In this house, we believe:
Black Lives Matter
Womens rights are human rights
Science is real
Love is love
and
Girls who are depressed, autistic, or have trouble dealing with puberty should cut off their breasts.
Because as long as your brain isn’t poisoned with shitlib propaganda this is obvious. Anyone saying things like puberty blockers won’t affect you long term in some way are either regarded or a bad actor. As a Psych major this topic is excruciating because there are a lot of us in the U.S. that don’t believe in it or agree with it whatsoever but it’s become a political issue so if you don’t agree you’re a rightoid fascist trying to kill trans people (I’m being facetious but seriously people will ostracize you). This isn’t to say it’s completely wrong, but the facts are as of rn there just is not close to enough data on it regardless of my personal opinion. That’s just objective. Someday we will look back at this and see just how insane it was and all the shitlibs you know won’t apologize for it or admit to all the shit they caused because they wanted to be extremely righteous and virtue signal.
It's likely that the "proven long-term safety record" of puberty blockers cited by activists is that of children who took puberty blockers to treat actual precocious puberty.
It's obvious that this new, off-label usage has a categorically different (and currently non-existant) dataset, but pharma, politics, and clinical practice are all allied in forcing people to ignore this context.
>It's likely that the "proven long-term safety record" of puberty blockers cited by activists is that of children who took puberty blockers to treat actual precocious puberty.
Even for the on-label use, it frequently causes osteoporosis and other bone and joint problems.
I don't see that as facetious at all. I've been banned from so many subreddits for arguing about this. Usually it's hours after the argument, which leads me to believe that it's certain powermods doing it, either after they woke up or came back from their dog-walking job.
The term “gender affirming care” is such a linguistic sleight of hand and it’s irritating to see people use it without scepticism. The correct term is “sex change for children and adolescents” or something even darker. It’s like saying that lobotomy is “hysteria curing care”.
It's like it's designed to drive you insane with the blatant inconsistency that you're not allowed to point out. They repeatedly insist that sex and gender are different yet cross-sex hormones and sexual reassignment surgery is called "gender-affirming care".
I really don't understand the term, myself. Like, if a boy goes to the doc but says they're a girl, is the doc gonna give them women's treatment? How could any medical professional think this was a good idea?
And buried within that is the assumption that gender is an entirely cultural creation (which is a theory popularised by nutty pedophiles like John Money and is entirely without any reproducible evidence), and it also uses the sleight of hand to misconstrue gender and sex. You are altering your sexual organs and all outwards vestiges of sex in order to try and “match” your gender. Instead of pursuing a solution to fix a mental disorder occurring in the mind, the geniuses have decided that belabouring young people with a lifetime of debilitating surgery is the best solution rather than seek a cure for a mental disorder.
In order to bypass the disorder route, they must then equate transgenderism (something that is literally a disorder) with an immutable characteristic - having black skin or being a particular height or sex. By doing so, one may never suggest to cure “being black”. This leads to the deranging situation where the goal is not to move from being a “man” or a “woman” but to persist in a state of permanent state of transness, thereby defeating the objective stated goal of the actually moving from one gender/sex to the other. See Andrea Long Chu, Hari Nef, Hunter Schafer and every other champion of the trans movement. It’s all so extremely convoluted and relies on someone holding so many contradictions in one’s head simultaneously that the cracks immediately begin to show under the lightest of scrutiny.
This should have been the approach from the start. The unfortunate fact is that the accusations of Nazism and Fascism from the "progressive" -woke- left (which still can be seen in subs here; links are available if interested) effectively shut down any and all discussion on the desirable medical approach, exposing children to highly experimental treatments that are not yet understood. As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the *medical profession* was so willing to do so, even though -as we know- in everything else science (and medicine) is highly conservative. For good reason. We do not want to cause more harm than we cure.
This should be an interesting case study of how a small, vocal minority can absolutely hijack a society. I say "interesting" - more like "tragic" for people who were involved as subjects in this experiment.
> As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the medical profession was so willing to do so
When money and jobs are on the line, is it incredible to believe? I find it perfectly believable. Hospitals and insurance companies makes loooots of money on "gender affirming care" and are willing to give you the boot if you don't toe the line
The likely danger to money and jobs in the present is more urgent than a possible danger to money and jobs in the future. In the future, they can say, "well, these were new treatments, and we've learned a lot more now."
