Mother's Regret Transitioning Children

[Bradskii]

It would seem as if people rushed to the conclusion that this story must be exaggerated, embellished, or outright fabricated (maybe it was, maybe it wasn't) because it doesn't fit a certain narrative.

Maybe it's true. But the forum in which the story was aired sheds doubt on anything being broadcast by those guys. But let's skip the claims of bias. There are obviously people who have going through the process of transgenderism and have regretted it. That's a given.

However, anecdotal evidence of this is being used as an example of why it's a bad thing in itself. Despite the numerous links to medical meta analysis re search that shows, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the numbers who do regret it are tiny.

Yes, I get that some people are against it anyway. Maybe it's biblical - God made us man and woman and that's the sum total of the argument. Whatever. Maybe some people are against young children being prompted to transgender. A good point, but one that needs to be addressed on an individual basis. We can't, and shouldn't, make blanket decisions on what should or should not be done in those individual ca.ses.

But what I don't accept are those who completely ignore the facts. Who ignore the evidence. Who try to associate a genuine problem with some nefarious, left wing, sexually depraved amorphous group bent on destroying society.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I bet the kids are carrying baggage from the experience though. Also I'm not in favor of same sex couples raising kids. I think it's healthiest for kids to have a biological male father and a biological female mother. That's how God designed it to be.

There's a lot of parenting styles one could disagree with, but at the end of the day, it's not really anyone's call but the parents unless they're breaking some sort of law.

Setting the bar at "what I see as as 'the perfect household dynamic' based on some nostalgic view of 'how it's always been done'" isn't going to apply to a lot of people.

What also puzzles me about this is that people who claim that abortion is the absolute worst thing ever (and it's their right to believe that way), and claim "adoption is the better option", tend to get a little nitpicky about who they think is suitable to adopt children.

21% of the 1 million same-sex couple households in the US have already adopted 1 or more children.

The inconvenient part of the "don't have an abortion, you should put the baby up for adoption instead" argument, is that part after the babies are born, and they shuffled around from foster home to foster home until they're 18, and then who knows what after that....

If one is going to insist that women carry a pregnancy to term, deliver the baby, and then put it up for adoption or submit the baby to foster care if they can't afford it, then one can't nitpick about what constitutes a "stable home" when they're not doing anything themselves to remedy the situation.

People nitpicking about gay couples raising kids is a textbook case of people making "better" the enemy of (what they see as) "perfect".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe it's true. But the forum in which the story was aired sheds doubt on anything being broadcast by those guys. But let's skip the claims of bias. There are obviously people who have going through the process of transgenderism and have regretted it. That's a given.

However, anecdotal evidence of this is being used as an example of why it's a bad thing in itself. Despite the numerous links to medical meta analysis re search that shows, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the numbers who do regret it are tiny.

Yes, I get that some people are against it anyway. Maybe it's biblical - God made us man and woman and that's the sum total of the argument. Whatever. Maybe some people are against young children being prompted to transgender. A good point, but one that needs to be addressed on an individual basis. We can't, and shouldn't, make blanket decisions on what should or should not be done in those individual ca.ses.

But what I don't accept are those who completely ignore the facts. Who ignore the evidence. Who try to associate a genuine problem with some nefarious, left wing, sexually depraved amorphous group bent on destroying society.

Your criticisms are fair, there are certainly a large number of people on the far-right who fit the mold you describe.

But I think different concepts are being conflated.

One is "transgenderism" (and societal acceptance as a whole)
and
Another is "should we be making decisions based on what 13 year old thinks they're 100% sure about"
and
Another are a variety of logistics questions about when it makes sense to prioritize a person's gender identity over biological sex and vice versa



For instance, if a person wants to identify as a woman despite being a biological male, in 99% of common everyday interactions, I don't care...I'll call them she, treat them as a woman, they can use whatever bathroom they want...it doesn't bother me. My position on school athletics would be a different story, as would my position on allowing hormonal and surgical interventions involving adolescents.

The problem is, those of us who are more nuanced are presented with two polar opposite options that make no allowance for nuance or common sense.


