• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Times: Giving puberty blocker to ‘trans’ children is a leap into the unknown - Legal Review coming soon

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,206
6,677
650
What exactly do you mean by "this group" here?

If they are individuals who are demonstrably using children in and/or for sexual activities, then they're criminals. If that isn't what you mean, then that label doesn't apply.

If there was a three-way venn diagram of people who project transgenderism onto kids, people who advocate for kids being taught about sexuality at very early ages, and people who believe in “pedosexuality”, then it’d literally just be a circle.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,571
1,178
365
Those putting children on medication that blocks the natural formation of their body based on flimsy evidence and reasoning, often from the child who has no concept of the topics being discussed, and those advocating for it being done to children. Pedophilia is defined as persistent sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Fits the bill if you ask me.

As far as I know, no existing legislation makes the parents or doctors of said children fall under your understanding of the definition.

If there was a three-way venn diagram of people who project transgenderism onto kids, people who advocate for kids being taught about sexuality at very early ages, and people who believe in “pedosexuality”, then it’d literally just be a circle.

Sex education is a whole different topic, but I guess it can correlate, in a different way...especially since the U.S. has historically maintained a rather puritan and paranoid view of nudity and sexuality in general, which is unusual even among developed nations (anyone remember the whole Night Trap fiasco? That FMV game was falsely accused of being pornographic).

The biggest irony is that American media and other cultural exports are incredibly sexually charged, but a lot of effort is still wasted on trying to hide nudity and sex from teens. And in turn, long before all these trans-related debates, it's a fact of life that teenagers keep seeking out nudity or having sex with each other before their parents think they are "ready". Which isn't a good thing in the absence (or "delay") of sex education. Too early might be premature, but too late is also unhelpful.

There is nothing to go off of other than the child’s opinion. That’s the entire problem.

If puberty blockers had no permanent effects, OR there was a 100% gaurantee that the blockers would help the person with no possibility of them missing the things they’ve lost, then I’d be open to the (EXTREMELY restricted) use of it.

The truth is that neither of those things are the case.

I’m not comfortable with letting kids permanently fuck up their life because it might help them. Let them take those drastic measures in adulthood, when they’ve had ample time to think their decision over.

Letting them make that decision at a time of their life when they’re naturally going to have feelings of confusion about their own feelings and will be easily influenced is not just a bad idea, it’s morally reprehensible.

I've already explained my view, so I'll refer back to the previous post for the details.

At the end of the day, my position is this: we need more scientific information and maybe more restrictions, not more bans.

I will add you're assuming that enforced inaction or excessively delayed action has no permanent effects or harmful influences on the teenagers involved.

The lives of various teenagers diagnosed with dysphoria will suck when they can't do much about it until age 18, because the state law would put their parents and doctors in jail, plus other restrictions are also likely to cause them additional suffering (not just due to the puberty blockers being banned, no, but there's other "wonderful" surprises in a few of the proposed legislative bans that are anti-trans, period, taking advantage of this whole push to "save" children from themselves).
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
10,512
24,659
790
As far as I know, no existing legislation makes the parents or doctors of said children fall under your understanding of the definition.

I wasn’t arguing the legality of it, I was saying people doing it are no better than your garden variety sicko who wanks to the idea of corrupting little kids sexually and hat they should be treated and dealt with as such.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Papa

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,206
6,677
650
Sex education is a whole different topic, but I guess it can correlate, in a different way...especially since the U.S. has historically maintained a rather puritan and paranoid view of nudity and sexuality in general, which is unusual even among developed nations (anyone remember the whole Night Trap fiasco? That FMV game was falsely accused of being pornographic).

The biggest irony is that American media and other cultural exports are incredibly sexually charged, but a lot of effort is still wasted on trying to hide nudity and sex from teens. And in turn, long before all these trans-related debates, it's a fact of life that teenagers keep seeking out nudity or having sex with each other before their parents think they are "ready". Which isn't a good thing in the absence (or "delay") of sex education. Too early might be premature, but too late is also unhelpful.

I didn’t say sex, I said sexuality.