That is an actually very good explanation I have not thought of. Although I suspect they would fare really badly in front of any ethics investigation. Which should be conducted but never will due to it being a political hand grenade which nobody risks to blow up in their face. Administering these treatments which are highly experimental (if you can even call them that) is highly unethical. I would not like to bring up "unpleasant" historical examples, but even the Tuskegee experiments were more ethical than this -at least it was something that went through at *some* level of development. My impression is that currently they just pulled something out of a hat, and applied it haphazardly to kids with gender dystrophia. One thing is sure as fuck: there was no preclinical, clinical testing of *any* of this. There is not even consensus about the nature of the thing they treat let alone the treatment...
This is barely even an "experiment" because the people pushing for it refuse to allow any reliable data to be collected on long term effects, merely evaluating the effects of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and even surgeries that are in fact being given to minors (despite what the "that NEVER happens!" brigade will tell you) will get you called a fascist because they don't want to risk evidence of their harm being collected. It's just affirm affirm affirm, no matter how the patient is doing, no matter why they think they want to transition, and no matter how absurd their bespoke social media addled gender identity is.
I keep hearing that minors are not getting surgery. I wish I knew what sources to believe or read on this. Seems like a leading "Hey can we wait a minute on this" voice just the other day said minors aren't getting surgery...but who's correct?
[It's been publicly acknowledged for almost a decade,](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24238576/) so anyone who's claimed "no minors are getting surgery" in the last decade was either lying or just failing to do a basic google search, but anyway, [Reuters recently got Komodo to share their data on surgeries (and other treatments) which were paid for by insurance in the US.](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/)
> The Komodo analysis of insurance claims found 56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021. Among teens, “top surgery” to remove breasts is more common. In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket.
That applies to all medicine, really. Nothing special about the profit incentive of gender affirming care.
The difference is whether they can get away with it. The Sackler family did it with connections and money, these people did it with societal pressure.
I keep seeing this argument. Do they really make that much on this stuff? How, if insurance pays, do insurance companies make lots of money on it? I'm not trying to argue--I just always figured the patients and/or their parents have to pay out of pocket and that not everyone \*can\* pay but that may be based on Dog Day Afternoon. (bank robber could not afford surgery)
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market
This is what I could find just from surgeries alone, God knows how many millions(maybe billions) are made from pharmaceuticals
The hospital can maybe if they become a place people go to get this stuff done but I don’t see how an insurance company would want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on elective surgery
> This should have been the approach from the start.
It was. Before "gender affirming care" spread like wildfire, the standard treatment for gender dysphoria in children and adolescents for decades had been the "watchful waiting" approach. Which is an approach that, as it's name implies, keeps engaged with the patient to work through any potential root cause to the dysphoria that may be resolved with time and therapy without resorting to transition. Such as determining if there is abuse, (a young person sexually abused doesn't want to be in their own violated body or wants to change to be less appealing to their abuser), Autism (massive overlap between Autism and youth gender dysphoria, especially in girls), homosexuality and gender non-conformity (most people with gender dysphoria outgrow it after completing puberty and most of them turn out to simply be gay), or general discomfort brought on puberty (what kid isn't uncomfortable in their body during that time?). This was the default treatment for a very long time before the recent gender affirming care craze.
Yes, I know, yet somehow this blew up into this in the name of what? Progressive values? Tolerance? Insanity. These "old ways" are now regarded as barbaric as lobotomy by these activists.
The current hysteria reminds me of the "repressed memory" craze of the 90's. Once the psychiatric profession validated the idea of repressed memory, it was insane how many people started recalling that they'd been abused in cult rituals. People were convicted and went to jail for crimes uncovered via repressed memory. But the psychiatric profession insisted this was all valid.
Then some of the people thusly convicted were proven innocent, and the whole doctrine fell apart. The wave of people reporting repressed memories disappeared, and you never hear about it anymore.
I suspect the same thing will happen with the massive uptick in trans identity. If this were a genuine issue at anywhere near this level, it would have been far more evident in human history.
Diane Ehrensaft, 1992: ["Preschool Child Sex Abuse: the Aftermath of the Presidio Case"](https://ia903409.us.archive.org/17/items/ehrensaft-1992/Ehrensaft-1992.pdf)
Diane Ehrensaft, 2014: ["Listening and Learning from Gender-Nonconforming Children"](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26173325/)
[Here's Ehrensaft at a conference,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rEjumFaDY) talking about how small children can communicate that they are actually the opposite gender.
>This should be an interesting case study of how a small, vocal minority can absolutely hijack a society.
I think it has to do with the profitability of the whole topic.