For instance, with the positions I currently hold on the topic, I would be labelled a "transphobe" by the far-left, or a "groomer" by the far-right,, depending on what region of the country and venue I happen to be in. That's not the environment for a practical conversation about anything

 

[Servus]

There's a lot of parenting styles one could disagree with, but at the end of the day, it's not really anyone's call but the parents unless they're breaking some sort of law.

Setting the bar at "what I see as as 'the perfect household dynamic' based on some nostalgic view of 'how it's always been done'" isn't going to apply to a lot of people.

What also puzzles me about this is that people who claim that abortion is the absolute worst thing ever (and it's their right to believe that way), and claim "adoption is the better option", tend to get a little nitpicky about who they think is suitable to adopt children.

21% of the 1 million same-sex couple households in the US have already adopted 1 or more children.

The inconvenient part of the "don't have an abortion, you should put the baby up for adoption instead" argument, is that part after the babies are born, and they shuffled around from foster home to foster home until they're 18, and then who knows what after that....

If one is going to insist that women carry a pregnancy to term, deliver the baby, and then put it up for adoption or submit the baby to foster care if they can't afford it, then one can't nitpick about what constitutes a "stable home" when they're not doing anything themselves to remedy the situation.

People nitpicking about gay couples raising kids is a textbook case of people making "better" the enemy of (what they see as) "perfect".

If everyone truly followed God, none of that would be an issue.

 

[rjs330]

'Don't trust these studies. Here, look at these anecdotes instead!'

Not just those but also the pay attention to how flawed the so called studies are. Unscientific and untrustworthy.

 

[rjs330]

Exactly right. From just one of the meta analysis taken from 27 medical studies comprising just short of 8,000 people (the one to which I linked), the regret was 1%.

Versus 'this woman on YouTube...'

You mean the terribly flawed, biased and unscientific studies? Those ones? Yeah inaccurate unscientific studies are definitely ones to hang your hat on.

 

[Servus]

You mean the terribly flawed, biased and unscientific studies? Those ones? Yeah inaccurate unscientific studies are definitely ones to hang your hat on.

I wonder how much $$$$ Trans generates for docs, shrinks and researchers.

 

[Bradskii]

Your criticisms are fair, there are certainly a large number of people on the far-right who fit the mold you describe.

But I think different concepts are being conflated.

One is "transgenderism" (and societal acceptance as a whole)
and
Another is "should we be making decisions based on what 13 year old thinks they're 100% sure about"
and
Another are a variety of logistics questions about when it makes sense to prioritize a person's gender identity over biological sex and vice versa



For instance, if a person wants to identify as a woman despite being a biological male, in 99% of common everyday interactions, I don't care...I'll call them she, treat them as a woman, they can use whatever bathroom they want...it doesn't bother me. My position on school athletics would be a different story, as would my position on allowing hormonal and surgical interventions involving adolescents.

The problem is, those of us who are more nuanced are presented with two polar opposite options that make no allowance for nuance or common sense.


For instance, with the positions I currently hold on the topic, I would be labelled a "transphobe" by the far-left, or a "groomer" by the far-right,, depending on what region of the country and venue I happen to be in. That's not the environment for a practical conversation about anything

Children and sport need to be looked at as individual cases. In regard to sport individual levels at least up to a reasonable standard and age, when sporting organisations need to address it.

 

[Bradskii]

If everyone truly followed God, none of that would be an issue.

Somewhat condescending of you to think that some Christians who are transgender (undoubtedly a majority) and their families haven't prayed for, and have been given guidance.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean the terribly flawed, biased and unscientific studies? Those ones? Yeah inaccurate unscientific studies are definitely ones to hang your hat on.

Then pick any one of those that have been linked to and show us.

This shouldn't take long because you must have done that already. Else how would you know they are flawed and unscientific. And please be specific. Comments such as 'well, it's obvious' and 'if you can't see it' will be taken as an admission that you have nothing to back up your claim.

Any time you're ready...

 

[Bradskii]

I wonder how much $$$$ Trans generates for docs, shrinks and researchers.

Good grief, are you running out of arguments already? We don't normally get 'They're in it for the money!' until the last few desperate posts of a dying thread.