Teaching kids about the birds and the bees is different from a scantily-clad drag queen telling kindergartners about how it’s okay to suck dick. Attempting to confuse with identity politics shit that early on is probably not good, and would likely lead to more kids convincing themselves they’re “trans” and later regretting it.

I've already explained my view, so I'll refer back to the previous post for the details.

At the end of the day, my position is this: we need more scientific information and maybe more restrictions, not more bans.

I’ll be frank. I do not trust that modern doctors, many of whom have been politicized and become biased, have the wherewithal to treat this controversial and politically-charged phenomenon with the objective diligence it requires.

Even now there are doctors doing their due diligence before giving teens their hormone supplements, and others who are giving supplements out like it’s candy on Halloween.

That’s just teens on the latter half of puberty taking supplements of the hormone they claim they’re lacking.

Giving pre-teen kids treatments that halt hormone production and permanently alter their body’s development requires unbiased professionals doing extensive examinations (potentially up to and including brain-scanning to see of the body dysmorphia is identifiable) before even considering allowing the treatment.

I wish I lived in your fantasy world where doctors can magically determine whether hormone blockers will instantly make self-identified trans kids happy and never regret it, with there being no misdiagnoses. Unfortunately, we live in a real world with real consequences, and “it might make some trans kids happy” is not a compelling reason to let kids fuck their bodies up because said kids suddenly decided they were trans.


I will add you're assuming that enforced inaction or excessively delayed action has no permanent effects or harmful influences on the teenagers involved.

The lives of various teenagers diagnosed with dysphoria will suck when they can't do much about it until age 18, because the state law would put their parents and doctors in jail, plus other restrictions are also likely to cause them additional suffering (not just due to the puberty blockers being banned, no, but there's other "wonderful" surprises in a few of the proposed legislative bans that are anti-trans, period, taking advantage of this whole push to "save" children from themselves).

Again “it might make some trans kids happy” is not a justification for just saying ‘fuck it’ and giving kids whatever life-altering medications they demand. Medications that are for a disorder that is quite often fetishized in many circles to the point becoming a fad, thus there are children that will manipulated into believing that even the slightest hint of confusion means they must be trans.
 

MrMephistoX

Member
May 18, 2007
6,335
3,683
1,410
Guarantee this entire thread would be locked and banned at Era and the lot of us labeled transphobic.

Totally fine if you’re over 18 and make the choice to transition but giving puberty blocking drugs to kids no matter how desperately they ask for them is short sighted.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: clem84 and Papa

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,571
1,178
365
I didn’t say sex, I said sexuality.

Teaching kids about the birds and the bees is different from a scantily-clad drag queen telling kindergartners about how it’s okay to suck dick.

Alright, but when does that literally happen and how often? That's a pretty specific scenario you're describing with at least four distinct elements.

Attempting to confuse with identity politics shit that early on is probably not good, and would likely lead to more kids convincing themselves they’re “trans” and later regretting it.

Possibly. Nonetheless, many will still find that out on their own thanks to the internet and the tradition of teenagers outwitting their parents.

Which can and has been the result of said teenagers starting to notice something is different about themselves compared to the "standard".

Giving pre-teen kids treatments that halt hormone production and permanently alter their body’s development requires unbiased professionals doing extensive examinations (potentially up to and including brain-scanning to see of the body dysmorphia is identifiable) before even considering allowing the treatment.

I don't think any human being can be inherently lacking in biases, one way or another, but at least I can agree about doing extensive examinations. Not because they will automatically resolve the issue, but much of science is about identifying potentially useful points of comparison and finding common patterns.

I wish I lived in your fantasy world where doctors can magically determine whether hormone blockers will instantly make self-identified trans kids happy and never regret it, with there being no misdiagnoses. Unfortunately, we live in a real world with real consequences, and “it might make some trans kids happy” is not a compelling reason to let kids fuck their bodies up because said kids suddenly decided they were trans.

I've never said they can "magically" do something. That's simplifying the argument down to the level of an absurd straw man and it would be about as bad as the opposite alternative, which is that doctors shouldn't do anything at all, other than shrugging off the topic out of hand and leaving those teenagers on their own.

