When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

No it's not. There is no standard on this. Here's an article of undercover work done to show what's happening.

‘Mature Enough’: Undercover Video Reveals Docs Routinely Approve Puberty Blockers for Kids as Young as Eight

Whistleblower at trans care center exposes 'appalling' practices inside gender-affirming hospital for kids

Whistleblower at Texas gender clinic exposes horror of 'transitioning' children - LifeSite

The first link is about a video produced by Project Veritas. Let's run a quick check on their bona fides: Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.

Check any article or news report on these guys and you'll see exactly how genuine they are. You obviously didn't bother as no-one in their right mind could reasonably think that these guys are worth quoting on anything at all. Even the ABC in Australia recently had to retract a radio report and apologise for using some info they found was originally from these guys. Project Veritas.

A radio news report on 3 February 2023 repeated information released by a US-based group called Project Veritas and described the group as an “investigative news organisation”. The story should not have been broadcast as the source was not verified and the descriptor used for Project Veritas was also inaccurate.

Inaccurate is putting it mildly...

Details on the second link: Parents hit back at Missouri trans clinic whistleblower Jamie Reed.

Did you check her bona fides? Of course not. You'll take all of this at face value. So is Reed an expert whose opinions we should listen to? No, she was doing secretarial work. Seems you'd be better listening to parents and the people who are the medical experts.

The parents said despite working at the center, Reed had no medical or managerial role and wasn’t in appointments where doctors saw patients.

They said Reed’s role was restricted to making appointments, doing patient intake and informing families about additional resources.
Transgender youth and parents similarly disputed the claims made by Reed in a report in the Missouri Independent.

Alison Maclean said the clinic told her 12-year-old son he was too young for hormones and didn’t pressure him into taking puberty blockers.

“I think the clinic attempts to gauge where you’re at, kind of in your, in your journey with your child,” Maclean told the Independent.

The third link is simply 'a whistleblower'. No name, no details, nothing. But you can see that when we dig up some details we get what we see above.

I think you should keep these coming. They're excellent examples of where you get your information from. Advocacy groups, far right religious groups, charlatans who produce deceptively edited videos and secretaries.

 

[Paidiske]

You keep mentioning brain studies.

Yep. And if you google "sexed development of the brain" you'll find a pile of reasons why.

Moreover with the large uptick girls identifying we have seen no prepubescent dysphoria,

The average age of onset of gender dysphoria is between five and seven years old.

Yet with the affirming care model then are medically transitioned anyway.

If they so choose, after extensive evaluation and other forms of treatment being offered.

For example, I have a young person in my extended family who, in their early teens, was deeply suicidal. Watched around the clock, made several very serious attempts, etc. That young person has been allowed to adopt a new name and present (dress and groom) as a member of the opposite sex while receiving mental health care, and lo and behold, the suicide attempts are no more. No medical transition (at this stage) several years into their experience. Their "affirming care" meant they were allowed to explore and claim a trans identity and make choices about how they present socially, and for them, that's been enough. That's a really common sort of story.

Speaking as if the most extreme experiences are common is really unhelpful.

Because once put on drugs they are now on the train they can't get off.

Well, actually, this is not true. There are a range of possible pharmaceutical interventions; some are simple and reversible (for example, a contraceptive implant which suppresses the menstrual cycle is completely reversible, or treatments similar to those used for precocious puberty), some less so. And even if someone chooses to use some drugs for a time, that might be as far as they ever go.

Again, speaking as if the most extreme situations are what happens to everyone, is not only unhelpful, it's quite dishonest. And I see @Bradskii has saved me some work in debunking some of your claims.

They are certainly trying to conserve something that was common in the past - that's why they are called conservatives.

In many cases they're trying to conserve an idea about the past that isn't all that accurate. A lot of rose-coloured glasses, in effect.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In my post, I quoted articles from Scientific American and the History Channel. And the links are posted. Why don't you read the articles before critiquing them?

Of course, in the 19th century, abortion was risky. But so was childbirth. Most deliveries back then were handled by midwives, not physicians. Ever heard of puerperal fever? It was a very dangerous bacterial infection of the uterus and upper genital tract that occurred a within a few days of delivery. We know now it was caused by group B streptococcus. And was acquired by unsanitary delivery technique. From 20-25% (and sometimes more) women died. I'm posting a quote from the article, and the link.