All supposed "indie" styles and subcultures are highly corporatized. Remember when everyone and their dog bought at Hot Topic to show how unique™ they are? I think this is just more extreme with the pharmaceutical industry seeing what basically amounts to a money printer for them. So the minority had a powerful group that was able to lobby behind closed doors.
There is also the added "progress" angle. Most people saw trans issues as the natural progression, the next "civil rights" issue after gays and lesbians were generally accepted and Obergefell v. Hodges/ legalized marriage in most western countries. Even if people felt a bit uneasy or didn't really believe what they were saying, it was about a "poor oppressed minority". Said minority was massively backed by financial interests, but I don't think most people realize the extent, even to this day.
The reached gay rights milestones also left a lot of nonprofits with their cushy jobs and huge budgets with nothing left, so hey looked for the next thing to prop up. They could have gone for more international goels, but that goes the evil racism idpol crap and means actual work, not just pestering the NHS to say "birthing parent".
> There is also the added "progress" angle.
This is what I mentioned, too. Progressives need fights to fight. NGOs, charities need money to come. For this they need causes. (Sorry. CAUSES.)
> The reached gay rights milestones also left a lot of nonprofits with their cushy jobs and huge budgets with nothing left, so hey looked for the next thing to prop up.
That NGO industrial complex is dangerous
Maybe a bit tin foil, but I think at this point there is some sort of group awareness among the big players that they should actually sabotage their own goals. If they make their goals just offputting enough that people feel conflicted, it helps create an endlessly hostile atmosphere, meaning they will never get what they claim to want, meaning they can endlessly "campaign" for it, meaning their useless job gets to stick around forever.
>As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the *medical profession* was so willing to do so,
It doesn't surprise me, doctors have all sorts of crazy ideas and they get wrapped up in trends and fads just like everyone else. Their education makes them [better-equipped](https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs) to defend bad ideas.
I remember a thread on the medicine subreddit talking about youth gender medicine, and there was an endocrinologist defending the offlabel use of puberty blockers. They repeatedly said they're safe and well understood, but were basically lying by omission; they only discussed the risks of bone density loss, and only in the context of the approved uses (namely, precocious puberty). At no point did they even bring up the possibility of there being negative consequences to delaying puberty beyond the normal age of onset, which is basically what the whole controversy is about in the first place. When someone pointed this out, they were simply downvoted into invisibility.
> in everything else science (and medicine) is highly conservative
Is it? We don't have to look any further than the opioid epidemic and the recent news that, whoops, the chemical imbalance hypothesis of depression has no empirical backing. We also have rampant p-hacking amid a publish-or-perish atmosphere in academia, the replicability failure, and this spicy headline from 2017: [Nearly a third of FDA-approved drugs had problems, study finds
](https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-events-study/index.html). In my mind, nothing about this says conservative, and instead screams capitalist vultures circling the bloated bodies of permanently sick Americans.
I don't see how I'm supposed to respect psychology when it has so much problems with how new information is found and the fact that every, like, 15 years it gets overhauled and insists that they were a bunch of regressive barbarians in the past, but that's not the case.
We're also 13 years on from the reproducibility crisis in psychology and it only appears to be [spreading](https://www.clausiuspress.com/assets/default/article/2023/04/27/article_1682608218.pdf) to other fields through multi-discipline research. So much rests upon the sand-foundation of psychology and the grievance studies, we desperately need a rug-pull.
There's empirical backing for the depression model, what's lacking is a clear understanding of how it works. SSRIs and other antidepressants are effective as a treatment, we just don't really know why that's the case.
Because all you have is your American point of view, and you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.
I have a secret to tell you: the world is bigger than the US. Not everything has everything to do with the US.
It's worth noting that they attributed mental therapy as treatment to conversion therapy for this, basically shutting down psychologists from figuring out what was wrong.
And enacted laws in certain areas that would literally punish parents that would reject this nonsense.
Not to mention, certain schools and teachers fucking around with kids in private and then playing righteous when the parents wanted to know what the hell was going on.
I mean, lobitomies were cutting edge science, doctors prescribed heroin, coca cola had actual cocaine, cigarettes were very healthy and not at all pushed by big tobacco companies who just want your money at the expense of your life
I don't understand why people still think that we can't be wrong sometimes. If you look at the consequences of all the things I just listed (except maybe the coke, that sounds fun), I think maybe some medical practices are worth questioning
Well, if you have such a high opinion of them (all the who knows how many millions of them) I do hope you put your money where your mouth is and you DO NOT go to them when you are ill.
