisions about puberty").

 

[DinkleMouse]

Gender affirming care as a broad statement. Involving many things. I believe (as do the doctors) to NOT use puberty blockers.

That's not at all what they said. They said to not use puberty blockers until puberty begins. So my question stands: do you agree with all the experts and their associations, as you said they did, or do you not? You can't have it both ways. And if you don't, I again ask you what you used to reach your conclusion? Did you conduct studies? Did those studies comply with the scientific method? Do you at least have training or education in medicine or psychology?

There is evidence as well that naturally gay kids can confuse their natural attraction to the same sex and effeminate and masculine traits with actual transgenderism. And there is a difference.

And are you saying that the medical experts haven't considered this? What's your evidence?

So let them mature, explore their sexuality, and continue to recieve mental health support while it gets figured out. Because the drugs and surgery have very real consequences that can't be reversed.

Why can't they be reversed? The whole idea of the surgery and the drugs are to transition from one sex to the other. Are you really saying we can transition male to female or female to male, but once someone has gone one way we can no longer do it? Are you not aware that some people do detransition (aka "undo" it)? Did you know that number is less than 1%?

You also miss the point where the medical professionals recommend age-appropriate gender-affirming care because it actually helps. One of the main way it helps is reducing suicide. So you say wait until they're adults before you go anything, and yet the professionals are telling you that if you do that, a significant number of them will not make it up adulthood.

 

[Butler1000]

That you're lying to yourself.
But I do generally think that if someone quietly transitions out of the way where you don't have to see it, you won't get too mad.
It's just when you have to notice it because it might disrupt something about the way you think the world works that it seems to upset you.




Thanks.
View attachment 243226

So these places do support puberty blockers, according to your article.
Not until they start puberty, though, since "there are no hormonal differences among prepubertal children".

They even specify what stage of puberty they support (stage two - presumably Tanner stages).

Those guidelines provide the option of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas), which block the release of sex hormones, once young people are already into the second of five puberty stages—marked by breast budding and pubic hair.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement to Dinklemouse, but the doctors clearly support puberty blockers here, where appropriate (" nly if a teen is not ready to make decisions about puberty").

That's not at all what they said. They said to not use puberty blockers until puberty begins. So my question stands: do you agree with all the experts and their associations, as you said they did, or do you not? You can't have it both ways. And if you don't, I again ask you what you used to reach your conclusion? Did you conduct studies? Did those studies comply with the scientific method? Do you at least have training or education in medicine or psychology?




And are you saying that the medical experts haven't considered this? What's your evidence?


Why can't they be reversed? The whole idea of the surgery and the drugs are to transition from one sex to the other. Are you really saying we can transition male to female or female to male, but once someone has gone one way we can no longer do it? Are you not aware that some people do detransition (aka "undo" it)? Did you know that number is less than 1%?

You also miss the point where the medical professionals recommend age-appropriate gender-affirming care because it actually helps. One of the main way it helps is reducing suicide. So you say wait until they're adults before you go anything, and yet the professionals are telling you that if you do that, a significant number of them will not make it up adulthood.

The surgery sterilizes the patient. What part of that don't you understand. And the fact you have such a cavalier attitude about "switching back and forth" tells I just shouldn't take you seriously.

 

[DinkleMouse]

The surgery sterilizes the patient. What part of that don't you understand. And the fact you have such a cavalier attitude about "switching back and forth" tells I just shouldn't take you seriously.

I'm not cavalier, I'm saying is entirely possible for the less than 1% who want to. I don't think less than 1% is significant, do you? That means these treatments help the more than 99% of the others. You want to sacrifice the 99% who are helped for the 1% who me want to go back, and who can but who would simply be sterile in the process? Of that 1%, many likely wouldn't even want children, given that we're seeing less and less people desire kids. So it's not even the entire "less than 1%", it's some subset of the "less than 1%". That's what your advocating for? Punish the 99+% to preserve the reproductive viability of the <1%, some of whom won't even want reproductive viability? You really think that's fair?

You still haven't answered the question though. You said you think 10-11 year olds shouldn't be given puberty blockers is hormone therapy, and you said you agreed with the medical professionals. But the medical professionals said puberty blockers and hormone therapy is indeed recommended in appropriate cases after the onset of puberty, which for girls is, on average, around 10. So which is it? Do you agree with the professionals, who made an evidence-based determination that's medically necessary, or are you saying you know better than them?