The first recorded epidemic of puerperal fever occurred at the Hôtel-Dieu de Paris in 1646. Hospitals throughout Europe and America consistently reported death rates between 20% to 25% of all women giving birth with intermittent epidemics with up to 100% fatalities of women giving birth in childbirth wards.

Puerperal fever - wikidoc

Right....women died from childbirth. Typhoid Mary etc....fun stuff.

But no back alley abortions by guys in trenchcoats twirling their mustaches.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The first link is about a video produced by Project Veritas. Let's run a quick check on their bona fides: Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.

Check any article or news report on these guys and you'll see exactly how genuine they are. You obviously didn't bother as no-one in their right mind could reasonably think that these guys are worth quoting on anything at all. Even the ABC in Australia recently had to retract a radio report and apologise for using some info they found was originally from these guys. Project Veritas.

A radio news report on 3 February 2023 repeated information released by a US-based group called Project Veritas and described the group as an “investigative news organisation”. The story should not have been broadcast as the source was not verified and the descriptor used for Project Veritas was also inaccurate.

Inaccurate is putting it mildly...

Details on the second link: Parents hit back at Missouri trans clinic whistleblower Jamie Reed.

Did you check her bona fides? Of course not. You'll take all of this at face value. So is Reed an expert whose opinions we should listen to? No, she was doing secretarial work. Seems you'd be better listening to parents and the people who are the medical experts.

The parents said despite working at the center, Reed had no medical or managerial role and wasn’t in appointments where doctors saw patients.

They said Reed’s role was restricted to making appointments, doing patient intake and informing families about additional resources.
Transgender youth and parents similarly disputed the claims made by Reed in a report in the Missouri Independent.

Alison Maclean said the clinic told her 12-year-old son he was too young for hormones and didn’t pressure him into taking puberty blockers.

“I think the clinic attempts to gauge where you’re at, kind of in your, in your journey with your child,” Maclean told the Independent.

The third link is simply 'a whistleblower'. No name, no details, nothing. But you can see that when we dig up some details we get what we see above.

I think you should keep these coming. They're excellent examples of where you get your information from. Advocacy groups, far right religious groups, charlatans who produce deceptively edited videos and secretaries.

This is typical of the new religion....attacking messengers instead of messages. Woman was doing secretarial work you say? It's not as if she was scheduling appoints and sending out prescriptions. What does she possibly know?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I accept the weight of the many, many sound scientific sources I've read. Is it proven as an absolute? No, but that's not the language of science, anyway. However, the weight of the data makes this, currently, the most likely explanation.

You don't know the data....and you're trusting sources that literally use eunuch fetishism websites for research.

No; people whose gender dysphoria desists are not actually transgendered. That's a distinction that needs to be made.

Since desistence happens around 15 on average...why would we ever treat anyone younger? They may not be trans.

There are different types of mental illness, and different approaches to treating them. We do actually make accommodations for other mental illnesses in various ways; that's a part of dealing with disability in general.

Perhaps you do....we typically don't.

I literally pointed out that this is not necessary. You are (rather hysterically) attacking a straw man, here. Just because I accept that transgendered people exist, as such, doesn't mean I am suggesting a particular way forward in terms of social accommodations.

If you're genuinely fence sitting, I have no problem with that.

You do know that ECT is still a normal part of medical treatment, right?

I recognise, for a start, that the kind of changes a transgendered person might seek to make exist on a spectrum, from the very mild social changes (for example, adopting a unisex name, or dressing androgynously) all the way through to a full medical/surgical transition. I also recognise that very, very few people actually choose that full medical/surgical transition; most people find that changes less extreme than that are able to reduce their distress to a level where they can live a relatively healthy life.

If I am reluctant to absolutely rule out the most extreme treatment, it's because I recognise that it is rare, and that it is only done for people for whom the milder changes are not sufficient. And because at that point, I think the best people to be making those decisions are the person concerned and their medical team, not me or any other random on the internet with an ideological wagon to push but no skin in the game, as it were.