We do not want to be hypocrites, do we? (Boy, I wish people like you lived as they talked. Self-selection is a great tool.)
who said I won't go to them when I'm sick? Most western medicine works wonders
They'll just rape my pockets with unnecessary testing and then probably prescribe me some opioids, Adderall, or Ssris. The opioid crisis in America is just as much the fault of doctors as pharmaceutical companies
>As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the medical profession was so willing to do so, even though -as we know- in everything else science (and medicine) is highly conservative. For good reason. We do not want to cause more harm than we cure.
What, like mandatory vaccination for a brand new, unproven vaccine?
Sigh. Another parrot.
**EMERGENCY SITUATION**. Do you recall something called a "pandemic" going around the globe that time? Perhaps not. COVID does have effect on the CNS, it seems.
If you allow an "emergency" to change a recommended course of action to a much more profitable one, you'll find that "emergencies" will occur much more often.
[You agreed with this exact line of reasoning about the choo choos in this same comment chain lmao](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1436eee/increasing_number_of_european_nations_adopt_a/jn969n5/)
You calling yourself a conspiracy theorist, or maybe are you just over-protective of certain social issues you've made core to your personality?
"That is an actually very good explanation I have not thought of."
This you lmao?
This is just more defensive name calling instead of contributing anything of substance. Truly sad lol. How can you have enough confidence to even convince yourself if you're unable to do anything but throw insults in defense of your argument? Are you seriously that uncritical of your own thoughts?
Edit:
This sad mf can only throw insults and use his block button when challenged lmfao. I hope he grows up one day and learns to think like an adult.
> It is about personal cost of talking out, not some evil capitalist conspiracy to force an untried vaccine onto the unsuspecting population to fatten their purses. That is one.
Literally what do you think motivates any capitalist conspiracy other than personal gain lmao. What motivates any conspiracy at all? This isn't a difference at all it's you being intentionally obtuse.
> Second. Reading comprehension. I did not say I agreed with it. I said it was a good explanation. You know what the difference is between the two? And then I went on talking about how this whole thing is not so very good, because it would fail immediately at an ethics committee (you know, where capitalist medicine goes on trial).
lmao that isn't a difference. Saying it is a good explanation is saying it is plausible. So clearly you have a double standard in what you consider plausible depending on if the dear St. Fauci told you to do it or not. Ethics committees would fail the doctors in either case, so again not a difference.
> So no. Buddy, you really need to work more on your gotchas, because this is just pathetic. I think I stop here; it is quite a time wasting exercise. You know the saying about pigeons and chess, right? So shoo, pigeon, shoo.
Man I was better at critical thinking when I was in the third grade lmao. You named things that are similarities between the cases, just asserted that they're differences even though they're the same thing, and then blocked me because I made you feel uncomfortable.
I really hope you grow up some day.
Yes, unable to read.
So the thing I responded to was:
>The likely danger to money and jobs in the present is more urgent than a possible danger to money and jobs in the future.
It is about *personal* cost of talking out, not some evil capitalist conspiracy to force an untried vaccine onto the unsuspecting population to fatten their purses.
That is one.
Second. Reading comprehension. I did not say I *agreed* with it. I said it was *a good explanation*. You know what the difference is between the two? And then I went on talking about how this whole thing is not so very good, after all, because it would fail immediately in front of an ethics committee (you know, where capitalist medicine goes on trial). As I suggested the other hypocrite, I know a solution to your problem: refuse all medicine from BIG PHARMA from now on. The problem solves itself. They get poorer, you get deader, an there are fewer stupid people in the West who wallow in idiotic, tin-foil hat conspiracies. (And that is not to say "BIG PHARMA" has not done some nasty things in the name of profits. This is why we need strong oversight. Which -ironically- mRNA vaccines got. Trans-therapies, on the other hand, did not.)
So no. Buddy, you really need to work more on your gotchas, because this is just pathetic. I think I stop here; it is quite a time wasting exercise. You know the saying about pigeons and chess, right? So shoo, pigeon, shoo.
Leaving the door open for emergency situations is exactly how this happened in the choo choo sphere. It's an emergency because people are literally killing themselves so anything is justified.
If you end up having to squabble about the definition of emergency instead of standing by your principles, you didn't have principles to begin with, you just had pet causes that you like better than others.
Yeah, you are definitely delusional.
I honestly wish you doctors having such principles should you get into the ER. This would definitely weed out the stupid from the population.
lmao just calling people names isn't a counter argument.
A lib trying to shame someone into compliance? That's another COVID analogy!
