When two worldviews collide.

[Rev. Adam McKay PhD]

Is this satire? Nothing you have posted yet far gives any indication that it isn't.

I have two spirits. LGBTQ2S+ baby.

 

[Bradskii]

I have two spirits. LGBTQ2S+ baby.

I am trying to think what I'm less impressed with. Nonsense such as this or the fact that you think you need to put your qualifications in your signature.

 

[Bradskii]

I think its hard to tell what causes suicide in people with GD because the research is poor. Some show improvement in mental health after Transition on the short term perhaps a honeymoon period while long term studies show no improvement and even an increase in suicidality even in Scandinavian countries who have the most anti -descrimination societies in the world.

Long-term follow-up of individuals undergoing sex reassignment surgery: Psychiatric morbidity and mortality

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08039488.2015.1081405?journalCode=ipsc20

Another study in Sweden shows Trans people have 20 times higher suicide rates post surgery.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Context The treatment for transsexualism is sex reassignment, including hormonal treatment and surgery aimed at making the person's body as congruent with the opposite sex as possible. There is a dearth of long term, follow-up studies after sex reassignment. Objective To estimate mortality...

journals.plos.org

I agree poor treatment of Trans people or any person who is different is wrong and should be stopped. But that should not be achieved with misrepresentations which make it harder to help these people. I think everyone wants help for people suffering GD its just a disagreement about how that can be achieved thats the problem.

I can tell you a good way of helping. Do not flood threads like this with links to papers that I'm sure you haven't read in their entirity and from which you give summaries which are completely at odds with the links themselves. Trans people DO NOT have a higher suicide rate post surgery. The fact is that their suicide rate is significantly lowered after transitioning but is still higher than the general population.

I don't have to dig around for proof of this. It's within the papers that you quoted! So obviously you either haven't read them and are just posting them thinking that a flurry of information will be too much to check and you can claim anything you like, which is nothing more than deception, or you simply cannot understand them.

Whatever is the case, I know exactly what will happen next. You'll simply post another dozen or so paragraphs ignoring what I've just pointed out and head off in another direction. More links. More erroneous conclusions. More of what you think is helpful to your position but which actually diminishes it at every turn.

So...how about you turn a new leaf? Reread those two papers and correct what you posted.

 

[Paidiske]

A basic understanding would have informed you it was from the Summa and not Aristotle's On the Generation of Animals.

Dear me. So I failed to appropriately format Aquinas's reference to Aristotle. That is far from the most egregious misunderstanding in this thread.

That was not the intention. You are simply calling my statement unconstructive. Do you know what that word means? I believe you mean unsupportive of your views. Unconstructive, when it refers to dialogue, infers a common goal. Saying "That's not fair" or "You are a bully" are examples of unconstructive statements. I am only interested in facts, not personal preferences.

Yes, I think it was unconstructive, if our shared aim is to have a discussion which actually explores and responds to the topics raised in the OP. If that's not our shared aim, I'd appreciate knowing what your aim is, so that I can decide whether engaging with you is a waste of my time.

Many pastors fall victim to this mentality and think it is 'the world' that is the problem.

Ironically, here I am as a person in ministry suggesting not that "the world" is the problem, but that the church ought to be willing to look at and take responsibility for its contribution to the problems under discussion.

 

[stevevw]

I can tell you a good way of helping. Do not flood threads like this with links to papers that I'm sure you haven't read in their entirity and from which you give summaries which are completely at odds with the links themselves.

two papers is hardly flooding.

Trans people DO NOT have a higher suicide rate post surgery. The fact is that their suicide rate is significantly lowered after transitioning but is still higher than the general population.

The studies your referring to have been found to have several problems such as poor followups, large drop outs, small sample sizes and most importantly small time scales after transition. The studies that do show some improvements in mental health are done shortly after transition where it is said there is a honeymoon period. The best studies done are long term ones 10 to 30 years after transition which show high mental health conditions and suicide compared to the general public.

