When two worldviews collide.

[Hans Blaster]

I understood that.
I was still interested in anyone making more of an impact on human history.

Sure. There are other influences on Western culture.

The best parts.

I think the dividing of history into BC and AD was a way of saying, "Since this person Jesus has lived, things will never be the same."

Nope. That's just some monk put a "Jesus Year" numbering on his table for the dates of Easter instead of some Roman year and it eventually spread throughout Europe. Now it would have been more impressive if that dating scheme had started 500 years earlier.

I also think a bottom line in all this is that eventually we all will put our trust in somebody.

Why? I see no reason that we must put our faith in "somebody". (I assume you are referring to persons we have not met personally.)

 

[oikonomia]

Why? I see no reason that we must put our faith in "somebody". (I assume you are referring to persons we have not met personally.)

No, I am not referring to someone we have met personally necessarily.
I mean anyone whose words we believe and trust (whether unconsciously or not).

 

[oikonomia]

Well based on the number of descendants alone I'd have to go with Genghis Khan. In which case the score is 16 million to zero.

If it turns out that there is actually a divine last judgment and a final balancing of the universal scales of justice,
which person would you prefer to appear there as having been a follower of - Genghis Khan or Jesus Christ?

 

[Bradskii]

No, I am not referring to someone we have met personally necessarily.
I mean anyone whose words we believe and trust (whether unconsciously or not).

In which case we could do a quick Google search for 'Most influential person in your life'. Which is what I just did. And there were a host of answers on a myriad of web sites that suggested, generally, that it was parents and teachers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, I am not referring to someone we have met personally necessarily.
I mean anyone whose words we believe and trust (whether unconsciously or not).

Don't feel that compulsion. Not in the slightest. Never did.

 

[oikonomia]

In which case we could do a quick Google search for 'Most influential person in your life'. Which is what I just did. And there were a host of answers on a myriad of web sites that suggested, generally, that it was parents and teachers.

Sounds like you hold the Google programmers pretty high influence too.

Do you ever get into a situation where you don't care for the answers Google has provided you?

 

[Bradskii]

If it turns out that there is actually a divine last judgment and a final balancing of the universal scales of justice,
which person would you prefer to appear there as having been a follower of - Genghis Khan or Jesus Christ?

Why does there need to be a final judgement to make the choice? Wouldn't you pick Him anyway out of those two? Of course you would.

And on that basis, without the divine bribes and being granted an open choice, I'm going with my parents. Jesus doesn't get on the short list.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you ever get into a situation where you don't care for the answers Google has provided you?

It looked like you just did.

 

[rjs330]

This is a clear misrepresentation. I'm sure I've linked to this already in this thread, but see here, particularly the section on "How is it determined that someone needs and is eligible for these procedures?"

You missed this part.

Gender-affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. The interventions help transgender people align various aspects of their lives — emotional, interpersonal, and biological — with their gender identity.

Did you catch that? It's DESIGNED to support and affirm the persons gender identity. All the interventions are designed to do one thing. Help transgender people align with their gender. Emotional biological and interpersonal. It has one goal. To help transition the person. It's not to find out if there is something else going on. It's not to work on the possibility that if left alone they will desist. No it's to actually to affirm that they are indeed trans and help them through that process.

The fundamental thing that transgender people seek from health providers “is someone who’s culturally and medically competent to care for them in an environment where they feel safe,” says Imborek, whose LGBTQ Clinic is part of University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. “The primary care I provide is a gender-affirming environment.”

Note there is NOTHING about looking at anything other that they are transgendered. Gender-affirming environment.

There is nothing in any of that mentioning taking a look to see if the person really is trans or if there is something else going on. In gender affirming care the assumption is that the person is transgendered. And the goal is to help the person work their way through that. In affirmative care any other mental health disorders takes a back seat to the gender disorder. And the way to help the gender disorder is to provide a pathway to transitioning.

To understand gender affirmation and the people who push it, we need to take a closer look at their belief in the utterly exceptional “transgender” child. What do affirmative clinicians believe about such a patient, who arrives in their office with a label firmly affixed? Affirmative care starts not with a question or a clinical assessment but with a moral imperative: validate the patient’s transgender identity.