It's difficult and complicated, as many other subjects in the field of human science that aren't entirely understood, but I think the solution is to slow down and carefully analyze each individual case seriously, without rushing to dismiss or confirm, while other professionals continue to research the underlying science. Plenty of scientific progress has happened within our lifetime, so that's far from a fantasy world.

Again “it might make some trans kids happy” is not a justification for just saying ‘fuck it’ and giving kids whatever life-altering medications they demand. Medications that are for a disorder that is quite often fetishized in many circles to the point becoming a fad, thus there are children that will manipulated into believing that even the slightest hint of confusion means they must be trans.

My argument is not about saying "to hell with this" and randomly throwing stuff at them as soon as they ask for something. I've very explicitly called for prudence, not speed, in their use.

I think your perception that dysphoria is mostly a "fad" can be applicable to a few cases but isn't the overall situation, which seems to be based on purely anecdotal evidence from horror stories that get amplified and distorted by conservative media while they ignore stories with a more positive bent. Such nightmare scenarios assume that all parents and doctors with this type of concern or opinion would somehow be nothing more than fetishists as a rule. That's quite a prejudice. I would only criminalize the cases where that's proven to be a fetish, since that clearly wouldn't be the result of a good faith approach.
 
Last edited:
H

hariseldon

Unconfirmed Member
Seeing as M Madonis is playing devil's advocate I'll respond to him. Apologies for not covering everything, I'm trying to pick the salient points and address them but of course I'll undoubtedly miss something. I'm a bit short of time so apologies for anything that's a bit rushed.

So first up I'll tackle the 95% safe bit. "Let's suppose, however, for the sake of argument...that they're only 95% safe. I don't know the real figure, but let's assume." Let's take that figure, like you I'm not 100% sure on it but we'll work with that figure and lay out what that buys us. Now I'm a software developer by trade, and we make decisions on risk regularly. We balance false positives against false negatives and act accordingly. Let's imagine that a piece of code exists where in 5% of cases it'll cost one of our users a million quid, and in 95% of cases everything is fine and this code enhances functionality and speeds things up wonderfully. I wouldn't let that code through because while the likelihood of failure might be what you would call low (actually in software that's pretty high) the event it would precipitate would be catastrophic, so risk being a combination of likelihood and unpleasantness of event, the risk is not acceptable.

Let's now put that in the context of trans. Let's say that 95% of the kids diagnosed are trans and the treatment works out brilliantly for them. For 5% of the kids, that is a real fucking disaster. Sterile, incapable of sex, the lack of hormones will have consequences on their development emotionally and physically, there are so many consequences. So here we have a case of catastrophic risk, so let's have a look at the other 95%. So for starters, your mental state is pretty dodgy if life has dealt you that shitty set of cards. Whatever happens you're going to be pretty damn miserable. The suicide rate might well reduce a bit after transition but that's something I don't want to be googling at work. The big question here is how do outcomes compare between those who wait til they're 18 and those who begin medicalisation as children. My gut feeling is that the difference is insufficient to justify that enormous risk around the 5%.

Now let's unpick that 95%/5% a moment. In an unpoliticised case one might expect that doctors would use reasonable criteria to make those choices and you'd get a good hit rate. However that's not where we are. We live in a world where women's refuges are attacked for not allowing women with penises in. We live in a world where those who question the trans ideology are deplatformed. One could argue some similarity with the case of the Muslim grooming gangs - people couldn't speak out for fear of being called Islamophobic, and similarly here it's hard to speak out without being accused of transphobia. In the case of doctors there's a lot to lose - their careers go down the drain and their lives get ruined. Many have been brave and quit GIDS at Tavistock due to concerns over their practices, which takes enormous bravery.

Going further with that unpicking is the question of gay conversion. I lived in Thailand for a few years. There were very few gays (in fact I didn't meet a single gay Thai) but a hell of a lot of kathoeys (ladyboys). Part of the reason for that is economic - poor families in the North will send their prettiest daughter to Bangkok to be a bar-worker/hooker and they'll send money home to the family, but if you don't have a daughter you send your prettiest son. I digress however, back to the point. We had a few kids at the school who the staff felt would probably end up being kathoeys, but a more conventional reading might be that they would be gay. They were certainly camp. The problem when you have an environment in which T is the dominant letter among the LGBTQ alphabet is that you end up erasing the Gs and the Ls.