Birmingham University's Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (Arif)
Arif, which conducts reviews of healthcare treatments for the NHS, concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favour of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counselling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time. Arif says the findings of the few studies that have tracked significant numbers of patients over several years were flawed because the researchers lost track of at least half of the participants.
Weekend feature: sex change operations

I don't have to dig around for proof of this. It's within the papers that you quoted! So obviously you either haven't read them and are just posting them thinking that a flurry of information will be too much to check and you can claim anything you like, which is nothing more than deception, or you simply cannot understand them.

Whatever is the case, I know exactly what will happen next. You'll simply post another dozen or so paragraphs ignoring what I've just pointed out and head off in another direction. More links. More erroneous conclusions. More of what you think is helpful to your position but which actually deminishes it at every turn.

So...how about you turn a new leaf? Reread those two papers and correct what you posted.

I have read them. Perhaps you missed this in the paper
Conclusions
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.

https://auspath.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AusPATH-Report-on-trans-health-care-history.pdf

 

[Bradskii]

I have read them. Perhaps you missed this in the paper
Conclusions
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.

https://auspath.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AusPATH-Report-on-trans-health-care-history.pdf

And that is NOT what you said. Which was:

'..studies show no improvement and even an increase in suicidality'.

They don't. There's nothing in there that says that. The studies report what you just quoted. That trans people have a higher risk of suicide than the general population. I said this a few posts back, but nobody is arguing againt that.

And can you give me the page number in the paper you linked to above that says what you just quoted? You won't be able to because you haven't even bothered to read it to realise it doesn't.

 

[stevevw]

And that is NOT what you said. Which was:

'..studies show no improvement and even an increase in suicidality'.

They don't. There's nothing in there that says that. The studies report what you just quoted. That trans people have a higher risk of suicide than the general population. I said this a few posts back, but nobody is arguing againt that.

Well the paper I linked seems to think so here

Mortality from suicide was strikingly high among sex-reassigned persons, also after adjustment for prior psychiatric morbidity. In line with this, sex-reassigned persons were at increased risk for suicide attempts. Previous reports [6], [8], [10], [11] suggest that transsexualism is a strong risk factor for suicide, also after sex reassignment.
Principal findings and comparison with previous research
The most striking result was the high mortality rate in both male-to-females and female-to males, compared to the general population. This contrasts with previous reports (with one exception[8]) that did not find an increased mortality rate after sex reassignment, or only noted an increased risk in certain subgroups.[7], [9], [10], [11] Previous clinical studies might have been biased since people who regard their sex reassignment as a failure are more likely to be lost to follow-up. Likewise, it is cumbersome to track deceased persons in clinical follow-up studies.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Context The treatment for transsexualism is sex reassignment, including hormonal treatment and surgery aimed at making the person's body as congruent with the opposite sex as possible. There is a dearth of long term, follow-up studies after sex reassignment. Objective To estimate mortality...

journals.plos.org

As the paper says that suicide was strikingly high among sex-reassigned persons even after adjusting for prior psychiatric comorbidity and then state that this is in line with (increased) risk of suicide for sex-reassigned persons. In other words Trans people had increased risk of suicide after sex-reassignment, not same risk or reduced risk.

The paper also states that the the high suicide rate compared to the general population contrasted with previous research that did not show increased suicide after sex-reassignment. In other words their findings show increased suicide in Trans people after sex reassignment.

And can you give me the page number in the paper you linked to above that says what you just quoted? You won't be able to because you haven't even bothered to read it to realise it doesn't.

Sorry I linked the wrong paper. I was suppose to link the paper I first linked that you disputed which was this one which I have also quoted above

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Context The treatment for transsexualism is sex reassignment, including hormonal treatment and surgery aimed at making the person's body as congruent with the opposite sex as possible. There is a dearth of long term, follow-up studies after sex reassignment. Objective To estimate mortality...

journals.plos.org

The section I quoted can be found in the conclusion both in the summary and at the end of the paper.

