The LGBTQ protest thread

[DinkleMouse]

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

And you're assuming it's wrong, and still being cavalier.

The suicide evidence is based in part on NO HELP.

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.

What I am discussing is help, support but not the drugs.

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?

And even the doctors say in many cases its not needed.

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?

I say for that tiny subset they actually give the blockers to it could very well be worse.

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

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"?

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.

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?

 

[Butler1000]

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.

 

[GJ0972]

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.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

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.

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."

 

[DinkleMouse]

So many strawman here you can't see the farm for them.

Nice try. But they are literally the arguments you made, so I don't think you know what strawman means.

You are assuming medically necessary equates to drug use.

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.

Gender affirming care is the general term used for all the tools in the box.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Funny I thought thats what anti-depressants are for. And don't inhibit natural growth.

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.

 

[DinkleMouse]

All behavior is learned behavior whether you're pro gay or pro Church.

So you're saying nature vs nurture is a settled issue and nurture won?

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

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.

 

[mitchell76]

 

[mitchell76]

 

[Butler1000]

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.

Puberty Blockers and Suicidality in Adolescents Suffering from Gender Dysphoria

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Here is the type of study they use. Please note they discuss its unreliability due to methodology. Thats common in a few I looked at(there aren't many). Generally limited sample sizes, no control groups, shorter terms, online surveys, are the norm.

Secondly they discuss, which is important, that youths who have other mental comorbidies are not eligible for the blockers. Which means the ones with other mental illnesses, including those like depression that can cause suicide, don't get them.

I'd say the will fuck up the stats. The cause of the suicide can just as easily be something else.

The science us far from settled on this. Until there are real studies, per scientific methodology, with real control groups, its all supposition, reliance on unconfirmed data, and now political bias.

 

[Frankfooter]

The science us far from settled on this. Until there are real studies, per scientific methodology, with real control groups, its all supposition, reliance on unconfirmed data, and now political bias.

Which basically means you won't accept any studies that run against your confirmation bias.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Puberty Blockers and Suicidality in Adolescents Suffering from Gender Dysphoria

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Here is the type of study they use.

That's literally not a study. That's a letter to the editor. Once again you've demonstrated your failure to read and it's biting you in the ass. A letter to the editor is part of the peer review process, but not subject to peer review itself. We've also got multiple studies, not just one, concluding the effectiveness of gender-affirming care, and one "letter to the editor" opposing. Which is why the medical health experts continue to rely on evidence-based guidelines to determine medically-necessary care.

 

[Butler1000]

That's literally not a study. That's a letter to the editor. Once again you've demonstrated your failure to read and it's biting you in the ass. A letter to the editor is part of the peer review process, but not subject to peer review itself. We've also got multiple studies, not just one, concluding the effectiveness of gender-affirming care, and one "letter to the editor" opposing. Which is why the medical health experts continue to rely on evidence-based guidelines to determine medically-necessary care.

That, is a government (note the .gov address) that is an official peer review journal. Non partisan and completely legit.

Until a study is duplicated and peer reviewed its not valid. Per scientific method. Internet questionnaires are not valid.

 

[basketcase]

...

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? ...

More stupidity based on made up facts. Where do you get the idea that puberty blockers make surgery inevitable?

I doubt you can find any cases (in canada at least) where a 10 year old get puberty blockers without the family being involved and without medical professionals signing off?

 

[basketcase]

They were enough to get banned by major sporting bodies. And you are strawman arguing again.
...

Sorry but there aren't. Go read the statements; that athletics organization was explicit that they never had a trans woman competing at any elite level to base their decision on. The closest I have seen is one swimmer who was competitive (but not dominating) cis women. It's a made up crisis to get the suckers rile up.

 

[basketcase]

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

The expression "quote mining" comes to mind

 

[basketcase]

The surgery sterilizes the patient. ...

 

[basketcase]

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.

Well the other option would be that the medical professionals do a good job of determining whether the person actually has gender dysmorphia and there's no way But would believe that.

 

[basketcase]

That's literally not a study. That's a letter to the editor. ...

No difference to But, as long as it supports his claims.

 

[DinkleMouse]

That, is a government (note the .gov address) that is an official peer review journal. Non partisan and completely legit.

Are you actually serious? Did you even read the big box at the top of the page that says "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer." It's not a journal. It's a database that links to articles and journals and straight up says so.

Did you even look at the source of the article you linked though? First click the DOI link right below the blue "Archives of Sexual Behaviour" banner. It'll take you to the original source, where right at the top it says "Letter to the editor".

This is a letter from a Micheal Biggs, BA., PhD. to the editor of the a journal called Pediatrics , but the letter wasn't accepted by the journal so it was posted online. He's a sociologist, not a medical doctor or a psychiatrist or an endocrinologist. He has zero valid qualifications and what you linked is not his study but his unqualified, unreviewed remarks on another study. And given that you don't understand the difference between a study, a journal, an archive, a database, and a website, you're not qualified to evaluate it.

I know exactly what happened. You googled what you wanted to prove (immediate confirmation bias), find a link that backed you up, any immediately posted it and now you're stuck looking foolish and trying to defend your rash behavior in not actually looking into what you found.

You prove over and over and over that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that you don't even fully read or look into things. Do you know how dangerous it is to push opinions based on such poor research? We're talking about children's lives here. Do you not care about that? You care so little you can't even read full sentences or investigate the sources of things you find? Are their lives worth so little effort?

Jesus Christ, have some fucking empathy and take at least 3 minutes to fully read things before you condemn children to half-formed, ill-advised opinions.