That's an admirable position. Unfortunately the accommodations they seek are excessive and can, often frequently, require the participation of larger society. There's nothing I'd like more than to be able to ignore the whole thing but unfortunately, social conformity to their demands means that I am....against my will....required to take a position rather than being passive.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am - as I said upthread - aware that there have been a small proportion of cases where treatment was not carefully discerned. That doesn't invalidate every treatment ever administered.

What I see, when I look at the weight of the research, is that the experience of being transgendered is probably multi-factorial, with a large early developmental component. That's the foundation from which I approach this issue. If you want to claim there's no biological basis to it, you have a lot of work to do to establish that, because that's not what I see in the literature.

But again, in many ways, this is irrelevant. Transgendered people exist. The challenge, for Christians, is not to argue the science of causes or the minutiae of treatment, but to remember the second great commandment; love your neighbour as yourself.

Here's an example; guidance for workplaces on how to accommodate and support people with mental illness: Help others stay at work Note how the emphasis on things like flexible hours, modified tasks, and so on, amount to altering part of our way of life.

(Hint; a quick google brought up many examples and resources).

Would you be as accepting of treatment if we...

1. Identify the genes responsible before birth.
2. Fix those genes so no unfortunate souls are born trans.

Because that really may be a sooner reality than you imagine. Some lifelong genetic diseases are already being cured in the womb.

 

[Paidiske]

You don't know the data....and you're trusting sources that literally use eunuch fetishism websites for research.

Sorry, which source was that?

I'm not going to claim to be an expert in the science; my degree in the field is now more years out of date than I care to admit. But I'm going to claim to be fluent enough in the basics to have a sense of the overall situation, and it seems to me that my position is congruent with the best scientific understanding.

Since desistence happens around 15 on average...why would we ever treat anyone younger? They may not be trans.

That's a medical judgement for that person and their treating team to make.

If you're genuinely fence sitting, I have no problem with that.

Not so much fence sitting, as saying that the issues raised as insurmountable social problems seem to me, to be no such thing.

There's nothing I'd like more than to be able to ignore the whole thing but unfortunately, social conformity to their demands means that I am....against my will....required to take a position rather than being passive.

You know, I've never had a trans person make demands of me. The occasional polite request, sure. And nothing I wasn't able to manage without any real issue. What "excessive" demands are being made of you, that you feel unable to meet?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This got me thinking.

If I say I experience "pain". How do I know it's actually "pain" I'm feeling and not something else???

It's a different sort of question...because we generally recognize that men and women are capable of experiencing similar emotions....love, fear, embarrassment, etc.

This is a claim that men and women each have a unique feeling only felt by men and one only felt by women. These trans people are claiming that they feel the wrong feeling for their body

It's an interesting question that doesn't seem easy to sort out. How would you know? Why wouldn't you assume that other men or women feel like you?

 

[rjs330]

The first link is about a video produced by Project Veritas. Let's run a quick check on their bona fides: Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.

Check any article or news report on these guys and you'll see exactly how genuine they are. You obviously didn't bother as no-one in their right mind could reasonably think that these guys are worth quoting on anything at all. Even the ABC in Australia recently had to retract a radio report and apologise for using some info they found was originally from these guys. Project Veritas.

A radio news report on 3 February 2023 repeated information released by a US-based group called Project Veritas and described the group as an “investigative news organisation”. The story should not have been broadcast as the source was not verified and the descriptor used for Project Veritas was also inaccurate.

Inaccurate is putting it mildly...

Details on the second link: Parents hit back at Missouri trans clinic whistleblower Jamie Reed.

Did you check her bona fides? Of course not. You'll take all of this at face value. So is Reed an expert whose opinions we should listen to? No, she was doing secretarial work. Seems you'd be better listening to parents and the people who are the medical experts.

The parents said despite working at the center, Reed had no medical or managerial role and wasn’t in appointments where doctors saw patients.

They said Reed’s role was restricted to making appointments, doing patient intake and informing families about additional resources.
Transgender youth and parents similarly disputed the claims made by Reed in a report in the Missouri Independent.

Alison Maclean said the clinic told her 12-year-old son he was too young for hormones and didn’t pressure him into taking puberty blockers.

“I think the clinic attempts to gauge where you’re at, kind of in your, in your journey with your child,” Maclean told the Independent.

The third link is simply 'a whistleblower'. No name, no details, nothing. But you can see that when we dig up some details we get what we see above.