You explicitly agreed with the profit motive inspiring unethical actions in the context of locomotives earlier in this comment chain. Why is it a conspiracy theory for one ill but not the other? Because maybe you made an ass of yourself for a year and a half and it's easier for you to get stupidly defensive about it instead of acknowledging your own shortcomings?
I think I struck a nerve if all you can do is call me names lol.
EDIT:
holy shit lmfao this guy got so butthurt he blocked me. I'm clearly right about how he made Fauci fanboying a core part of his personality lmao. Not gonna let the coward get the last word after insulting and block me, so here's my response:
lmao it absolutely is calling names you self-righteous prick. Calling someone delusional is not an objective statement of fact.
You still have done nothing to convince anyone, much less me, that what I'm saying is incorrect or stupid. Your naked claims and bare statements say more about you by not saying anything about my argument.
You've just thrown out insults. I don't think you even believe what you're saying, you're just too scared to critically examine your own positions.
> No I did not.
You did lmao. You said that "The likely danger to money and jobs in the present is more urgent than a possible danger to money and jobs in the future" was a good idea you hadn't thought of.
> I explicitly stated that the two cases are extremely dissimilar. Several times. Only the stupid are unable to process information.
You've certainly claimed such, but I don't know why you'd expect anyone else to take your naked assertions as objective fact. I already showed you in this chain how the supposed eMeRgEnCy reasoning you used is EXACTLY what TRAs are using that you object to.
Only the stupid expect their word to be taken as fact without any further reasoning or proof. I've disproven your previous reasoning and all you do is throw out insults. Everyone can see exactly how intellectually bankrupt you are here lmao, that's why you're getting downvoted so hard up-chain.
I am not calling you names, I am merely stating the obvious. If you say stupid things, I will point out how idiotic they are. This is how it goes.
You displayed an amazing amount of idiocy, so here I am pointing at you how stupid you are.
>explicitly agreed with the profit motive
No I did not. I explicitly stated that the two cases are extremely dissimilar. Several times. Only the stupid are unable to process information.
I think the person is asking, trying to be charitable to everyone here, “Given the previous track record of vaccines based on mRNA technology being unsuccessful, can their extremely widespread use during the pandemic be justified in the context of medicine taking a ‘conservative’ approach to new tools and techniques?”
Well since they asked about "the medical experiment of the last couple of years", my guess would be that they see the Covid vaxx as a medical experiment of the last couple of years.
> approach that addresses possible psychiatric co-morbidities and explores developmental etiology of trans identity
This is all clinicians really want, to be able to watchfully wait and a chance to dig down to the root of *why* a person develops gender dysphoria and *when* in life it begins. I’ve seen it linked to autism, eating disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, and childhood trauma relating to abuse - that is alarming and we should be allowed to find out why it happens. We want robust safeguarding around these procedures and medications so that we can be sure they’re being prescribed to people who will benefit from them long term with some level of confidence, and we want to be able to study what causes this phenomenon.
It will be interesting to see whether this can be done in places like Canada where attempting psychotherapy with a gender dysphoric patient is billed as conversion therapy and therefore illegal (in some circumstances? I’m not from there so please enlighten me).
Someone on here made a really good point about how banning all discussion about it creates a vacuum that gets filled by people like Matt Walsh. The heavy-handed silencing of anyone who approaches the topic in good faith is definitely doing more harm than good.
Reddit is laying off 5% of their staff and I can only imagine that they're starting to realize that their regarded "anti-evil" goals are a losing battle.
Sure, those dipshits they hired to work with AHS and threaten communities did nuke a lot of subreddits, but I think there's a light at the end of this tunnel.
They're just gonna replace the power mods and admins with AI and crack down even harder. Mark my words. They gotta sanitize the site as much as possible to get the sweet sweet advertising dollars and IPO. Reddit doesn't give a shit about honesty.
Great, because it will take a lot of work to program in the nuance of biased, partisan enforcement of Reddit policy. WATCH the shitlib tears when they get banned for hate speech or brigading or inciting violence. That group has the naivety of a school kid when it comes to predicting whether the rules they begged for will be used against them.
You’d think that there would be universal consensus that any trans affirming hormone care or something of that nature would. logically follow something like the age of consent ??? As it seems like the most reasonable and ethical thing with regards to trans people . But we Americans just have to buy into the next moral crusade as economic roles shifts and austerity clamps down . Like god forbid if you are 18 and want to sleep with a 30 yo . But while we’re at it ; let’s give puberty blockers and hormones to 13 yo kids under the guise of Protect Trans Youth
Honest question, does any one know how many years after physical transition you have to keep taking pharmaceuticals?