Your also forgetting an important point in all this. You claimed that sex-reassignment improved life for Transgender people . Even if there was no increase in suicide or mental illness at the very least there was no real improvement and/or the evdience is mixed, poor and unknown. You also forget that the latest scientific evidence now disputes the Trans Affirming Model of Transitiong including surgery.

The Scandinavians who are at the forefront in Trans Care and now the NHS and other Organisations like the Royal Doctors and the American Psychological Association are now taking a Psychotheraputic approach and have stopped recommending the Trans Affirmative Care Model. So if its so great then why are most health providers avoidng it.

That seems to imply that addressing psychological problems first rather than allowing someone to go through years of transitioning anguish which comes with many risks and complications is the best approach and may help people avoide transitioning altogether rather than find at the end of transitioning they still have all these unresolved psychological issues.

The problem is the Trans Affirmative and Transitional Model puts the cart before the horse and hates any therapy as they think its being Transphobic. In fact activists are pushing for younger age transition and absolutely no psychological therapy to qualify for transitioning. Just a simple self identification is enough. We know Travistocks gender Clinic was shut down for rushing people through without much therapy.

So why push the Trans Model when at the very least we cannot tell, theres unknowns, bias in reporting and its too risky and Trans people end up being just as mentally ill as when they started. Doesn't make good treatment. I would want a fairly high standard of evdience before it was deemed a good care model.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am trying to think what I'm less impressed with. Nonsense such as this or the fact that you think you need to put your qualifications in your signature.

It's not even the signature, but the display name. "Rev." SMH. The content reads like gibberish too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. It basically delays puberty in cases where that's helpful. This is part of the range of treatment options available. That's not really in dispute.

Why would delaying puberty be helpful?

If the decision is one they can legally consent to as adults, what is the actual benefit of delaying puberty?

The point there being, the comprehensive assessments and so on are the standard.

Assessment of what exactly? Transgenderism isn't considered a mental disorder nor even a medical problem in of itself.

What is there to assess if a 12yo walks into a clinic and claims to be trans....and wants treatment to alter their appearance?

Quite. Exactly as we see in this thread. Rather than people taking a balanced view and recognising that the failings of some to offer best practice doesn't mean an entire discipline has no merit.

This is very similar to the "it isn't happening" then "it's happening in only some places and by mistake...not by design" argument we saw this new religious belief claim regarding CRT in schools.

You don't really require evidence this happens at every single clinic to consider it a problem....do you?

What evidence would convince you of the problem of either affirmative care being badly over representing its effectiveness or badly under representing its risks/dangers?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is very narrow minded of you.

Is it?

Cis-Gendered women have accepted those women that were forced to identify as men as fellow women.

Who was forced to identify as who now? When did this happen?

Few people who were defined as women as children

I don't know anyone identified as a "woman" when they were a child.

and continue to do so as adults do not accept said women. Hopefully, these uniformed people will be re-educated.

Education implies some gain of knowledge.

Can you define what a woman is?

It is my hope that there will be tests for such bigottedness that can be reflected on income taxes, availability for government jobs, loans, home ownership, etcus?

Social credit systems... aka the China model....aka Marxist Totalitarism. The Chinese model is actually a fascist model because fascism is just honest socialism.

I've seen the UN's written desire for a global citizen and I'm aware these citizens don't have rights.

I don't know if you're attempting to do satire....but it's not done well.

 

[Bradskii]

In other words Trans people had increased risk of suicide after sex-reassignment, not same risk or reduced risk.

It did not say that! It said it's sill high compared to the general population. Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense when you are linking to papers that tell you thatyou are wrong?

So why push the Trans Model when at the very least we cannot tell, theres unknowns, bias in reporting and its too risky and Trans people end up being just as mentally ill as when they started. Doesn't make good treatment. I would want a fairly high standard of evdience before it was deemed a good care model.