I think you should keep these coming. They're excellent examples of where you get your information from. Advocacy groups, far right religious groups, charlatans who produce deceptively edited videos and secretaries.

Oh yes of course the ole attack the messenger instead of the message routine. Yet you posted nothing to dispute what happened. Typical. Yes yes it's what the left does. Someone proves the case and it's attack the messenger. It's like I said the links weren't for you because you just ignore them.

If course I would absolutely expect the clinic who had the whistle blown on them to be honest and forthright. I fully expected them to come out say say, oh yes that's what they do. The whistleblower is correct it's what we have been doing all along. Once again they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar so what happens? Attack the whistleblower.

You didn't expect a trans clinic to be honest about it did you? She came forward knowing that people like you and the clinic would attack her for it. It's what you do. No wonder people are hesitant to speak out. This lady was brave to do so because she knew exactly what was going to happen. Oh and big surprise it did!

They are lying to cover their tracks. It's what you do when you get caught.

 

[rjs330]

Yep. And if you google "sexed development of the brain" you'll find a pile of reasons why.

And yet not one of them shows what you claim. Isn't that interesting.

 

[Paidiske]

Would you be as accepting of treatment if we...

1. Identify the genes responsible before birth.
2. Fix those genes so no unfortunate souls are born trans.

Because that really may be a sooner reality than you imagine. Some lifelong genetic diseases are already being cured in the womb.

If that were hypothetically possible, (and this is not a simple condition which is likely to be so easily managed, as, say, single-gene diseases like cystic fibrosis) I think it would be caught up in a larger ethical debate about the place of disability in society. I'm not sure I have answers to that, at this stage.

 

[rjs330]

The average age of onset of gender dysphoria is between five and seven years old.

Really and we see an 80% desistance rate. How can that be if all these 5-7 year olds have the brains of the opposite sex?

 

[Paidiske]

And yet not one of them shows what you claim. Isn't that interesting.

I see plenty of discussion of sexed development of the brain, including people whose brain development is incongruent with their gonadal sex.

At this stage, unless you're going to bring something substantial to the discussion, I don't think there's anything more to be said. From my point of view, you're just arguing that the sky isn't blue.

 

[Paidiske]

Really and we see an 80% desistance rate. How can that be if all these 5-7 year olds have the brains of the opposite sex?

Nobody is saying that every person who experiences gender dysphoria is transgendered. But you are making blatantly false claims (such as that "we have seen no prepubescent dysphoria").

 

[Bradskii]

Oh yes of course the ole attack the messenger instead of the message routine.

Perhaps you'd prefer me not to point out, in the first instance, that the people who published the video are charlatans. Maybe you'd prefer that we all accept that they are experts in their field and you are bringing to the table some worthwhile information. But that is really not true, is it...

Simply google their name and you'll see why. It really has me beat that you don't spend literally a minute or so to check out the people who you are quoting. Or, more worrying, you do check them out, ignore the fact that they are nowhere qualified to comment in any way and post away regardless.

Don't you think that people will check how reliable your sources are?

You didn't expect a trans clinic to be honest about it did you? She came forward knowing that people like you and the clinic would attack her for it. It's what you do. No wonder people are hesitant to speak out.

But they aren't. There were many more opinions, first hand, given about the clinic than I posted. Given by parents of patients. All who deny the woman's claims. Ah, but of course, the people who are undeniably most interested in the welfare of their children are also, somehow, involved in a cover up.

 

[rjs330]

Well, actually, this is not true. There are a range of possible pharmaceutical interventions; some are simple and reversible (for example, a contraceptive implant which suppresses the menstrual cycle is completely reversible, or treatments similar to those used for precocious puberty), some less so. And even if someone chooses to use some drugs for a time, that might be as far as they ever go.

Again, speaking as if the most extreme situations are what happens to everyone, is not only unhelpful, it's quite dishonest. And I see @Bradskii has saved me some work in debunking some of your claims.

Where on earth are you getting this information? Kids that are put in these blockers go on to take the hormones.

2021 study from the UK [1] found that only 1 out of 44 children placed on puberty blockers did not continue to take cross-sex hormones.

