Yes, and I posted links to resources on how those criteria are established. It's not a 15-minute chat.
Not here, not in the US. Also, I didn't see any links despite going back a couple pages so if you could provide them again or give me a post number, I'll look.
It goes like this. Some people, after taking puberty blockers (which don't cause infertility),
What are you basing that on? There's no long term studies confirming that.
may go on to cross-sex hormones (which can cause infertility)
Lol ok...so you're certain about the cross sex hormones and the puberty blockers? You're aware these are used to treat child sex offenders because they kill any possible sexual arousal right? That's what the term "chemical castration" means...that's the other use.
so you start the conversation before the puberty blockers so that people understand their options, pathways, and potential consequences.
How can a child make that choice?
It's a bit like saying girls can consent to female genital mutilation.
Not that I see that it's relevant, but I think I'm up to four shots now.
Well...there's this study, and I'm going to do my best to not misrepresent it but...
In a study by the Cleveland clinic the more shots you got after 2...it's entirely possible that your chances of contracting covid, increase. Now...that doesn't mean you'll die from it...that's the sort of thing they need to figure out over the next decade or so....the question of increasing doses actually makes your immune system more susceptible and whether or not that directly translates to increased chances of death.
If you look it up...I'm certain left wing media outlets are dismissing the findings as "misleading" because increased chances of catching covid don't equate to increased chances of dying from it. Just wanted to give you the heads up. That vaccine underwent no long term studies.
And in the meanwhile, they suffer. And their long term outcomes are worse. Is that really ethical?
What claims specifically are false?
But claiming that no doctor ever does anything that isn't absolutely required (but only recommended) is also misrepresenting the situation. Most doctors will want to engage in best practice.
You're thinking like a patient....not a doctor. Imagine you're a doctor for a moment....if you do what is suggested, you run the very real risk of a lawsuit you will lose. After all, you're required to affirm gender as stated. If however, you ignore what is suggested and only do what is required....you'll rake in the money from a repeat base of clients.
If you think doctors won't ignore the harm they're doing....oxycontin...that all anyone has to say.
It's possible to determine that someone isn't experiencing gender dysphoria to the clinical criteria.
It's not.
As I posted upthread, about one third of people referred for such assessment are found not to meet the criteria.
Ok....how long did those assessments take?
Medically speaking, it's leaving them alone. But what do you want instead? To leave kids to suffer with no support? Is that the society we want to build?
Who is suffering? Children? There's no evidence of any trans suicide epidemic.
That's not what I see in the literature. If this were true, there'd be no point to any assessment, diagnostic criteria, or the like.
Again, I can't see what literature you have. I know it says that feelings need to be present for 6 months....but they're doctors....they don't actually watch anyone for 6 months.
Well, if you don't accept the possibility that someone can truly be transgendered, then again, there's probably no point to further discussion.
Whoa....if I gave you all day, you couldn't prove the existence of a feeling to me, let alone a sex specific feeling. There's no doctor, no philosopher, no scientist, nor any teacher who can. If you want to claim it exists....that's fine. I've seen some of the evidence. It's possible such a thing exists. We are far from being able to say anything definitive about it.
From the outside, it does genuinely look like cult. Not a religious cult. It's ideological. It's political but a very dumb sort of politics rooted in self centered narcissistic gain. There's no real leaders or values....but it does seem like this cult does....
1. Treat political advocacy for victims as a sort of moral identifier.
2. Rank victims upon a superficial scale tied to political power/gain.
3. Views superficial characteristics like they are achievements.
Being black isn't an achievement. Being white isn't an achievement. Being a woman or man or trans person isn't an achievement. Being gay or straight isn't an achievement. These aren't things worthy of celebration or things that can make you moral....not even by proxy political advocacy. They aren't achievements....you deserve no reward for any of them, nor any special consideration inherently because of them.
You have experience with the clinical application of those criteria, to make that call?
Stop. You don't care about clinical experience. You don't care. I know you don't care. The president of WPATH, a practicing surgeon with more clinical experience treating trans people than almost anyone in the world is on video, saying that puberty blockers render people permanently sexually impaired, impotent, infertile or whatever. I've offered to share this evidence with you....you don't want to see it.
I was dismissing your point in a humorous way. I think the idea that people can "make" kids claim to be experiencing gender dysphoria is pretty ridiculous.
It's a 100% real possibility that the very people who write your standards of care have admitted to. The previous president of WPATH literally quit over this....literally went on a tour with Abigail Shrier and spoke at length about it. Yes, they were the previous president of WPATH, yes, they are also claiming to be trans.
Why are you so certain that gender is a real thing? I know you don't have any evidence proving it, I also know that what little evidence exists is almost unilaterally rejected by trans activists.
Try this little exercise. Come up with one sentence that you can use the word gender in, regarding this discussion, and I wouldn't be able to replace it with the words "biological sex" without us talking about wildly different things. There's no connection between these two things, right? Here's some examples...
"A trans person is someone who feels like the opposite gender inside.
A trans person is someone who feels like the opposite biological sex inside.
A trans person feels a difference between their real gender and the gender they were assigned at birth.
A trans person feels a difference between their real biological sex and the biological sex they were assigned at birth."
That's a remarkable amount of overlap isn't it? How did you miss that? Was someone telling you that gender isn't tied to biological sex over and over that these were completely different concepts? Like the way an advertisement says donuts, donuts, donuts, and someone thinks "I would really like some donuts". That doesn't work on people, does it?