Going back to the West, we then have to consider how much effort is being put into 'turning' kids trans. The obvious example is the couple who adopted 3 kids who just happened to end up trans at VERY early ages. There was a Times article about it I posted ages ago but finding it again would be a challenge. Now to be clear that's an edge case but it's one that casts enough doubt on the idea that kids can't be 'groomed' into the whole trans thing. The whole transtrender thing, Sam Smith and his non-binary ego trip, the BBC pushing trans as the next way of being cool (if you can't be black). With the ideology being pushed and the Mermaids charity coaching kids in what to say to get treatment, we run the risk that 95% won't be reality and that in fact the number drops over time. Should we be trusting kids to make these important decisions (enabled by adults obliged to offer affirmative care) when we don't trust them to drink, drive, have sex, etc and they're facing this bombardment?

I note that you object to the assumption that delayed treatment has no permanent effect or harmful influence. I'm just wondering if you have any studies to point to that indicate harm? I presume that being a bit harder to 'pass' would be an issue, but that's about the only obvious one. I suspect much of the risk could be best averted with talking therapies like CBT. (note - there's no way I'm googling this at work)

I'm sure I've missed stuff and this is likely a bit of a staccato post but hopefully I've covered some useful ground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,206
6,677
650
Alright, but when does that literally happen and how often? That's a pretty specific scenario you're describing with at least four distinct elements.

I was illustrating the point by giving a known example, dummy. I’m not talking about literally just that specific scenario, I’m talking about ridiculous (and potentially predatory) people intentionally trying to indoctrinate young children with their idpol bullshit.

I think your perception that dysphoria is mostly a "fad" can be applicable to a few cases but isn't the overall situation, which seems to be based on purely anecdotal evidence from horror stories that get amplified and distorted by conservative media while they ignore stories with a more positive bent. Such nightmare scenarios assume that all parents and doctors with this type of concern or opinion would somehow be nothing more than fetishists as a rule. That's quite a prejudice. I would only criminalize the cases where that's proven to be a fetish, since that clearly wouldn't be the result of a good faith approach.

You do not get to complain about being strawman’d when you are doing the very same. I never said it was “mostly” anything, never said “as a rule” in regards to anything,

What I am saying is that the fact such people and attitudes exist at all, and indeed are appearing more and more often, means that a child’s testimony in regards to their trans identity is nigh-useless due to how easily they are manipulated and the fact that some circles encourage said manipulation.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,732
19,783
705
This is scaremongering of the worst kind.

It's like implying public schools should receive less funding and access should be reduced, overall, because some teachers might believe in things you don't like.
Of course you would find some way to defend this. Anything a Democrats proposes you bend over for.

Let's be clear, what I stated was absolute fact. Telling the truth is not "scaremongering".
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,311
22,337
1,885
Diagnosis needs to improve, but that is being blocked by sex/gender denialists who screech "bigot" whenever people try to research sex differences.

If there was a good physical criteria (like >80-90% confidence) that showed an individual is trans, I would be fine with letting children who fit that criteria decide to take hormone blockers provided they are counseled and told the risks. It is easier to make the body match the brain than the brain match the body.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,429
1,215
I am wondering what if there was some kind of drug that did make the brain match the body. So instead of mutiliating someones body and pumping them full of hormones, lets say you could give them a drug so they wouldn't have gender dysphoria anymore?

Would that be supported or would that be considered bigoted and transphobic? Why does it seem like all the research into this is to change the body, not the brain?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: off duty ninja

Ballthyrm

Member
Jun 21, 2013
1,511
2,103
675
Montpellier
Kids can't smoke till 18.
Kids can't drink till 21.
Kids can't drive till 16 (with a guardian).
Kids can't vote till 18.
Kids can't watch an R rated movie till 17.

Lets give kids hormone blockers at 12!

Smoking and drinking fucks up your body less than hormones blocker do.
Also the US system for this stuff feels so backward to me.