Similarly, a Dutch study [2] reported that only 1.9% of adolescents who started puberty suppression treatment abandoned this course and did not take cross-sex hormones.

In fact, in a different Dutch study [3], “[n]o adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression, and all started cross‐sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment.”

No body is claiming the blockers alone are irreversible. The truth is that 98% of kids go on to take the cross sex hormones and those are irreversible.

So it's not extremes. It's the norm. I proven it to you. It's dishonest to make a claim otherwise. It sounds like you desire to trust the clinics who actually have a stake in the game. They affirm and get paid big money for it. Big pharma also makes money. The treatments are life long cash cow, but we can certainly put all our faith in them. And the transactivists have nothing to gain right?

Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.

About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.

www.reuters.com

When Transgender Kids Transition, Medical Risks are Both Known and Unknown | FRONTLINE

As I've shown you the actual extreme is to not affirm. Clinics always affirm. It's the rare case they don't.

 

[Bradskii]

Where on earth are you getting this information? Kids that are put in these blockers go on to take the hormones.

2021 study from the UK [1] found that only 1 out of 44 children placed on puberty blockers did not continue to take cross-sex hormones.

Here's the conclusion from that study: Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK

We undertook an uncontrolled prospective observational study of GnRHa as monotherapy in 44 12–15 year olds with persistent and severe GD.
Overall patient experience of changes on GnRHa treatment was positive. We identified no changes in psychological function. Changes in BMD were consistent with suppression of growth.

So it wasn't an illustration of what generally happens. It was a specific study of a specific group. And it was shown that the procedures were, wait for it, entirely beneficial. You wanted to post a link that says that puberty blockers were almost 100% beneficial? No, you didn't. You thought it was a negative. Again, you delved no further than a headline. Want to see the psychological criteria for selection for that group?

Eligibility criteria were chosen to match those used for a Netherlands cohort, namely that the young person:

A. is aged 12–15 years

B. Psychological criteria

1. has been seen by the GIDS for at least 6 months and attended at least 4 interviews for assessment and therapeutic exploration of their gender identity development.
2. psychological stability sufficient to withstand the stresses of medical treatment for GID.
3. fulfils the following criteria relating to GID:
   
   1. Throughout childhood (defined as over 5 years) the adolescent has demonstrated an intense pattern of cross-gendered behaviours and cross-gender identity.
   2. The adolescent has gender dysphoria that is significantly increased with the onset of puberty. Following assessment the clinician(s) working with the young person deem that there is a high likelihood of the young person experiencing severe psychological distress consequent on experiencing full pubertal development before pubertal suppression is implemented.
4. The young person and their parents/guardians are actively requesting pubertal suppression.
5. is able to give informed consent.

So thanks for that. It shows exactly what happens with people with needs as have been described.

And it's the same story every time. You post some link, you say it shows that you are right but either it is from some desperately inadequate source, outright charlatans or it's to a study that says the exact opposite of what you think you are saying.

This is becoming farcical.

And hey, you want to quote any paper that you think supports what you say, then give us a link. Otherwise some people mignt think you're trying to hide something.

 

[Paidiske]

Where on earth are you getting this information? Kids that are put in these blockers go on to take the hormones.

Some do and some don't. Where am I getting this from? From knowing actual people, for a start. There are lots of young girls who are put on contraceptives to suppress or delay or smooth menstrual cycles, and so on, who never go on to further medical treatment. Not all of them even do it for gender-identity related reasons.

I proven it to you.

No, you really haven't. You've cherry picked and misinterpreted some data (once again, thanks to @Bradskii for pointing some of that out).

It sounds like you desire to trust the clinics who actually have a stake in the game.

Mostly, I do trust them, at least those more local to me. I know people who've been patients in them. I know a fair bit about their protocols. And I know that they don't match what you're putting forward, in the slightest.

Am I claiming every single clinic everywhere gets it right in every single case? No. But again, the idea that clinicians are mutilating kids on a whim is just flat-out wrong.

They affirm and get paid big money for it.

This may be one benefit of a government-run health system, rather than an American-style for-profit system.

As I've shown you the actual extreme is to not affirm. Clinics always affirm. It's the rare case they don't.