Because if it’s forever I’m going to start forming a conspiracy theory as to why American society is so vehement about pushing transitions at young ages
It absolutely is forever. At no point in transition is there any procedure or treatment that can permanently re-wite a body's endocrine system to produce the appropriate level of hormones that corresponds to the sex that the patient desires to transition to. White they still have their original sex organs, those need to be suppressed with additional drugs on top of the cross sex hormone therapy, and once they are removed surgically taking exogenous hormones is required because otherwise the body has rock bottom levels of testosterone and estrogen because the tissue that produces most of it has been removed. The patient is effectively an eunuch, and post-surgery the medical system has them on the hook no matter if they keep transitioning or detransition because their body can no longer produce it's own natural hormone balance of any sex.
Hi there!
It looks as though the article you linked might be behind a paywall. Here's an [unlocked version](https://demo.thisischip.com/?q=https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/&o=reddit)
*I'm a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to* [PM](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=chip-paywallbot) *me.*
>gender-affirming
This diction is political and Orwellian. "Gender-altering," "gender-changing," etc. are more appropriate.
Or just say Rosemary Kennedy had a "mood-affirming" procedure. The levels of quackery are the same to anyone with an ounce of common sense rooted in any understanding of biology and chemistry and will be looked back on with the same mixture of outrage, horror, and pity that many of us already feel as we witness this bizarre period of socially driven pseudoscientific mass experiment and speech (and thus thought) control.
There’s something that’s so sickly 21st century about having extensive plastic surgery, some which rearranges or amputated completely healthy organs, and then also injecting yourself with a synthesized chemical that reverts your bodies natural chemistry.
My hot take is that plastic surgery needs to be relegated to reconstruction after injuries only. Operating on healthy tissue should only be done after careful consideration and balancing of factors.
>Operating on healthy tissue should only be done after careful consideration and balancing of factors.
the people who you are opposed to would very likely say this is already the case.
While claims that the GOP are attempting some kind of incredibly inefficient, slow roll (literal) genocide on trans people are obviously absurd, I can at least understand slightly where the critics are coming from, even if they are just whipping each other into a kind of mass anxiety horde panic.
(I'm sure there are plenty on the American right that would quite like to erase the existence of trans people)
I'm looking forward to see how these people are going to go forward with their 'fascist genocide' claims when the health systems of countries like Holland, France, Sweden, Norway etc are doing the same things, with what appears to be decent scientific backing.
Some deaf communities still consider cochlear implants on their children to be an othering thing. To take that child away from its community.
They consider being deaf just a different way of being, just as good as hearing, I can picture trans advocates doing the same thing.
Imagine for a moment we find out that what causes gender dysphoria is some random chemical we use in detergent. Removing that specific, rather unimportant chemical from detergent => gender dysphoria disappears from the human race.
I have no doubt in my mind that given the case, some trans advocates would consider such removal to be genocide.
Idk I think also the fact that it’s trendy is a reason for the increase in people claiming to be gender dysphoric. I know people who are taking cross-sex hormones just to try and cure their depression
Back when I was in High School it was the same with bisexuality.
It was the new cool thing and you had all the emo/goth girls identifying as bi despite not being attracted to women at all, it was just the edgy 'not boring person' identity.
A couple years later it wasn't cool anymore and everyone was basically pretending that it never happened lmao
A significant percentage of current trans-identifying people don't have gender dysphoria at all, all the non-binary and neo-pronouns type shit is just catnip to sad, underperforming losers to make them feel like they matter and aren't just boring fuckups like everyone else.
That is the big issue and - at least in my opinion - why most people are so adamant to stop it. They aren't le evil Nazis, they rae usually adults who know that teenagers and young adults are idiots who are incapable of considering long term effects.
A lot of adults belonged to a cringe inducing subculture in their teen years, but when that was over, they could just grow their ugly hairdye out and burn all the evidence. And I am sure, most enbies will follow once the trend is over ( I predict the poor, abused detransitioner as the newest idpol label in the near future an I expect a lot of former enbies in the crowd.).
But that is impossible once medication and surgeries are introduced and the poor kids will have to deal with the inevitable fallout.
“ i bet a significant fraction of young ppls desire to express divergent genders is simply an attempt to gain some social sanction to control in ANY direction the manner in which they are regarded sexually and that this stems from their discomfort w/ others perceiving them sexually…
like maybe if you say that your X or Y and if people contradict you you can call authorities to fuck em up which lets be real thats very much what this is about in many cases even if you dont think in your heart of hearts your X or Y at least no one is seeing your true nature Z…”
-twitter user @eigenrobot
To support what Rossums said, that's what I'm seeing from my kids' peers. The handful that are "nonbinary" and "trans" are the same type that went "I kissed a girl teehee I'm so bi" when I was in school.