Sure let's give a 2 ton death machine to a 16 year old. It's fine.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,571
1,178
365
Seeing as M Madonis is playing devil's advocate I'll respond to him. Apologies for not covering everything, I'm trying to pick the salient points and address them but of course I'll undoubtedly miss something. I'm a bit short of time so apologies for anything that's a bit rushed.

First off, I will say that I can appreciate you took the time to write this down. There's still going to be points of disagreement, to be sure, but I can respect that

So first up I'll tackle the 95% safe bit. "Let's suppose, however, for the sake of argument...that they're only 95% safe. I don't know the real figure, but let's assume." Let's take that figure, like you I'm not 100% sure on it but we'll work with that figure and lay out what that buys us. Now I'm a software developer by trade, and we make decisions on risk regularly. We balance false positives against false negatives and act accordingly. Let's imagine that a piece of code exists where in 5% of cases it'll cost one of our users a million quid, and in 95% of cases everything is fine and this code enhances functionality and speeds things up wonderfully. I wouldn't let that code through because while the likelihood of failure might be what you would call low (actually in software that's pretty high) the event it would precipitate would be catastrophic, so risk being a combination of likelihood and unpleasantness of event, the risk is not acceptable.

I find this quite interesting with respect to programming.

Nonetheless, are you aware of any situations where that level of risk has been deemed acceptable? I am curious.

Or did it mean that a few additional measures or conditions, rather than full dismissal or inaction, had to be introduced in order to lower the risks?

Let's now put that in the context of trans. Let's say that 95% of the kids diagnosed are trans and the treatment works out brilliantly for them. For 5% of the kids, that is a real fucking disaster. Sterile, incapable of sex, the lack of hormones will have consequences on their development emotionally and physically, there are so many consequences. So here we have a case of catastrophic risk, so let's have a look at the other 95%. So for starters, your mental state is pretty dodgy if life has dealt you that shitty set of cards. Whatever happens you're going to be pretty damn miserable. The suicide rate might well reduce a bit after transition but that's something I don't want to be googling at work. The big question here is how do outcomes compare between those who wait til they're 18 and those who begin medicalisation as children. My gut feeling is that the difference is insufficient to justify that enormous risk around the 5%.

My opinion isn't that people shouldn't blindly assume the consequences, mind you, but that doctors should be as strict as possible and take their time.

I think the quote(s) I've posted below might also be relevant to your concerns.

Now let's unpick that 95%/5% a moment. In an unpoliticised case one might expect that doctors would use reasonable criteria to make those choices and you'd get a good hit rate. However that's not where we are. We live in a world where women's refuges are attacked for not allowing women with penises in. We live in a world where those who question the trans ideology are deplatformed. One could argue some similarity with the case of the Muslim grooming gangs - people couldn't speak out for fear of being called Islamophobic, and similarly here it's hard to speak out without being accused of transphobia. In the case of doctors there's a lot to lose - their careers go down the drain and their lives get ruined. Many have been brave and quit GIDS at Tavistock due to concerns over their practices, which takes enormous bravery.

Many doctors are capable of using responsible and reasonable criteria as professionals, because they have standards, regardless of whether someone shares their politics or not.

If those GIDS doctors had legitimate concerns for quitting, then I could applaud them and they should speak up about what could be changed or improved. I imagine there's a mix of good and bad motivations. Similarly, if there are valid reasons for refusing entry to specific trans women in a shelter, I'd understand that. But I wonder...did the shelter staff even try to screen them for any suspicious signs, or gave them any alternatives for where they could find similar services (like, say, other shelters), or just had a general policy against accepting any trans women at all? Hard for me to judge those cases on the merits. The same goes for the Muslim example, because there are always lines between legitimate criticism and phobias.

That said, I have read enough news stories and anecdotes about doctors who are guilty of negligence, mistaken diagnosis or other forms of malpractice, outside of this specific field. No profession is ever perfect in this respect, nor do all such actions depend on the "politics" of an individual. Many types of medical mistakes can have irreversible effects on their patients, but it seems those terrible cases generally aren't statistically high, or else we would all be far more afraid of going to the doctor. No matter how much they are talked about in media reports, most doctors take their profession very seriously. I wouldn't consider them, as a group, to be more "guilty" than "innocent" by default.