If affirmative providers’ belief in the exceptional “transgender” child bears out, we can make a strong case for affirmation. But if this belief is merely an article of faith, nothing more, clinicians risk doing serious harm to their patients under the banner of affirmation. In other words, if gender-dysphoric children and adolescents are truly exceptions to everything we know about identity formation, child and adolescent development, how humans make sense of distress and their susceptibility to social influence, the role of sexual orientation in gender dysphoria, and more, then affirmation may be the right approach.

But what if supporters of gender-affirming care are wrong?

What if children who identify as transgender are just that: children? What if they hurt, like other children? What if they’re trying to figure themselves out and learn how to navigate the strange world they live in, like other children?

There’s a way in which everything that touches trans must be exceptional — the children, the stakes, the feelings, the possibility of knowing anything for sure — because if these kids aren’t exceptional, then we threw everything we knew out the window. We didn’t ‘help’ exceptional children but harmed ordinary ones, struggling with ordinary challenges of development, sexual orientation, identity, meaning, and direction.

The dangers of gender-affirmative care

American doctors are unnecessarily harming children

unherd.com

 

[rjs330]

We all knew it was just your opinion. But yeah, you are entitled to it. And now you've quoted medical experts to back up your opinion, and then told us that you still think that what they do do is wrong, there's really not much else you can add.

Let's face it, this has been an exercise in futility. I knew that from the outset, as soon as you started to quote people on gender who are expert (and in many cases not anywhere near remotely expert) when you don't even accept the very concept itself. It's like someone quoting NASA officials to back up their flat earth theory.

You've been saying all along that people shouldn't transgender (oh, except if they are adult and they can 'mutilate' themselves as they see fit) simply because you believe that there are only two genders. As much as you want to avoid the reason, it's because of a religious belief. But you know that's not going to carry much weight, even in a religious forum. So we've had all this smoke and all these mirrors. And what do we end up with?

'I'm entitled to my opinion.'

Lol yes I am, but I also provided a lot of evidence in regards to this including the derth of research and evidence regarding this subject. I've also proven that countries are now looking at this differently and pulling away from what they were doing previously. Gee imagine that. Somehow my opinions based upon my research into what was going on is being born out as correct. I even linked to a video regarding this entire phenomenon. The two women are clinicians and guess what? Neither of them are Christians. And all those countries backing off. I bet they aren't all Christians either. In all my posts I have not mentioned anything related to by Christian belief in this. I don't need it in this case. I can read, I can research I can point to what other countries are doing who have done this and are recognizing the mistakes that have been made. I can show you how the research does not support this. And it's precisely the reason why countries are changing their ways of handling this.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Even if it is not based on real evidence and instead based on the delusional thoughts of a mad pedophile who caused the death of two people because of his insane failed theory.

 

[partinobodycular]

If it turns out that there is actually a divine last judgment and a final balancing of the universal scales of justice,
which person would you prefer to appear there as having been a follower of - Genghis Khan or Jesus Christ?

Neither. I'm perfectly content to let my life stand or fall on its own merits. Judging by the actions of those who profess to be His followers it's not a group that I'd be all that eager to be a part of anyway. When it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff I'll trust that God knows the difference.

 

[Paidiske]

You missed this part.

No, I didn't. I read it carefully.

Did you catch that? It's DESIGNED to support and affirm the persons gender identity.

Yes. When it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. I also read the parts that say things like, "before any physical interventions are considered for adolescents, extensive exploration of psychological, family, and social issues should be undertaken," and,
"Among the criteria that are typical for providing hormone-related therapies for youths are:

• A finding that the youth has experienced several symptoms of gender dysphoria listed in the DSM for at least six consecutive months.
• A letter of support from the youth’s licensed therapist and written concurrence from a mental health professional for the provider.
• Parental consent for those under 18.
• Ongoing psychotherapy."

All the interventions are designed to do one thing. Help transgender people align with their gender.