You obviously are linking to reports that you either don't understand, that you misinterpret or that you haven't read. This is like a food fight. Just keep throwing things at the wall and hope something sticks. Get something wrong? Throw some more. Get it from a useless source? Have at it again. Misinterpret the findings? Hey, just throw the same thing again. Misquote something? Never mind, here's some more links, some more papers.

The pdf to which you linked - and I have no idea why you so did because there's nothing in there that supports anything you've tried to complain about, will explain a lot about what is considered good practice. It is chock full of examples. I have no idea where you got the idea to post it. But why not read it. It's only 80+ pages long. I did. Tell me something in it with which you disagree. After all, it's your evidence. And quote the page number please.

We'll do this step by step. Using your links. I'll wait here while you read it.

 

[Kylie]

I am not going to go blow for blow:

What I said is mostly self evident, and the rest is easily discoverable with a little research.

In other words, it's the old "just do your own research" line trotted out when someone can't back up their own points.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you make claims and refuse to back them up, that's not my problem.

Whilst the line between illegal and persecuted is a fine one, it is certainly illegal to bring bibles into some countries and Christianity is de facto illegal in others, Try Nigeria for many Christian’s killed for being Christian. Today.

But Steve is not in one of those countries, he is in Australia, just like me.

But it is creeping into so called civilised countries.

in contemporary U.K. a woman was indeed arrested for “ suspected prayer “ close to an abortion facility in Birmingham named Isabel Vaughan spruce. Check it out, A nasty atheist council made it illegal to pray in that area in a local bye law. So christianity and the right to protest were illegal there. The thin end of a wedge.

It would have been just as easy for you to type that name into Google to get a link to back up your claim. Yet you even refuse to do that.

But to the main issue, it was a fair question.

You claimed “ don’t kill “ was around before Christianity ( I presume you mean before 10 commandments)
I reacted to that.

I asked where a moral code was even in recent catastrophic genocides? It Was ordinary people in rwanda that chopped millions to bits With machetes in an act of ethnic cleansing and race hate.

So what? I stand by my position that "don't kill people" has been around long before any religious belief that exists in the world today. That doesn't mean that no one is going to kill. There are always going to be people of all religious positions, both believers and non-believers, who will be willing to kill, and who will find some way to justify killing.

As an apparition of a lady had prophesied years before “unless they turned back to God, the rivers would run red, so many bodies there would be nobody left to bury them”. It was considered unthinkable at the time. But so it was.

This claim is so vague it's meaningless.

It is an important and VERY FAIR question on existence and source of moral code, in direct response to what you said!

The Christian code is do not kill.
Nobody is acting as Christian if they they do, regardless of allegiance they claim.The Nazis do not get to decide whether God is with them. They made mockery of humanity and God.
Your misleading list of so called Christian atrocities referring to for example Bosnian genocide as “religious” in character , ignores the fact that many victims were atheist. It was ethnic cleansing, just as Rwanda.

So it's okay for Christians to kill atheists?

Or are you invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here?

Atheists consider unguided evolution as the origin of life . They have no other choice. The dogma of evolutionary theory is survival of fittest.

You don't undserstand what "survival of the fittest" actually means, do you?

It does NOT mean, "everybody start bashing everyone else, and whoever is still standing at the end deserves to get all the food/mates/other resourse."

It is talking about things on a GENETIC level. The genes that are the best at helping the individual they are in survive (the FITTEST genes) are the ones that will have the best chance of being passed on to the next generation of the population (and that would be the survival aspect of it).

You are entitled to hold in contempt some of what was done in the name of Christianity but in defiance of its moral code, and I will JOIN you in that! It gives us all a bad name.

You missed my point.

You claim it is the CHRISTIAN moral code.

My point is that while that particular moral code is held by many Christians, it is also held by many non-Christians as well, and that moral code was also around long before Christianity.

So It can't be justified to say that it is a moral code that was created by Christianity.