And what does it mean to "affirm"? It means allowing the kids to explore their gender identity. It means allowing them to experiment with things like names, pronouns, dress, social roles. It means exploring the possibilities for treatment. Rather than refusing any of these things on the grounds that the kids are "delusional."

Eg: see here: What is gender-affirming care? Your questions answered

Note in particular: "The interventions fall along a continuum as well, from counseling to changes in social expression to medications (such as hormone therapy). For children in particular, the timing of the interventions is based on several factors, including cognitive and physical development as well as parental consent. Surgery, including to reduce a person’s Adam’s Apple, or to align their chest or genitalia with their gender identity, is rarely provided to people under 18."

What it does not mean, is rushing young kids into the operating theatre without adequate assessment.

 

[rjs330]

Nobody is saying that every person who experiences gender dysphoria is transgendered. But you are making blatantly false claims (such as that "we have seen no prepubescent dysphoria").

But if you say that this is caused by brain issues that occurred when they are in the womb then that is innate with the child. They were born that way. It's the exact same thing as the claim of homosexuals. Yet we do not find a desistance rate of 80% with them. But we do find it with teens.

What I was referring to is the seriously large increase of teens and particularly teen girls into transgender. We haven't seen that with prepubescent kids. So if most dysphoria is discovered with 5-7 year olds why the sudden explosion of girls at puberty and not b fore? And why girls?

This is nonsense. You have not proven I the least that this is strictly a brain phenomenon. In fact I have shown you from the research that it is hypothetical only. There is no solid evidence for it and yet you still believe it. I think you have succumbed to the transgender propaganda.

I think we agree that true transgender people are mentally ill. But there is a large increase in this which indicates this is not all mental illness that people are born with. I do believe that mental illness is a real thing and that you can be born with it.

What I am totally against is the transgendering of kids especially. When you look at the desistance rate, the regret and the sudden increase there is absolutely no excuse for transing any child. None. And the fact that you have no spoken against it speaks volumes about how powerful this ideology is. It's evil and you've fallen for it.

Over 90% of kids put in blockers go on to hormone treatments. Yet if left alone they desist. It's horrifying what is being done to kids.

A d adults? I've gone on record saying adults are free to do what they want. I might think that it's the wrong treatments for the as well, but they have to deal with their the consequenc s of their own actions. However kids are a completely different thing. You know as well as I do kids are not mature enough and their brains thinking processes haven't fully developed yet, but we say they are mature enough and old enough to make life altering decisions like this? How preposterous. You of all people should be standing against this.

And I noticed that you called my cutting example gross. That's only cutting. Which is nothing compared to allowing kids to mutilate themselves by having their breasts chopped off. It's evil personified. You of all people should be in front of the line resisting this. You know the struggle the adults are going through. And I also noticed you didn't say anything about your child coming to you about their leg. You know good and well you wouldn't support that kind of treatment for them. Yet you say nothing about what being done to kids as transgenders. Which is the same exact thing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, which source was that?

WPATH...they created the vast bulk of studies this garbage rests on. You're familiar with a scientific review then? A meta-study? The sort of things done to review all the work to see if it's high quality, low quality, or somewhere in between.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert in the science; my degree in the field is now more years out of date than I care to admit. But I'm going to claim to be fluent enough in the basics to have a sense of the overall situation, and it seems to me that my position is congruent with the best scientific understanding.

Yeah sure....I'm not as good at the math as I used to be, but I can still read a methodology and spot the problems....

Sample size is absurdly small. Follow up is short or non existing. Study period is extremely short. These are far too common in the studies this care model relies on. We are talking about permanent alterations to a child. It doesn't take much common sense to see you'd want very high quality evidence before such intervention.

That's a medical judgement for that person and their treating team to make.

So was oxycontin.

Not so much fence sitting, as saying that the issues raised as insurmountable social problems seem to me, to be no such thing.

Really? I don't even understand what the pronouns thing is about. I don't use someone's pronouns in their presence. You typically use them whenever they aren't around.

You know, I've never had a trans person make demands of me. The occasional polite request, sure. And nothing I wasn't able to manage without any real issue. What "excessive" demands are being made of you, that you feel unable to meet?

That I should be required to affirm someone else's faith based beliefs is beyond a minor request. It's blatantly tyrannical. I don't do it for Christians and I'm certainly not doing it for trans people.