Because if that's not appropriate for someone, their treatment will be under a different protocol, with a different diagnosis. Just as you don't give someone chemotherapy if they don't have cancer*, you don't give someone gender-affirming care if that's not where their issue lies.

*Occasional exceptions for lupus or the like aside.

It's not to find out if there is something else going on. It's not to work on the possibility that if left alone they will desist.

Well, given that they need a diagnosis, working out if there is something else is going on, that is indeed part of the process.

As for "working on the possibility that if left alone they will desist," isn't that the point of starting with things like counselling, experimenting with external appearance, and social roles (like names and pronouns)? That gives time and space to see whether and how much those things help, and whether more is needed. I note the comments about how many people only proceed so far because they get to a point that feels right for them.

Gender-affirming environment.

I think the key word there, was "safe."

In gender affirming care the assumption is that the person is transgendered.

More accurately, the point is not to exclude that possibility but to assess it.

In affirmative care any other mental health disorders takes a back seat to the gender disorder.

That's totally why the standards of care emphasise "assessment and treatment of co-existing mental health difficulties."

But what if supporters of gender-affirming care are wrong?

What if children who identify as transgender are just that: children?

I read this as: what if there's really no such thing as transgendered people? And my answer is, we're way past that. This is a real thing people experience.

Sure, we need to make sure we get diagnosis right. But once we're at that point, why would we deny care?

 

[Bradskii]

I also provided a lot of evidence in regards to this including the derth of research and evidence regarding this subject.

I think we can be sure of one thing. No matter how much evidence is produced, and how much research is done, it will never be enough for you. Because how can you possibly agree to any evidence or any research on something you adamantly refuse to admit actually exists?

So the claim that not enough is being done is a smokescreen. Not enough can be done as far as you are concerned. Some people are trying to say that there is a lack of research as a genuine attempt to get more done. There are those who demand more evidence, because they are concerned that transgender people get the right treatment.

You are pointing it out to get any help stopped.

 

[rjs330]

And guess what? I don't believe that people here are in any position to assess that research and set clinical protocols. Part of the reason I don't believe that is that I have seen people in this thread routinely apparently fail to read, misread, misunderstand, and misrepresent, very basic information.

I agree that precisely why in other countries they have admitted that the research does not justify this and are stopping it for kids.

It's not that anyone is misreading. It's that we see things through different eyes. I see things in the stuff that you presented that you are ignoring. Not only that but you are also ignoring real world applications of these things.

Here is another you should listen to. A real world example of what is going on. Which is based upon affirmative care that is in practice.

Remember these things are only guidelines and recommendations. There is no real standard of care. Clinicians are free to accept and reject anything they want to. It is completely irresponsible to affirm trans kids. For all the reasons that have been presented to you. There is NO research that supports this. Here is a story that highlights this. Also take a look at the documentary from Sweden called the Trans Train.

And the fact that countries are not moving away from this is evidence that we are correct.

 

[rjs330]

Yes. When it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. I also read the parts that say things like, "before any physical interventions are considered for adolescents, extensive exploration of psychological, family, and social issues should be undertaken," and,
"Among the criteria that are typical for providing hormone-related therapies for youths are:

YES! That's precisely my point. You are affirming the trans gender. You are not allowing the child to progress and desist naturally. You are moving the child forward on the transgendering.

And where on earth did they get these supposed criteria? It certainly isn't from any research. Even the Fins who still allow some transing of kids requires 5 years. 6 months? Are you kidding me? 6 months is good enough? You can't possibly believe 6 months is enough time for psycho social intervention and any medical interventions. This is insane. You have no and neither do they have any evidence that this is acceptable.

The Swedes don't allow it period.

Why are you so sold on something that has no basis in proper scientific research?

 

[Paidiske]

I agree

No; I was saying people participating in this forum are not in a position to assess research and set clinical protocols.

It's not that anyone is misreading.

Well, we're looking at the same texts and coming to very different conclusions about what they actually mean for practice at the coal face, so we can't all be reading it correctly.

It is completely irresponsible to affirm trans kids.