 

[Paidiske]

Why would delaying puberty be helpful?

Because it gives the person concerned time to work through whatever might be going on for them, receive assessments, psychotherapy, and work out "where to from here?" without the pressure/distress of puberty making things more difficult. It can give them a bit of breathing space.

Assessment of what exactly? Transgenderism isn't considered a mental disorder nor even a medical problem in of itself.

The many (many) treatment protocols linked to in this thread, show that careful assessment to work out what might be going on for a young person, and what help they need, and what interventions might be helpful, is the appropriate standard of care.

You don't really require evidence this happens at every single clinic to consider it a problem....do you?

No, but the question is the nature of the problem. A clinic with poor practice, not following recommended treatment guidelines, is a problem; but it's very different than what some posters in this thread are claiming the problem is.

 

[rjs330]

Because it gives the person concerned time to work through whatever might be going on for them, receive assessments, psychotherapy, and work out "where to from here?" without the pressure/distress of puberty making things more difficult. It can give them a bit of breathing space.

However there is little to no research that supports this. Where did you get the idea that this is the best thing to do? It certainly isn't from any substantiated scientific research.

The British Medical Journal had this to say about it.

Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.24 Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.25 (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.)

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30

But The BMJ has learnt that in 2020 Cochrane accepted a proposal to review puberty blockers and that it worked with a team of researchers through 2021 in developing a protocol, but it ultimately rejected it after peer review. A spokesperson for Cochrane told The BMJ that its editors have to consider whether a review “would add value to the existing evidence base,” highlighting the work of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which looked at puberty blockers and hormones for adolescents in 2021. “That review found the evidence to be inconclusive, and there have been no significant primary studies published since.”

A.pediatrician Dr. Palmer says this.

Palmer says, “I’ve seen a quick evolution, from kids with a very rare case of gender dysphoria who were treated with a long course of counselling and exploration before hormones were started,” to treatment progressing “very quickly—even at the first visit to gender clinic—and there’s no psychologist involved anymore.”

Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist who worked with the endocrinologist Norman Spack in Boston and coauthored the WPATH guidelines for adolescents, has observed a similar trend. “More providers do not value the mental health component,” she says, so in some clinics families come in and their child is “pretty much fast tracked to medical intervention.” In a study of teens at Seattle Children’s Hospital’s gender clinic, two thirds were taking hormones within 12 months of the initial visit.38

The British paediatrician Hilary Cass, in her interim report of a UK review into services for young people with gender identity issues, noted that some NHS staff reported feeling “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.”

Bottom line is there is no scientific evidence that this helps kids. Once again I point out desistance rates and the rate of kids going on to hormones once they are given the blockers.

WPATH has removed age recommendations for surgeries. So to make it the off hand that it simply give kids time is patently untrue. I know you don't know for sure about this but you are making unsubstantiated claims. It obviously with a 90% rate doesn't give the kids time and the fact that these countries have moved away from this model is further evidence that there is no strong evidence that this is okay.

 

[Rev. Adam McKay PhD]

I am trying to think what I'm less impressed with. Nonsense such as this or the fact that you think you need to put your qualifications in your signature.

There is nothing in my signature. Are you "goading" me? I feel victimized.

 

[rjs330]

The many (many) treatment protocols linked to in this thread, show that careful assessment to work out what might be going on for a young person, and what help they need, and what interventions might be helpful, is the appropriate standard of care

What standards of care? From WPATH? Where do they get their standards of care from? It's not from RCTs.

The new SOC barely addresses therapy and brushes it aside in a rush for affirmation and transitioning. It states that psychological therapy may be beneficial but it is not required in order to make a determination on if the child is trans or not. It's all geared to actually transition people.

 

[Bradskii]

Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors. Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines,

Then here's an idea. You keep promoting the idea that countries like Sweden and Finland have come to different conclusions. So here's the Finnish recommendation. https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documen...f92/Summary_non-binary_en.pdf?t=1592318035000

I doubt that you've read it - you haven't quoted any of it but just seem keen to keep mentioning it because you think that they do things better than do the Endocrine Society, WPATH and the AAP. So I guess that you're happy with it. Why else keep on about it?