 

[rjs330]

I wonder how much $$$$ Trans generates for docs, shrinks and researchers.

Good question, but we do know it generates a LOT of money for doctors clinics and hospitals. And of course drug companies

 

[rjs330]

Then pick any one of those that have been linked to and show us.

This shouldn't take long because you must have done that already. Else how would you know they are flawed and unscientific. And please be specific. Comments such as 'well, it's obvious' and 'if you can't see it' will be taken as an admission that you have nothing to back up your claim.

Any time you're ready...

I've already provided links. Anyway we are talking about parents regretting transing their kids. We are not talking about the regret of adults who transitioned. What we are going to face someday is the regret of adults who transitioned while kids. We have already seen some of this.

 

[Pommer]

Not just those but also the pay attention to how flawed the so called studies are. Unscientific and untrustworthy.

It must be nice to choose which facts are.
Edit: in the most respectful way possible, you’re wielding a shovel, just saying.

 

[rjs330]

It must be nice to choose which facts are.
Edit: in the most respectful way possible, you’re wielding a shovel, just saying.

What I wield is the truth.

 

[Pommer]

I've already provided links...

Well there was the link in the OP, that was essentially a blog post, the Atlantic article, (did that mention the women in the OP? I didn’t think to check), and the link to the website made up of people who have regrets about their decisions.

The existence of the latter is a known quantity and the studies say that it is significantly less than the numbers you seem to think. Your denial of the evidence is understandable.

 

[Bradskii]

I've already provided links.

No, you said reports were 'terribly flawed, biased and unscientific studies'. People have linked to ones that show that those who regretted transgenderism are a tiny percentage. It's up to you to back up your claims. Those reports covered many thousands of people and were done relatively recently.

If you think they are flawed then put up your arguments. If you have none then we can all put down your claims as worthless. In fact, worse than useless because they are purposely meant to pursuade people of your point of view with false claims. I'll repeat that: if you have no evidence then they are false claims and they will be shown to be so. Just as you have constantly claimed that gender refers only to biological sex yet have produced no definition that says so from the countless ones available.

So when you're ready, you can supply your evidence or retract your claim.

 

[rjs330]

Well there was the link in the OP, that was essentially a blog post, the Atlantic article, (did that mention the women in the OP? I didn’t think to check), and the link to the website made up of people who have regrets about their decisions.

The existence of the latter is a known quantity and the studies say that it is significantly less than the numbers you seem to think. Your denial of the evidence is understandable.

I provided other links.

 

[rjs330]

No, you said reports were 'terribly flawed, biased and unscientific studies'. People have linked to ones that show that those who regretted transgenderism are a tiny percentage. It's up to you to back up your claims. Those reports covered many thousands of people and were done relatively recently.

If you think they are flawed then put up your arguments. If you have none then we can all put down your claims as worthless. In fact, worse than useless because they are purposely meant to pursuade people of your point of view with false claims. I'll repeat that: if you have no evidence then they are false claims and they will be shown to be so. Just as you have constantly claimed that gender refers only to biological sex yet have produced no definition that says so from the countless ones available.

So when you're ready, you can supply your evidence or retract your claim.

I provided links.

 

[rjs330]

No, you said reports were 'terribly flawed, biased and unscientific studies'. People have linked to ones that show that those who regretted transgenderism are a tiny percentage. It's up to you to back up your claims. Those reports covered many thousands of people and were done relatively recently.

If you think they are flawed then put up your arguments. If you have none then we can all put down your claims as worthless. In fact, worse than useless because they are purposely meant to pursuade people of your point of view with false claims. I'll repeat that: if you have no evidence then they are false claims and they will be shown to be so. Just as you have constantly claimed that gender refers only to biological sex yet have produced no definition that says so from the countless ones available.

So when you're ready, you can supply your evidence or retract your claim.

So you are the study expert now and know that the study was done completely appropriately and without bias and it was perfectly scientifically sound right? Cause you are an expert on scientific studies?

Did I tell you I provided links?

Also I provided evidence that gender was sex until Money decided it was a feeling? I can't help it that you don't want to believe it. By the way, what was gender before Money came along. Please show what it was defined as before he decided it was what he wanted it to be?