That's the nub of it, isn't it? If someone's genuinely transgendered, it's not irresponsible. But if you've decided a priori that that's not possible, then no treatment or care will ever be acceptable to you.

And as for recommendations and guidelines, that's what guides actual practice. The idea that recommendation and guidelines exist and everyone ignores them is just insulting to health care practitioners.

 

[Paidiske]

YES! That's precisely my point. You are affirming the trans gender. You are not allowing the child to progress and desist naturally.

Affirming someone does not mean not allowing them to desist; it means allowing them to explore and work out what is going on for them, and what is helpful to them. All of the literature emphasises that some people may not move forward or choose medical intervention, and that's fine.

But it is wrong to assume that everyone will have their dysphoria desist naturally, also.

You are moving the child forward on the transgendering.

At the pace that is right for them. Over a period of years (let me remind you that the average time of transition is five years, and that the younger they start the longer it takes because more intense interventions aren't offered at such young ages).

It's not as if adults are there pressuring children to go further at every step of the way; quite the opposite.

6 months? Are you kidding me? 6 months is good enough? You can't possibly believe 6 months is enough time for psycho social intervention and any medical interventions.

6 months is the time span that symptoms need to persist to be able to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Not the time it takes for assessment, intervention, treatment, and so on.

You might be happy, really, to note that this provides a minimum time before any diagnosis is even possible, which allows for transient feelings to desist.

Why are you so sold on something that has no basis in proper scientific research?

All I'm sold on is stopping Christian/conservative culture warriors dictating other people's medical treatment. I'm happy to leave the rest to the experts.

 

[rjs330]

No, they weren't. They were written by a group of staff at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.

Funny they look an awful lot like WPATH. Where did they get all their standards from? You might consider looking at their research sources to see if they are WPATH. I bet they are.

 

[rjs330]

That is not a comprehensive assessment, which is what the standards of care require.

Please tell them. Exactly what is a comprehensive assessment and how long do they take? Let's just focus on Australia. If a kid walks into a clinic how long does it take typically before they are affirmed as trans?

 

[Paidiske]

Please tell them. Exactly what is a comprehensive assessment and how long do they take? Let's just focus on Australia. If a kid walks into a clinic how long does it take typically before they are affirmed as trans?

I can't find a direct answer to that question, but I did find this:

"While it is not considered a psychiatric disorder to have a gender identity which differs from the gender assigned to you at birth, it is very important to rule out other conditions that could present with gender variance. As a result, the clinic takes great care in ensuring that a comprehensive assessment is conducted.

In addition, the purpose of the assessment is to identify supports that may help prior to commencing any medical treatments leading to gender affirmation. These could include referrals to appropriate services for assistance with housing, employment and social isolation, etc.

Clients who have a mental health condition such as schizophrenia, depression, Borderline Personality Disorder or Autism Spectrum Disorder are still eligible to receive support from our clinic. Their assessment however may be extended to ensure that adequate supports are in place prior to any gender-related treatments.

A comprehensive mental health assessment is a very important part of the clinic’s work with clients. During the assessment your clinician will gather information about:

• Your experiences of gender at various stages of your life,
• Any gender-related distress,
• Your mental health history and current supports,
• Other relevant life experiences.
• The purpose of this is to identify your strengths and what supports are needed as you embark on strategies to reduce your distress.

In addition, ongoing monitoring or counselling normally occurs alongside the “Real Life Experience” of living in the affirmed gender. This involves forming a trusting relationship with a mental health clinician in order to explore their gender identity.

As everyone is unique, there is no predetermined or recommended number of sessions. Meeting regularly with a mental health clinician is an important means of receiving support, finding the best set of medical and social options for the individual, working through difficulties where they arise and addressing expectations of the outcomes of transgender treatments and gender transition. This process usually covers a broad range of issues in order to consider all the circumstances that will help an individual who is transitioning achieve stability and satisfaction in their lives.."

And also this: "An initial series of interviews (approximately 3-6 sessions), will allow assessment."

I was also interested to note that they state they have a waiting list of 18 months just to book appointments. So I guess that also means things aren't exactly being rushed.