Which is now the question. If a couple of Scaninavian countries have it right, as far as you are concerned, then shall we use the Finnish one for example as a basis for what we should be doing?

 

[Paidiske]

Where did you get the idea that this is the best thing to do?

I'm not arguing that there's any one "best" thing to do, because people are different. It's an option, and for some people it's a helpful option.

For example (emphasis mine): "Puberty blockers, also called hormone blockers, help delay unwanted physical changes that don’t match someone’s gender identity. Delaying these changes can be an important step in a young person’s transition. It can also give your child more time to explore their options before deciding whether or how to transition."

What standards of care? From WPATH? Where do they get their standards of care from? It's not from RCTs.

But even WPATH don't promote rushing people into treatment! It's quite clear, even just reading the sections on children in that nifty 260-page document from them, that they are promoting careful assessment.

There are also recommendations such as that health care providers: "Are able to identify co-existing mental health or other psychosocial concerns and distinguish these from gender dysphoria, incongruence, and diversity. ...assessment is best provided by an HCP who possesses some expertise in mental health in order to identify conditions that can be mistaken for gender incongruence. Such conditions are rare and, when present, are often psychological in nature."

The new SOC barely addresses therapy and brushes it aside in a rush for affirmation and transitioning. It states that psychological therapy may be beneficial but it is not required in order to make a determination on if the child is trans or not. It's all geared to actually transition people.

It recommends not making psychotherapy mandatory, which makes sense (mandatory therapy is usually counter-productive in any situation). But it also makes many positive statements about situations and ways in which it can be helpful and may be recommended.

What I see it as geared to, is giving people the opportunity and support to work out what's helpful to them, rather than trying to push everyone to the extreme.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because it gives the person concerned time to work through whatever might be going on for them,

Whatever might be going on with them.

receive assessments, psychotherapy, and work out "where to from here?"

Psychotherapy?

It sounds as if you believe....deep down....that this is ultimately a mental disorder but somehow, that's an impolite thing to say...

I cannot imagine why a trans person would need "Psychotherapy" for something not a mental disorder.

without the pressure/distress of puberty making things more difficult. It can give them a bit of breathing space.

The many (many) treatment protocols linked to in this thread, show that careful assessment to work out what might be going on for a young person, and what help they need, and what interventions might be helpful, is the appropriate standard of care.

I'm sorry...but those are mere suggestions and affirmative care means that a care provider can only get in trouble for failing to affirm someone's gender.

No, but the question is the nature of the problem. A clinic with poor practice, not following recommended treatment guidelines, is a problem; but it's very different than what some posters in this thread are claiming the problem is.

Much like the CRT discourse.....a fair amount of protesting that "this issue isn't happening" then upon banning the thing that isn't happening....a lot of protesting "how dare you ban this thing that very recently wasn't happening".

If you think it's not happening....and conservatives are only preventing the occasional medical practitioner from wrongfully providing affirmative care....then why do you oppose it?

Wouldn't it be good to prevent even those few doctors who are practicing medicine poorly and potentially harming patients?

I understand that this new left doesn't participate in the marketplace of ideas so much as they deny their position actually exists....then when this eventually fails, they tend to misrepresent it, then hopefully...it's mainstream enough to no longer need to defend by the time the majority understands what happens.

It's so common now it's an easily recognized pattern. If a Australia follows a pattern of affirmative care that requires what you think it does....please point out which link you provided that shows this.

Because I took a quick peek...and the 2018 guidelines were written by AusPATH. I understand that is a different spelling from WPATH....but you don't need to be the sharpest knife in the kitchen to realize that is the Australian branch of WPATH. Did the guidelines get rewritten since then? Was AusPATH kept out of the creation of the new guidelines? Can you link the most recent guidelines for trans care in Australia?