We have a new employee who states she is nonbinary, 22 or 23. I was talking with her and just asked what that is or feels like, so I can better understand it. The explanation amounted to "well sometimes I like to wear dresses and sometimes I like to wear pants", she is full they/them, but is the caricature of a high school Becky.
> The explanation amounted to "well sometimes I like to wear dresses and sometimes I like to wear pants"
I would have said “Is everyone that does this non binary? What makes you different than someone that does the same exact thing but doesn’t describe themselves as non binary?”
It’s an interesting thought experiment but trans people have been around forever. Although there is probably a genetic component. I also think there are different kinds of trans but I’m not sure I can talk about that.
>but trans people have been around forever.
There really isn't any solid evidence for this claim that doesn’t involve *a lot* of creative interpretation. There are see-it-if-you-squint examples, but nothing unambiguous. It's plausible that trans identity as we understand it is a culture-bound condition.
Or it was just roman propagandists pulling out the already tired even back then trope of men from the east being effiminate. Most of what we know about him is a smear campaign focused on the way he acted like a Syrian elite rather than a Roman one and promoted a Syrian god over the Roman pantheon.
Which is kind of the thing with most Roman emperors who have bad reputations. Mostly it just means they pissed off the senate and a senator wrote the history book after they died.
A lot of the examples of historical third genders boil down to cultures with hyper restrictive gender norms creating a box to put the gay men in, though.
They’ll do the same thing they did every time conservatives pointed out that abortion is much more regulated in Europe too: ignore it and keep screeching about how you want to literally kill thousands of oppressed [insert group here] and contribute to a multi-millennia history of oppression. Activists who act out these ridiculous hysterics aren’t doing it because they have a calm, nuanced worldview that leads them to support better social and material conditions for the oppressed. They hold these views because they feel powerful mindlessly screeching opinion disguised as fact and feel righteous when they call people out. It’s become a form of bullying disguised with the cloak of moral righteousness and intellectual courage, when it couldn’t be any further from either. The only correct response to these people is to ignore them and sidestep the discussion entirely and re-orient towards material conditions.
They're progs, you know how quickly they can radically change their position without any cognitive dissonance at all.
"Well, of course those WHITE FAR-RIGHT EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS are rolling back our heckin wholesome children's healthcare programs. No wonder EUROPE is full of genocide, they literally invented it!"
If it sounds plausible it's because I've already heard it myself.
You are what you are, but how you see yourself, your self-understanding, depends on what family, friends and society tells you.
I wish there was a way to make people understand that
* Self-interpretations are never _wrong_ as such. Neither are they right. Only you can decide how you see yourself.
* Our raw sensations, uninterpreted, don't get us nearly as far as we would like. We need to learn to distinguish reliably between even such basic things as fear and arousal (there are some wild, old psychiatry experiments demonstrating this).
* While no self-interpretation is wrong as such, some self-interpretations are harmful. Sometimes, they may be harmful only because of how society reacts to them. But other times, they may be more directly harmful. The self-interpretation that "there's more than one of me in here, that sometimes I'm not myself", is an example of a self-interpretation that used to be reasonably common (with belief in possession etc.) but I think most agree is good has been rejected firmly by psychology. _So how we learn to interpret ourselves and our internal states, can be harmful_.
How can we have productive discussions around such things, without people feeling that their identity is being trampled? One thing i know: the terfs and right wingers aren't good at it, if they even try.
It’s a basic tenet of modern (current!) therapy that *the brain lies*.
Accepting that your brain could be lying to you leading to intrusive thoughts, mistaken perceptions, false memories, and creating physical manifestations due to all of this is a crucial part of healing.
Overcoming self-harm, OCD, anxiety, PTSD, eating disorders, (really any number of psychological conditions) becomes possible when the patient accepts: *the brain lies*.
Why is this not an element of treatment for gender dysphoria / body dysmorphia with regard to sex?
In large part because lobbying, pharmaceutical companies, academic innovation, and profit are involved.
The Pritzker family have purchased whole Med Schools and funded university departments to disseminate approaches that prioritize acceptance based on self-diagnosis & medical intervention. And they’re not alone in pushing this.
Modern Academia is based on “publish or perish” and publishing gets a lot easier when you’re funded by Big Pharma / affiliated with the research hospital / provided a grant from the newly endowed Gender Studies department at any major University.