 

[Butler1000]

I'm not cavalier, I'm saying is entirely possible for the less than 1% who want to. I don't think less than 1% is significant, do you? That means these treatments help the more than 99% of the others. You want to sacrifice the 99% who are helped for the 1% who me want to go back, and who can but who would simply be sterile in the process? Of that 1%, many likely wouldn't even want children, given that we're seeing less and less people desire kids. So it's not even the entire "less than 1%", it's some subset of the "less than 1%". That's what your advocating for? Punish the 99+% to preserve the reproductive viability of the <1%, some of whom won't even want reproductive viability? You really think that's fair?

You still haven't answered the question though. You said you think 10-11 year olds shouldn't be given puberty blockers is hormone therapy, and you said you agreed with the medical professionals. But the medical professionals said puberty blockers and hormone therapy is indeed recommended in appropriate cases after the onset of puberty, which for girls is, on average, around 10. So which is it? Do you agree with the professionals, who made an evidence-based determination that's medically necessary, or are you saying you know better than them?

"Simply be sterile". That's as cavalier as it gets.

I agree with mental supports, family supports. I do not agree with biologically invasive supports. For the simple reason I do not agree that a 10 year old can make the choice. They are not mature enough to make that life decision.

Cripes if I had gone just to get a vasectomy at 18 I would have been turned down.

And before you constantly bring up Medical professionals as the final say you need to remember how many times they have been wrong about things in the past. Eugenics, electroshock, many drugs now found to be dangerous, MK ultra experiments, LSD experiments with mentally ill patients, and more.

Its not "punishment" to stop an unnecessary medical proceedure. In fact "do no harm" is the orime tenet of the Hypocratic Oath. Puberty blockers are harmful to physically healthy kids. What is necessary is the family, mental health and community support as they continue to explore their personality, sexual preferences, and then be able to make an informed decision.

And anyone who says a 10 year old is capable of making the decision to undergo a sex change operatoon 8+ years later and be sterilized as a result is an idiot.

 

[Frankfooter]

All the 'save the children' people should be looking at what they are doing to life for kids at schools now.
Because of their protests kids across the country are less safe.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/safe-zones-bubble-lgbtq-protests-1.6892602

 

[Gooseifur]

"Simply be sterile". That's as cavalier as it gets.

I agree with mental supports, family supports. I do not agree with biologically invasive supports. For the simple reason I do not agree that a 10 year old can make the choice. They are not mature enough to make that life decision.

Cripes if I had gone just to get a vasectomy at 18 I would have been turned down.

And before you constantly bring up Medical professionals as the final say you need to remember how many times they have been wrong about things in the past. Eugenics, electroshock, many drugs now found to be dangerous, MK ultra experiments, LSD experiments with mentally ill patients, and more.

Its not "punishment" to stop an unnecessary medical proceedure. In fact "do no harm" is the orime tenet of the Hypocratic Oath. Puberty blockers are harmful to physically healthy kids. What is necessary is the family, mental health and community support as they continue to explore their personality, sexual preferences, and then be able to make an informed decision.

And anyone who says a 10 year old is capable of making the decision to undergo a sex change operatoon 8+ years later and be sterilized as a result is an idiot.

Just got back to Toronto A few days ago. Wow, There are pride flags everywhere. You'd think it was our national flag. Oh wait, yesterday was Canada Day. Didn't see many of those in Canadian businesses.

 

[DinkleMouse]

"Simply be sterile". That's as cavalier as it gets.

I agree with mental supports, family supports. I do not agree with biologically invasive supports. For the simple reason I do not agree that a 10 year old can make the choice. They are not mature enough to make that life decision.

Cripes if I had gone just to get a vasectomy at 18 I would have been turned down.

And before you constantly bring up Medical professionals as the final say you need to remember how many times they have been wrong about things in the past. Eugenics, electroshock, many drugs now found to be dangerous, MK ultra experiments, LSD experiments with mentally ill patients, and more.

Its not "punishment" to stop an unnecessary medical proceedure. In fact "do no harm" is the orime tenet of the Hypocratic Oath. Puberty blockers are harmful to physically healthy kids. What is necessary is the family, mental health and community support as they continue to explore their personality, sexual preferences, and then be able to make an informed decision.

And anyone who says a 10 year old is capable of making the decision to undergo a sex change operatoon 8+ years later and be sterilized as a result is an idiot.

Your way of twisting words and claims in unfathomable. You're comparing secret CIA experiments which violated all medical ethics as if that was accepted by the medical community?

We've established you wanted to agree with medical professionals but failed to actually read what they said and now you're backpedalling, just like you make it sound like I'm saying we should just sterilize everyone.

Less than 1% of people who transition go on to detransition and you've presented no compelling reason why that 1% should dictate punishing the 99%. The evidence-based approach (which, incidentally, is exactly what proved eugenics wrong as eugenics was not evidence based and is why we only do things when they are evidence-based now) tells us far more children will commit suicide without age-appropriate gender affirming care than will detransition, and you're more worried about the sterility is those very very few who will detransition over the lives of those who never make it to adulthood.