Going further with that unpicking is the question of gay conversion. I lived in Thailand for a few years. There were very few gays (in fact I didn't meet a single gay Thai) but a hell of a lot of kathoeys (ladyboys). Part of the reason for that is economic - poor families in the North will send their prettiest daughter to Bangkok to be a bar-worker/hooker and they'll send money home to the family, but if you don't have a daughter you send your prettiest son. I digress however, back to the point. We had a few kids at the school who the staff felt would probably end up being kathoeys, but a more conventional reading might be that they would be gay. They were certainly camp. The problem when you have an environment in which T is the dominant letter among the LGBTQ alphabet is that you end up erasing the Gs and the Ls.

Interesting. I didn't know about that happening in Thailand.

Going back to the West, we then have to consider how much effort is being put into 'turning' kids trans. The obvious example is the couple who adopted 3 kids who just happened to end up trans at VERY early ages. There was a Times article about it I posted ages ago but finding it again would be a challenge. Now to be clear that's an edge case but it's one that casts enough doubt on the idea that kids can't be 'groomed' into the whole trans thing. The whole transtrender thing, Sam Smith and his non-binary ego trip, the BBC pushing trans as the next way of being cool (if you can't be black). With the ideology being pushed and the Mermaids charity coaching kids in what to say to get treatment, we run the risk that 95% won't be reality and that in fact the number drops over time. Should we be trusting kids to make these important decisions (enabled by adults obliged to offer affirmative care) when we don't trust them to drink, drive, have sex, etc and they're facing this bombardment?

I wouldn't assume that's too commonplace, because there's a huge gap between particular instances of wrongful behavior, which deserve to be criticized and even prosecuted if legally possible, and the reality of the entire trans community. Otherwise, you run the risk of inverting the burden of proof and using a few horror stories to condemn a whole group, whose members then have to struggle to prove their innocence from a position of disadvantage. That probably isn't what we should be doing to each other as human beings.

See, I think the key underlying issue is that certain persons react far more strongly to those edge cases than others and then use them to make generalizations. Conservative media in the U.S. has been particularly fond of sensationalizing cases of LGBQT controversies and making it sound like almost nobody from the trans community could be trusted, because they're likely looking to "convert" or "groom" children, or rape women in bathrooms.

Gay panic, which portrayed many gay individuals as hungry predators chasing heterosexual men or children, was an actual thing for decades and now they've moved on to trans panic.

I note that you object to the assumption that delayed treatment has no permanent effect or harmful influence. I'm just wondering if you have any studies to point to that indicate harm? I presume that being a bit harder to 'pass' would be an issue, but that's about the only obvious one. I suspect much of the risk could be best averted with talking therapies like CBT. (note - there's no way I'm googling this at work)

You were asking me about the consequences of delayed treatment.

Here's quote taken from Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient:



This next source refers to a different set of individuals, because it concerns the entire process of sex reassignment all the way up to surgery, but the conclusion is compatible with my own: there is a need to be very strict in the diagnosis of teenagers and never rush. It shouldn't be happening too soon nor too easily, nor should it be banned altogether.

As noted below, even people with actual gender dysphoria aren't always psychologically ready to start such processes. The decision to delay or deny treatment, when the right conditions aren't met (or, of course, when the person doesn't actually have dysphoria but faces other issues), can be perfectly justified.

Yet this study isn't recommending to forbid or outlaw any such treatment for all adolescents and also provides positive results.

RESULTS:
Postoperatively the treated group was no longer gender-dysphoric and was psychologically and socially functioning quite well. Nobody expressed regrets concerning the decision to undergo sex reassignment. Without sex reassignment, the nontreated group showed some improvement, but they also showed a more dysfunctional psychological profile.

CONCLUSIONS:
Careful diagnosis and strict criteria are necessary and sufficient to justify hormone treatment in adolescent transsexuals. Even though some of the nontreated patients may actually have gender identity disorder, the high levels of psychopathology found in this group justify the decision to not start hormone treatment too soon or too easily.

 
Last edited:

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,571
1,178
365
Of course you would find some way to defend this. Anything a Democrats proposes you bend over for.

