Mother's Regret Transitioning Children

rjs330 said:

I provided links.

Click to expand...

You said the studies were 'flawed, biased and unscientific'. All you have provided are articles which do absolutely nothing to back up your claim. You have no evidence. You know you didn't have any and I knew you didn't. You are making, and can be seen to be making false claims.

essentialsaltes said:

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

Click to expand...

I have little doubt more transpeople in the US are murdered every year for being trans, than there are transpeople who experience serious regret or a desire to detransition.

It sort of makes you wonder about what the real agenda is here, doesn't it? It seems like it's more about attacking trans healthcare services, than trying to ensure that trans people are safe.

rjs330 said:

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

Click to expand...

still waiting for anything to back up your claim....and waiting and waiting

rjs330 said:

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

Click to expand...

evidence that they are?

rjs330 said:

I provided other links.

Click to expand...

Links that help your case?
Fine I’ll look at them, what were they again? (The links, are what I’m talking, that you’ve said that you posted, that back up your claims, those. thanks!)
Or just tell us which posts?

rjs330 said:

So you are the study expert now..

Click to expand...

I certainly read the study to which I linked. It gives all the information, in great detail on how it was done. It links to papers it uses. It gives all the necessary facts and figures. It's why I gave the the link. Because it is so comprehensive. Yet you are claiming they are false. Unscientific. And I'll bet my last dollar you haven't read them at all. They just don't align with with your personal view so you simply claim they are false. With zero evidence.

You keep making claims. You keep getting asked to back them up. And we get...crickets.

Bradskii said:

I certainly read the study to which I linked. It gives all the information, in great detail on how it was done. It links to papers it uses. It gives all the necessary facts and figures. It's why I gave the the link. Because it is so comprehensive. Yet you are claiming they are false. Unscientific. And I'll bet my last dollar you haven't read them at all. They just don't align with with your personal view so you simply claim they are false. With zero evidence.

You keep making claims. You keep getting asked to back them up. And we get...crickets.

Click to expand...

Allow me to translate.
You see, most scientists are functional atheists, therefore have no scruples by which they lIve and anything they “produce” as a work product is suspect because without God they have No morals and can say whatever it is that they want, it’s all about the do-re-mi MONEY!
That’s why not many Christian scientists can get “the real truth” out and are second-class citizens in their fields.

Pommer said:

Allow me to translate.
You see, most scientists are functional atheists, therefore have no scruples by which they lIve and anything they “produce” as a work product is suspect because without God they have No morals and can say whatever it is that they want, it’s all about the do-re-mi MONEY!
That’s why not many Christian scientists can get “the real truth” out and are second-class citizens in their fields.

Click to expand...

Conspirituality. It isn't something new. Evangelicals have been peddling in it for years.

Bradskii said:

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.

Click to expand...

"They're doing it for the money" is one of those arguments that actually was rooted in some legitimate concerns, but then more broadly turned into a conspiratorial sentiment about some dark plot being orchestrated by public medical institutions as a whole...which led to people getting labelled as conspiracy theorists even when they brought up the legitimate instances where concern was warranted.

I know I harp on the concept a lot, but nuance is key in this one as well because it's possible for two things to be true at once. You can have some establishments that are cashing in on things, while others are perfectly legitimate and balanced in their approaches.

There have been some institutions that have raised some eyebrows due to the fact that they had a track record of 100% of the people coming to their clinic were deemed to be candidates for transitioning. For instance, my home state of Ohio had one such case where the hospital was sued by parents whose child received care their without their buy-in. And it wasn't a small rogue clinic, it was the Cincinnati children's hospital, the 4th largest children's hospital in the country.

While the judge ruled in the hospital's favor for that particular case according to the letter of the law, they did have some additional input that expressed the concern I mentioned.
The court expressed “concern” that the Transgender Program at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital deemed “100% of the patients…who present for care” to be “appropriate candidates for continued gender treatment.” --and used the analogy of "everything's a nail to someone who has a hammer"


Back when medical marijuana was the "new thing", and prior to many states finally making the practical decision to legalize it recreationally (as it should've been all along IMO), there were certain clinics and practices that everyone knew of (mainly because they were advertised in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way implying as much with names like "Green Compassion Medical Network") that had a 100% prescribe rate where every single person who walked through the door inquiring about it, was deemed "a good candidate for it" and written a prescription for medical marijuana after 1 visit. It was pretty obvious what was going on there for those particular practices when compared to other practices that were only prescribing at a rate of 10%-20% and involving multiple visits.


"100% of the people who walk through the door are good candidates of this medical service we provide" should be a baseline cause for inquiry that I think most reasonable people should be able to agree on.

For instance, if the UCLA medical center's orthopedic wing deemed 100% of the patients as good candidates for back surgery at their practice, it would at least be cause for asking a few questions.

rjs330 said:

I already provided links.

Click to expand...

as you just said the thread isn't that bit so it's easy to go and check and discover that no you didn't

ThatRobGuy said:

There have been some institutions that have raised some eyebrows due to the fact that they had a track record of 100% of the people coming to their clinic were deemed to be candidates for transitioning. For instance, my home state of Ohio had one such case where the hospital was sued by parents whose child received care their without their buy-in. And it wasn't a small rogue clinic, it was the Cincinnati children's hospital, the 4th largest children's hospital in the country.

Click to expand...

I think I posted this in an another thread already, but while it does raise concerns, there are some clear follow-up questions to ask:

1. How many patients have they treated? 100% of 10 candidates is a lot different from 100% of 1000 candidates.

2. How are patients ending up at the clinic? Are they referred to the clinic after other doctors and psychiatrists have determined that they are candidates for transitioning, or are these patients who have had all of their gender identity care through Cincinnati Children's?

Also note that the actual quote is that "100 percent of patients seen by the clinic 'who present for care are considered to be appropriate candidates for continued gender treatment.'" Personally, I wouldn't take that quote to mean that all of them are candidates for transition - just that all of their patients are struggling with gender-related issues that require some sort of treatment. That could mean therapy, hormones, or full transition.

rjs330 said:

This thread is all about parents realizing the mistake of transing kids. That's all I really care about. I don't honestly care what adults do to themselves. I may feel.sorry for them because I know they have a mental disorder, but I don't need to get too involved in that. I would like them to get proper psychological treatment for it, but ultimately they are adults and if they want to do that to themselves I won't stop them.

What I want to put a stop to is the transitioning of children in ALL it's manifestations. So for the purpose of this thread I will no longer respond to anything that has to do with adults unless they are the perpetrators of this upon children.

Leave the kids alone.

Click to expand...

Why should we allow you to insinuate yourself between doctor's, parents, and their children? I don't think that just because you believe yourself more knowledgeable then the experts in multiple areas that makes you qualified to make medical decisions for children you have never met.

ThatRobGuy said:

While the judge ruled in the hospital's favor for that particular case according to the letter of the law, they did have some additional input that expressed the concern I mentioned.
The court expressed “concern” that the Transgender Program at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital deemed “100% of the patients…who present for care” to be “appropriate candidates for continued gender treatment.” --and used the analogy of "everything's a nail to someone who has a hammer"

Click to expand...

If the external (and informal) “triage” modalities are functioning properly, it could follow that only “appropriate candidates” were referred to the clinic? (Still, this strains credulity.)