The LGBTQ protest thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113
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.

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.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
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

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113
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

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,075
113
...

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,075
113
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,075
113
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
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.
 
Last edited:

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113
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.
What he did was critique the methodology. It was included because they felt its valid enough to publish. Ate you stating you think this govt website published false information?

The simple premise is that the studies are flawed due to a lack of proper method used. He explanation clearly shows that.

My empathy is for long term proper treatment.
 
Last edited:

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
What he did was critique the methodology.
He did more than that. And different fields have different methodologies.

It was included because they felt its valid enough to publish. Ate you stating you think this govt website published false information?
So you're saying the websites own disclaimer is wrong? You can't really be this obtuse. Seriously?

Besides, it was an open letter. Meaning the journal rejected it and the author took it upon themselves to publish it. No one, except the author, felt it was valid enough to publish or it would have been included in Pediatrics.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113
He did more than that. And different fields have different methodologies.



So you're saying the websites own disclaimer is wrong? You can't really be this obtuse. Seriously?

Besides, it was an open letter. Meaning the journal rejected it and the author took it upon themselves to publish it. No one, except the author, felt it was valid enough to publish or it would have been included in Pediatrics.
The US govt did. Disclaimers are nice but publishing is stating you think the article makes valid points. Unless you think the US govt would publish false medical information?
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113

Here is a new warning about side effects including sterilization. From the FDA. Which btw HAS NOT approved puberty blockers for transgender minors.

Basically doctors are doing the same thing they did with Ivermactin.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113

This one is from the British NHS. They are awaiting clinical trials. Like any other drug. Beyond that they are banning except "exceptional" circumstances.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,964
5,786
113
Basically Dinklemouse you can't claim proper studies were done when they obviously weren't presented either to the FDA or NHS for approval for widespread use. Its buyer beware.

And in Britain until proper studies(one starting next year there, one underway in Canada now) are done they won't recommend it.

Game set match.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
The US govt did. Disclaimers are nice but publishing is stating you think the article makes valid points. Unless you think the US govt would publish false medical information?
You're serious? The US government put a disclaimer saying "we didn't publish this, we're merely linking to it, the fact that we've linked to it doesn't mean we think it's true or correct", and you're seriously going to say that the fact that they've linked to it does indeed mean it's true???

You're not trolling? You legitimately believe that? Why do you think the US Government put that disclaimer if it wasn't true? I'm speechless here. Tell me you're just been an asshat troll and don't legit believe that that, because if you legit believe that then I don't even know how you matriculated from elementary school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto Escorts