Let's be clear, what I stated was absolute fact. Telling the truth is not "scaremongering".

If you want me to respond in kind, then you bend over for anything that a Republican proposes.

It's a highly misleading fact. Medicare for All is about expanding coverage and lowering medical costs.

Many doctors in private practice already hold those opinions and you're still paying them, directly or indirectly, with the current system.


I was illustrating the point by giving a known example, dummy. I’m not talking about literally just that specific scenario, I’m talking about ridiculous (and potentially predatory) people intentionally trying to indoctrinate young children with their idpol bullshit.

A rather marginal example, in practice, since most people don't spend their time going around to do that even with said community.

I've already stated that any proven predators should be punished without mercy.

You do not get to complain about being strawman’d when you are doing the very same. I never said it was “mostly” anything, never said “as a rule” in regards to anything,

What I am saying is that the fact such people and attitudes exist at all, and indeed are appearing more and more often, means that a child’s testimony in regards to their trans identity is nigh-useless due to how easily they are manipulated and the fact that some circles encourage said manipulation.

No, you didn't literally say that. I was countering an exaggeration with another.

If you're going to say the number of manipulations is increasing, to the extent of taking such radical action as an urgent necessity, then the actual scale or magnitude needs to be clear.
 

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,206
6,677
650
A rather marginal example, in practice, since most people don't spend their time going around to do that even with said community.

It’s quite tiring how often you deflect any and all reasonable objections with ”but that doesn’t happen ALL OF THE TIME so it doesn’t matter“.

The fact that it happens at all is a problem in and of itself. The fact that the progressives make no effort at all to distance themselves from such practices says something, does it not? Perhaps that they are okay with this behavior? If left unchecked, this growing tolerance of this behavior will lead to devastating effects.

Problems with the greater society involving influencing kids to be trans is going to create a lot of false positives, people who identify as trans and later regret it. Allowing children to decide whether to alter their bodies permanently during such a time in their life where they are very susceptible to any manipulative practices is inherently inexcusable.

You seem to not be understanding that I’m not condemning one specific situation which can you dismiss as “marginal”, I am saying that permanently altering the bodies of children based off of said child’s claims of identity during a time when their “identity” is confused, easily-influenced, and nebulous, is ALWAYS wrong.

I don’t trust a doctor to be able to tell if the child is being influenced or not; That’s not the doctor’s job. All they have is the child’s word, which can’t fully be trusted. The doctor cannot possibly assess the likelihood that this treatment is really what the child needs, so to avoid the risk entirely the treatment should not be administered at all. It is not a medical necessity and, to the trans kid, the intended effects are purely cosmetic.

If you're going to say the number of manipulations is increasing, to the extent of taking such radical action as an urgent necessity, then the actual scale or magnitude needs to be clear.

I did not advocate for “radical action”. I‘m advocating for continuing to withold this treatment from trans children, which is the literal opposite of radical action.
 
Last edited:

Riven326

Banned
Mar 25, 2019
6,301
13,234
770
United States
I am wondering what if there was some kind of drug that did make the brain match the body. So instead of mutiliating someones body and pumping them full of hormones, lets say you could give them a drug so they wouldn't have gender dysphoria anymore?

Would that be supported or would that be considered bigoted and transphobic? Why does it seem like all the research into this is to change the body, not the brain?
Because if it were treated like schizophrenia, the left wouldn't be able to glorify their new fetish.
 
Last edited:

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
Apr 11, 2007
3,295
937
1,600
33
Good God! What a clown world! An 11 year old has no idea wtf he/she wants. When i was 11 years old, I might've been wearing a girl's dress once a month just for fun. It had nothing to do with my orientation! I turned out to be straight just as well.
Not to mention children are extremely gullible at this age. They can be persuaded about almost anything! Some sicko, maybe even parents who want to win brownie liberal points, may persuade the kid that being of the opposite gender is great and voila! A life ruined. This is insanity!
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,571
1,178
365
It’s quite tiring how often you deflect any and all reasonable objections with ”but that doesn’t happen ALL OF THE TIME so it doesn’t matter“.

Never said it doesn't matter. I disagree about what could or should be done in response. Which is different.

