So when I say I fully support it, that's your take away?
The LGBTQ protest thread
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Because of their protests kids across the country are less safe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
And you're assuming it's wrong, and still being cavalier.
No, it isn't. Did you forget the 2nd part? Evidence-based and medically-necessary. The "medically-necessary" part means it is compared to all other interventions. But then, given that you read half a sentence and decided that doctors agreed with you when you would've seen, had you just finished the sentence, that they did not, I can only assume you have applied that same standard to everything you read.
So why are you so cavalier about suicide? Agree-appropriate, evidence-based, medically-necessary gender-affirmimg care has been shown to reduce suicide by as much as 73%. Do you just hate children? Is this your push for new eugenics? Let all the trans kids kill themselves?
Yes. And in many cases they say it is. But you don't want to believe or trust the doctors. You want to disagree with the doctors. You want the doctors to operate on what you believe or want to be true rather than actual science. You know, like Mengele did! Why are you so cavalier about eugenics and mass murder?
But you're saying that based on feelings, not on evidence. Evidence says you're wrong, which is why doctors use the standard of evidence-based, medically-necessary care. What qualifications do you have to know better than literally every professional medical and health association? Because that's what it is. It's not like surgeons are saying "DO ALL THE SURGERY!!!" and psychiatrists are saying "PLEASE STOP YOU'RE HURTING CHILDREN!!!" Literally every medical association is in agreement. You're the outlier.
See? See what? You've presented no evidence. All you've said is "I say that for that tiny subset it could very well be worse", and nothing else? Are you saying your own repeated words are "lots of evidence"?
That's true of any treatment. So don't do liver transplants if they have acute liver disease because they can't consent? Don't do chemotherapy if they have cancer because they can't consent to treatment? Again, you miss the term "medically-necessary", which means "saves lives".
You're soooooooooo ready to protect the sterility of 1 child, that you don't care about the multiple others that kill themselves. Which, incidentally, might be that 1 that would want to detransition and be sterile, meaning you've protected nothing.
You know and admit eugenics was wrong. If eugenics had been evidence based, scientists would've measured a few dozen heads, collected some statistics, and said, "Nope, this is bunk." Instead, they took your approach of saying, "Well this data doesn't support what I believe, so let's ignore it and continue." And that resulted in many many deaths, just as your approach will really in many many deaths.
So again, why are you prepared to kill as many as 73% of children suffering from this to protect the sterility of 1? Are you really saying 1 person's potential sterility outweighs the lives of multiple children? Why are you so eager for trans children to die?
So many strawman here you can't see the farm for them.
You are assuming medically necessary equates to drug use. Gender affirming care is the general term used for all the tools in the box. Guidance, Acceptance, Therapy, information to other suport prople. Community support. Those are the difference makers. They state in numerous sources the blockers aren't used in most cases. And are un needed. Your 73% is not tied solely into the use of the blockers. Its for recieving care, period.
But more importantly you think it a good idea to treat depression with puberty blockers? To stunt physical and hormonal growth needed to mentally mature?
Funny I thought thats what anti-depressants are for. And don't inhibit natural growth.
All behavior is learned behavior whether you're pro gay or pro Church.
The big problem is the religious zealots who pick and choose that which they believe. They cannot be devout Christians if they hate on others for their differences.
Ponder that for awhile.
And by the way I don't like either side in this argument but I both know they're in a dire need of a lot of laxatives because they're all full of shit.
The big problem is the religious zealots who pick and choose that which they believe. They cannot be devout Christians if they hate on others for their differences.
Ponder that for awhile.
And by the way I don't like either side in this argument but I both know they're in a dire need of a lot of laxatives because they're all full of shit.
To be fair to Butler, he read somewhere that 98% of people who go on puberty blockers eventually continue with opposite sex hormones.
Therefore he thinks 10 year olds going on puberty blockers are "locking themselves in" to choosing surgery later.
Since he doesn't think a 10 year old can make the decision to have surgery, he is against allowing 10-year olds to go on puberty blockers.
(As I understand it, this is the logic he has been using.)
Of course, that conclusion depends on interpreting that 98% figure as "going on puberty blockers causes kids to get surgery".
I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether or not that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Nice try. But they are literally the arguments you made, so I don't think you know what strawman means.
No, I am assuming that when doctors set guidelines to do "only what is medically necessary" and that those guidelines include drug therapies as per those guidelines, that those drug therapies under those circumstances are medically necessary. You're saying regardless of circumstances never use the drug therapies based on age.
Yes, exactly. And studies have examined and reviewed the effect of different effects of those "tools" and have set guidelines for when to use which, and when some become "medically necessary". They didn't say "Well now, turns out we can just show acceptance and have the same outcomes as puberty blockers, but let's do puberty blockers anyway." These are medical professionals making evidence-based decisions to create guidelines for other medical professionals to determine what treatments are appropriate for which people and which ones may be medically necessary when the conditions are met. They have compared the outcomes of different treatments and established guidelines for each. You're just assuming they don't. But they absolutely do.
Exactly. It's age-appropriate, evidence-based, medically-necessary treatment, which can run he gambit. But you're trying to halt a number of those treatments that are age-appropriate, evidence-based, and medically-necessary, meaning the 73% reduction in harm will not be achieved.
Now who is strawmanning? I'm saying we should let evidence-based science let doctors determine medically-necessary, age-appropriate treatments for their patients based on their examinations and in consultations with the myriad of other professionals, their patients, and their patients' parents. Any that those treatments may, at times, when appropriate, within the guidelines, when medically necessary, include drug and hormone therapies. Because they save lives and I care about the lives (and happiness) of everyone, including children. That's what I'm saying. You're saying never under any circumstances use those treatments, based on your own feelings and not on evidence.
Oh man, if only the doctors and scientists had considered that! Oh wait, they did. Turns out not as effective, not necessarily appropriate in most cases, also not without risks. But believe it or not, antidepressants are in the guidelines too, when appropriate, and may be combined with other treatments. Humans aren't cookie cutters, we aren't all the same.
That's really what this is about. No one is saying "give every 10 year old with transgender thoughts puberty blockers." We're saying let health professionals follow guidelines determined by evidence to determine the best course of treatments for their patients in consultation with other experts, their patient, and their patients family, and to take whatever action is medically-necessary when it is age-appropriate and evidence-based. You're saying take one treatment off the table, regardless of the scientific evidence, regardless of whether it's determined to be medically necessary, and regardless of what the examinations and consultations uncover, because you just don't like the idea.
You're literally applying the same bullshit logic that lead to eugenics. Kids who otherwise will live happy lives will commit suicide due to depression if we do what you say.
Its not at all clear whether sexual orientation is learned or genetic, as far as I know.
Though we do know that conversion therapy almost always fails.
- Status
