Well if an organization has taken an editorial stance against [SUBJECT HERE] then it is not likely that it would publish data that runs contrary to its “mission”; so, yes, stats can be good but taken with a grain of salt.
But that doesn't make them anti something. That's just rhetoric. This is pretty clear on this subject because these folks are NOT anti-trans. They are for better treatments for them and making sure no permanent harm was done when treating them. They are for showing how the research used in medicalization of treatments is clearly unscientific and unreliable and we need to take a closer look and address the issues instead of jumping to permanent medicalization. They are not against trans people. They are against the trans ideology that pushes people and children particularly towards permanent and dangerous medical procedures.
Oh and by the way there is a great deal of referencing the studies. This is why we should be taking a closer look at all of it.
”Permanent“ I can understand, ”dangerous” only inasmuch as all surgical procedures are dangerous.
It's not just the surgeries that are dangerous. The drugs are too. And they are not reversible. Amputating someone's perfectly healthy sex organs or breasts which includes removing the sexual pleasure modes from. Children who will never experience it.
Saving people from making “horrible mistakes” with blanket rules, laws and regulations will certainly push those so afflicted back into the closet where “normal” people won’t have to think about them, ‘tis true.
Having read the report it appears that the NHS has implemented a review process for hormone blockers prior to allowing minors to start. This is not a blanket shutdown but they do recommend caution as there is no data for long term results. This is a review by medical professionals who give their best advice based on the situation which is my issue with the blanket block by law. It takes the decision out of the hands of the medical community.Well since I've payed close attention to this I have read quite a bit. Here's just one regarding the systematic reviews.
New Systematic Reviews of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones Published by NICE
In 2020, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) undertook two systematic evidence reviews of the use of GnRH agonists (also known as "puberty blockers") and cross-sex hormones as treatments for gender dysphoric patientssegm.org
Summary of Key Recommendations from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen/NBHW)
Background In February 2022, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) issued an update to its health care service guidelines for children and youth
You are still talking about a national government agency though. Something America doesn't have. So we are left with the medical community governing themselves, which they aren't doing or the legislature stepping in. Which is necessary under the circumstances.
What would you like a healthcare provider to do?
America has multiple national government healthcare agencies. It also has non government agencies such as the AMA. I do not see these being overly different nor resulting in a need for a complete ban implemented at the state level.
Don't you remember? This has been brought up before. It might even have been you. Any way it feels like the same ole misrepresentation. I know you have participated in these conversations before.
And yet none of these have done a systematic review. The healthcare agencies here do not have the same authority and power the NHS has and you know it. The closest thing we have is medicare.
How do you know?
It is more decentralized and specialized but the FDA has plenty of power in this area.
This presumes something needs to happen which is the idea under discussion.
I am not seeing a lot of difference in how it is being handled in Europe. They work with the person in question along with their parents and determine what they believe to be the best course of action. How is it different then here?
What you’re describing would be considered “triage”, root out those people who “feel” as if they might be transgender but ultimately aren’t…that’s a good and necessary part of the process. However there are going to be people who haven’t been unduly influenced by popular culture; nor abused; nor autistic. They’re just transgender and chemical therapies might be indicated until they reach the age of majority and can decide if surgical intervention is in their futures.
I guess they should have done something then. The members don't have decades of training in this field. I'm order to do it right they need to go with the research. And systematic reviews have shown the research is unreliable and unscientific. Which of course the experts in other countries have recognized. Why won't the AMA order a systematic review I wonder?
Where is it?
Yet the FDA hasn't approved the medical treatments for the kids.
Not true.
www.forbes.com
Why didn't GOP leadership order a systematic review before their legislation I wonder?
Interesting that you think the members of the AMA have all had specialized training in all the things surrounding the transitioning of children. Here's one person who has and is one of the very first to specialize in it. She says the doctors don't do that anymore.
It's kind of funny that you think all these other countries are advocacy groups selling the story.
It's cute that you think only the far right is involved in recognizing this. I don't think these countries care a wit what those of us who agree with them think. I think they care what the systematic reviews have shown.
Perhaps they believed the systematic reviews that have already been done. Apparently the AMA doesn't. But they haven't done their own. I wonder why? Do you suppose they think these other countries are filled with radical far right folks who are completely ignoring everything and trying to make trans kids lives a living hell?