Again, if you're arguing it's an urgent and worsening situation, what would be reasonable is to seriously determine the scale first and then debate what is the proportional response. How many people from the trans community are doing all of these awful things? Is that a majority or a minority? To what degree?

It doesn't matter if the questions are tiresome. If it's a thankless job to be asking that around here, then so be it. Someone still needs to ask them in the real world. Otherwise, judging the size of the problem is purely based on personal opinions and media perceptions. There's nothing scientific about that. I

The fact that it happens at all is a problem in and of itself. The fact that the progressives make no effort at all to distance themselves from such practices says something, does it not? Perhaps that they are okay with this behavior? If left unchecked, this growing tolerance of this behavior will lead to devastating effects.

There are certainly progressives who will say nothing is wrong at all.

That's not my position, or else I'd just reject the article in the opening out of hand.

Problems with the greater society involving influencing kids to be trans is going to create a lot of false positives, people who identify as trans and later regret it.

As things stand right now, it would be useful to know what's the actual amount of "false positives" so far. Or perhaps you believe even one case is too many.


You seem to not be understanding that I’m not condemning one specific situation which can you dismiss as “marginal”, I am saying that permanently altering the bodies of children based off of said child’s claims of identity during a time when their “identity” is confused, easily-influenced, and nebulous, is ALWAYS wrong.

I don’t trust a doctor to be able to tell if the child is being influenced or not; That’s not the doctor’s job. All they have is the child’s word, which can’t fully be trusted. The doctor cannot possibly assess the likelihood that this treatment is really what the child needs, so to avoid the risk entirely the treatment should not be administered at all. It is not a medical necessity and, to the trans kid, the intended effects are purely cosmetic.

Then there isn't much of a need to continue this discussion, since we're coming to back the same gap. I do not believe it is always, always wrong nor impossible to assess.

I believe in doing everything possible in order to verify the child's claims with examinations, facts and evidence indicating a pattern of behavior over time, and there can be interviews with witnesses unrelated to the family who may be useful for identifying false positives or instances of actual manipulation. These kinds of steps, as well as other forms of care, are intended to minimize the chances of getting that wrong. If what is currently being implemented is insufficient, my response is to improve that.

I'd heavily penalize those who are found to be engaging in "grooming" or "conversion". Not parents and doctors who are doing no such thing at all.

I did not advocate for “radical action”. I‘m advocating for continuing to withold this treatment from trans children, which is the literal opposite of radical action.

You'll certainly find some U.S. states that agree with you...along with others that do not. Same with countries and other jurisdictions. Either way, I can only hope that such bans don't lead to many more unintended consequences, despite your confidence, including but not limited to additional suicides of dysphoria patients, or teenagers who grow into bitter adults that learn to hate and regret how their plight was treated in red states.
 
Last edited:

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,476
755
Many doctors are capable of using responsible and reasonable criteria as professionals, because they have standards, regardless of whether someone shares their politics or not.

No they are not.
If they make the "wrong" call a posse of completely crazy and violent lefties will show up at their house in the middle of the night and threaten to kill the doctors family.

Thus the choise is "do I rubberstamp this procedure and my family is safe, i dont give a shit if the person is just in a 'phase' and this will destroy his life and cause him to suicide later, but at least my family is safe" or "do I raise objections and violence will happen to my family and children."
 
Last edited:

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
1,373
1,713
580
All I know is that there is going to be many questions asked 20-30 years later when the kids today start seeing their peers that 'thought' they were MtF or FtM are dying or have life long problems due to blockers, surgeries etc.
 

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
2,914
2,111
860
No they are not.
If they make the "wrong" call a posse of completely crazy and violent lefties will show up at their house in the middle of the night and threaten to kill the doctors family.

Thus the choise is "do I rubberstamp this procedure and my family is safe, i dont give a shit if the person is just in a 'phase' and this will destroy his life and cause him to suicide later, but at least my family is safe" or "do I raise objections and violence will happen to my family and children."

You don't need a mob, all you need is one call to HR about someone being tranphobic and they get fired the same day and blacklisted. Not that easy to find someone willing to throw away their career.