It may be an unhelpful choice of topic for this thread, then.
The two main and almost always bad faith arguments your cult like ideology makes are....
1. If your position is different from mine, it's only because you're immoral.
2. If your position is different from mine, it's not ever for my lack of ability to explain my position, but rather your intellectual failure.
These are both just means of avoiding the substance of an argument with attacks on a person. One exploits that person's desire to be seen as morally good, the other exploits the desire to not appear stupid.
Actually, it was largely the development of antipsychotic medications, which provided an alternative, less invasive treatment. Psychosurgeries of various types are still performed for conditions where other treatments have failed.
Since refusing treatment also involves harm, finding the path of least harm is not as simple as refusing all treatment.
How can the path of least harm involve the possibility of misdiagnosing 100% of children for the benefit of an estimated 1% of children? Your chances of misdiagnosis are so vastly larger than your chances of helping anyone from any possible unproven harm that the above statement is objectively absurd.
Of anyone who walks into a clinic, before a word is spoken, we can say....
Over 99% aren't trans.
Over 99% aren't experiencing gender dysphoria if they are under 15yo.
Of those experiencing gender dysphoria, 85% will desist without any treatment or intervention at all by the end of puberty.
Yet somehow, despite the facts, you think a model that assumes the person who says they are trans are in fact trans is a good model. Why? Well it's based on their own self analysis of their feelings....as a child.
I can understand that a lot of people aren't really good at math, statistics are boring and incomprehensible, and these are just numbers to people....
But the correct thing to do, if we want to choose the "least harm" is literally assume that no one who goes to a gender clinic is actually trans. We absolutely shouldn't be making it a part of public school curriculum and push children into trying to decide these things. When you actually consider that literally none of these medical interventions have any proven long term benefits....if your concern was really about doing the least harm....you should literally pretend trans people don't exist.
Even if you are certain they do.
Seriously. Look at this site advocating for trans people. It's an absurdly small group. Why would you ever advocate for children to be able to decide something they only have a 0.001% chance of being correct about?
Gender dysphoria in children refers to distress, depression, and/or anxiety as a result of feeling strongly that the body they were born with does not match their true gender.
www.newportacademy.com
BTW, go ahead and replace the word gender in the first paragraph with the words "biological sex" in your mind as you read it. Notice how nothing changes....not the meaning of the sentences....not description of being trans.
I'm not so sure about that. It's true that most ethical systems converge
Actually, geography has more to do with your morals than truth. You probably have a group of like-minded individuals who you consider your peers/friends/family that you largely agree with regarding moral opinions. Those you disagree on....you probably hide from sharing or try to convince others to see differently. Across time and distance...there's a vast disagreement about morality in mankind. Ancient Romans laughed as wild animals ate the enfeebled alive in the coliseum. Ancient Britons went on to devise more methods of torturing people than likely most of the rest of humanity. Ancient Christians tried to convert pagan Europeans and ended up adopting beliefs like "trial by combat"....and it's resulting grandchild "the gentleman duel" for centuries despite its obvious misalignment. Right now, a pashtun in Afghanistan who will risk his life protecting a total stranger in his household also sees no wrong in both buying and enslaving little boys for his sexual gratification.
I don't know where this idea of agreement comes from but you literally disagree with yourself from just 15 years ago. If you're on the left now...and you were then....then back in 2008 if the discussion was about what age it's acceptable for little girls who really really want breast implants to get them...you either insisted upon waiting until adulthood or thought she should stop objectifying herself for male attention. Now? You seem perfectly fine with permanent disfigurement so long as it's consented to. I bet you were against the idea of sticking minorities into movies just to have them there because it was called tokenism....now that it's called diversity or representation....you get a little angry if they don't just shoehorn some minorities into whatever you're watching. You used to think women should be able to stumble home drunk safe at night...yet now, if they're in prison, and the male rapist they share a cell with identifies as a woman, she should just deal with her bigotry.
What are these converging moral values you speak of lol?
And yet so often the Christian/conservative/traditional position rejects sources of knowledge such as science, experience and reason.
I literally offered you a source of knowledge, a supposed scientific expert, and source of incomparable experience. A person who has performed literally thousands of trans bottom surgeries....treated tens of thousands of trans people and claims to be trans themselves.
You aren't really interested in science, lived experience, or reason....not if they contradict your preconceived beliefs.
Not just "seen as," but objectively so.
Nobody is really making objective moral arguments. Moral arguments are inherently subjective.
As for hypocritical, what do "white privilege", "systemic racism", the "online to nazi pipeline" or even "Qanon followers" and the vast majority of beliefs you are super certain about have in common?
They're all based on the idea that people are exposed to ideas and because of this...adopt those beliefs to some degree as an aspect of their worldview or identity. The children are all immune to this when it comes to gender ideology though....that's why it's 100% safe to push radical gender theory in public schools as early as possible. No possibility of a mistake there.
(I'm also pretty dubious that some of these terms refer accurately to particular movements, their ideas and aims).
No need to be dubious. None of them are honest. Not even Marxism.
FWIW, yes, I think a society can exist with relatively minimal enforcing of ethical standards. Some agreed basic social parameters, and leave the rest as open as possible. I think that is actually healthier than trying to engage in ever more finely-detailed moral micro-management.
The creators of our society, liberals, thought much of the same thing.