By your logic, your cavalier about suicide. So if you want to twist my words and say I'm cavalier about sterilization, than that's the tact I'll take.

Why are you so cavalier about suicide? "Cripes. Just be dead? That's as cavalier as it gets."

This is the problem with ignorant people like you who want to put your head in the sand and then pretend your only concern is for the children: if you have your way more children with suffer depression and more children will take their own life. You can't pretend you want to protect children and also be against age-appropriate gender-affirming care.

Evidence-based decisions would have prevented eugenics. You want to take a non-evidence-based approach. Your attitude is what gave us eugenics. And your attitude is going to kill more children. So you can try to make me sound like a monster for being ok that a fraction of a percentage of children who revive age-appropriate gender-affirming cafe end up wanting to detransition and being sterile, because I know everyone that's read the literature and the science knows the alternative is the death of a far higher number of children. I'd rather have 1 out of 200 children grow up sterile and wishing to detransition than 10 out of 200 children be dead and 100 of them suffer with depression that could have been avoided.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Just got back to Toronto A few days ago. Wow, There are pride flags everywhere. You'd think it was our national flag. Oh wait, yesterday was Canada Day. Didn't see many of those in Canadian businesses.

I don't know where you were, but I saw Canadian flags everywhere. I'm going to guess either your story is invented or it's confirmation bias.

 

[Butler1000]

Your way of twisting words and claims in unfathomable. You're comparing secret CIA experiments which violated all medical ethics as if that was accepted by the medical community?

We've established you wanted to agree with medical professionals but failed to actually read what they said and now you're backpedalling, just like you make it sound like I'm saying we should just sterilize everyone.

Less than 1% of people who transition go on to detransition and you've presented no compelling reason why that 1% should dictate punishing the 99%. The evidence-based approach (which, incidentally, is exactly what proved eugenics wrong as eugenics was not evidence based and is why we only do things when they are evidence-based now) tells us far more children will commit suicide without age-appropriate gender affirming care than will detransition, and you're more worried about the sterility is those very very few who will detransition over the lives of those who never make it to adulthood.

By your logic, your cavalier about suicide. So if you want to twist my words and say I'm cavalier about sterilization, than that's the tact I'll take.

Why are you so cavalier about suicide? "Cripes. Just be dead? That's as cavalier as it gets."

This is the problem with ignorant people like you who want to put your head in the sand and then pretend your only concern is for the children: if you have your way more children with suffer depression and more children will take their own life. You can't pretend you want to protect children and also be against age-appropriate gender-affirming care.

Evidence-based decisions would have prevented eugenics. You want to take a non-evidence-based approach. Your attitude is what gave us eugenics. And your attitude is going to kill more children. So you can try to make me sound like a monster for being ok that a fraction of a percentage of children who revive age-appropriate gender-affirming cafe end up wanting to detransition and being sterile, because I know everyone that's read the literature and the science knows the alternative is the death of a far higher number of children. I'd rather have 1 out of 200 children grow up sterile and wishing to detransition than 10 out of 200 children be dead and 100 of them suffer with depression that could have been avoided.

You are assuming he evidence is all correct. Which is my point. And you are still bring cavalier.

The suicide evidence is based in part on NO HELP. What I am discussing is help, support but not the drugs. And even the doctors say in many cases its not needed. I say for that tiny subset they actually give the blockers to it could very well be worse.

I will add that one side effect is lack of development to get the vaginoplasty done. So it directly affects them medically as well in a bad way.

See. There also is lots of evidence to suggest I'm right. You can massage stats all over the place.

Finall I will add that "Informed consent" is a requirement for this type of thing. And a 10 year old is not capable of that.

 

[mandrill]

Growing concern over anti-LGBTQ violence as Pride winds down | Watch (msn.com)

 

[mandrill]

You are assuming he evidence is all correct. Which is my point. And you are still bring cavalier.

The suicide evidence is based in part on NO HELP. What I am discussing is help, support but not the drugs. And even the doctors say in many cases its not needed. I say for that tiny subset they actually give the blockers to it could very well be worse.

I will add that one side effect is lack of development to get the vaginoplasty done. So it directly affects them medically as well in a bad way.

See. There also is lots of evidence to suggest I'm right. You can massage stats all over the place.

Finall I will add that "Informed consent" is a requirement for this type of thing. And a 10 year old is not capable of that.

But your problem is that puberty blockers have to be administered at puberty, not at 19 years old.

The UK solutution is to have a judge give / withhold consent.