We saw this same denial, obfuscate, advocate pattern play out over the book bans as well. I had people who hadn't seen what was in books....tell me I was wrong about what I saw in books. It's not just a bad faith argument at that point...it's wildly absurd. Surely you knew WPATH had a hand in your nation's guidelines very recently, right?

Then there's the substance of your position as well...

Apparently, you think this thing we believe is happening isn't happening....and if it is, it's a rare outlier, and shouldn't have happened. If you genuinely believe that...what possible harm is done by legislation preventing it? It would seem that if you truly believed what you're stating....we'd only prevent the occasional bad doctor from needlessly harming children.

There is a point, I think, where one has to accept their political opposition is neither representing themselves honestly....nor willing to....and if that's the political environment, it's one that justifies a rather extreme response.

 

[Paidiske]

Psychotherapy?

It sounds as if you believe....deep down....that this is ultimately a mental disorder but somehow, that's an impolite thing to say...

I cannot imagine why a trans person would need "Psychotherapy" for something not a mental disorder.

Therapy isn't just about fixing disorders. It can be about exploring emotions, identifying and evaluating possible actions, identifying resources and supports, building coping mechanisms, and so on.

I'm sorry...but those are mere suggestions and affirmative care means that a care provider can only get in trouble for failing to affirm someone's gender.

If someone comes in saying "I think maybe I'm trans," and a HCP tells them outright that they're not, that's not good care. But saying, "Okay, let's explore why you think that," and providing space to look at experiences, feelings, potential causes, and so on, is good care.

If you think it's not happening....and conservatives are only preventing the occasional medical practitioner from wrongfully providing affirmative care....then why do you oppose it?

What I'm arguing for, in this thread, as regards care for transgendered people, is conservative/traditional/Christian people (to borrow @stevevw's not unproblematic grouping) not seeking to limit treatment options based on a refusal to accept that being transgendered is a real phenomenon. Along the way, I've gotten tangled up in debunking a fair few, either misleading or outright false statements, which have been offered as arguments for such ideological limiting; but I'm not really interested in the details of treatment protocols or the like. That's for patients and their treating teams, and medical governing bodies, to work out.

Wouldn't it be good to prevent even those few doctors who are practicing medicine poorly and potentially harming patients?

Sure. Don't we have processes to deal with that?

If a Australia follows a pattern of affirmative care that requires what you think it does....please point out which link you provided that shows this.

I believe I linked to the Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines already in this thread, but here they are again.

Because I took a quick peek...and the 2018 guidelines were written by AusPATH. I understand that is a different spelling from WPATH....but you don't need to be the sharpest knife in the kitchen to realize that is the Australian branch of WPATH. Did the guidelines get rewritten since then? Was AusPATH kept out of the creation of the new guidelines? Can you link the most recent guidelines for trans care in Australia?

It appears they endorsed the 2020 document. But so what? If the standards of care don't say what opponents say they do (eg. promoting fast tracking of children into surgery as a matter of course), but rather promote careful assessment and cautious treatment, then isn't it good that a professional association endorses them?

Surely you knew WPATH had a hand in your nation's guidelines very recently, right?

Again, if the guidelines are robust and appropriate, so what?

Apparently, you think this thing we believe is happening isn't happening....and if it is, it's a rare outlier, and shouldn't have happened. If you genuinely believe that...what possible harm is done by legislation preventing it? It would seem that if you truly believed what you're stating....we'd only prevent the occasional bad doctor from needlessly harming children.

From what I can see, some people in this thread are arguing that certain treatment options simply shouldn't be available at all. That position seems to be based on a belief that such treatments are never justified (underpinned by an ideological disagreement with the reason for the treatment). Since I don't necessarily agree with that, I want to leave room for their use when it is justified. I am arguing against limiting the scope of practitioners based on the opinions of a bunch of ill-informed randoms on the internet.