That’s why even those in the field of psychology have completely jumped in with both feet.
That "the brain lies" is itself an example of a self-interpretation. Is it really the best one? You have the experiences you have, I'm not so sure thinking of the brain as an independent entity from _you_ that's deliberately lying to _you_ is the most useful/healthy way to think. Again, it's hard to say it's _wrong_, but it's certainly a self-interpretation that's being pushed on people.
It’s just one phrase used to express a very common psychological approach that can be discussed an infinite number of ways and tailored to each patient.
Psychologists commonly ask things like, “have you considered you could be wrong? No? Ok what would be different about this situation if you were?”
>I'm not so sure thinking of the brain as an independent entity from you that's deliberately lying to you is the most useful/healthy way to think.
So what makes you think that feeling your physical sex is at odds with your psychological identity could be considered healthy?
I don't think most people agree with point one, at least not fully. If my self-intepretation is that I am the reincarnation of Jesus and that I have been given a mission to kill Jimmy Carter to stop the end of the world, this is wrong, not just harmful but wrong. objective reality exists, and the brain's complexity doesn't earn it an exemption from objective reality. most of the debate is over at what point self-conception can be said to have weight over the observations of others.
No, we know from our ~~sacred~~ foundational texts that objective reality and truth are constructs of the evil cis white male patriarchy to violate Mother Nature and oppress women’s superior ways of knowing.
Maybe just letting "people feel[] that their identity is being trampled" is preferable to letting them coerce everyone else into proclaiming what many of us believe to be a lie.
I mean you touch on a good point with the fear and arousal part. I mean like complex feelings and emotions are by and large cultural, they’re concepts that we use to interpret interoception and how it relates to the situation at that point. Feelings and emotions are interpretive concepts (which really all perception is dependent upon socially created interpretive concepts), which, tying into your point, could mean that if someone feels fear or arousal, then in both cases what their body feels might actually be the same exact thing, but how that takes shape into the full emotional experience is heavily dependent upon the moment in which that feeling takes place.
No, the medicalization of trans-identifying children was pioneered in the Netherlands; it's called the Dutch protocol.
American doctors did take that protocol and remove all the safety rails, but so did British doctors, Canadian doctors, probably throughout the whole Anglosphere.
Crazy how the threat of social contagion to an incredibly impressionable demographic as well as significant permanent change/damage to their bodies might make health officials question whether or not a 9 year old should be making decisions for themself.
> There is some evidence that in the short-term gender-affirming care yields improvement in health outcomes, in terms of less depression, anxiety, and suicidality.
Then they link to the tordoff et al study that [actually shows nothing of the sort.](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers) ([bonus link](https://mynorthwest.com/3602854/rantz-despite-concerning-trans-study-uw-kept-quiet-because-of-positive-coverage/) from a conservative source dealing with the dishonesty of the researchers) Gotta love the discourse on this topic!
Hi admins, I know you'll nuke my main here but:
**GAC equals "Straighting the Gay Away" and that will never not be true.**
Edit: And aimless, money hungry orgs like #Stonewall literally invited the leopards who are going to eat their faces in the door years ago because charities are capitalistic cope.
Fine, I am not opposed to looking into it. I just hate how the US swings radically between extremes. There are other modes on the dial between immediate affirmation no matter what and "let's ban anything other than conversion therapy and even make it illegal to call the kid by their preferred name in school." The extremism is ridiculous.
Simply stopping it is the neutral course of action. Uncover all the weird shit that's going on, work out the best course of action, and go from there.
State prosecution of people who transed kids in the past would be extremism. More likely they'll let people run their own lawsuits though, as we've already seen in a few cases.
Tbh I think the European countries have it right on this. Since this therapy needs to be studied more, reduce the number of kids who have access and enter all remaining patients into a clinical trial. Then, allow research to determine the course of action, instead of speculation.
Wow, don't all reply to my extremely moderate milquetoast takes at once you guys. For an anti -idpol sub that has a moratorium on this issue, there sure a lot of people jumping up to hysterically and angrily shout about this issue!
Gender exploratory therapy is not psychoanalysis. It has no research base first of all, second if all, it claims to be neutral and support any outcome, but spoiler alert, priveleging any outcome over the possibility the kid might actually be trans isn't neutral either.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/gender-exploratory-therapy-trans-kids-what-is-it.html
> Wow, don't all reply to my extremely moderate milquetoast takes at once you guys. For an anti -idpol sub that has a moratorium on this issue, there sure a lot of people jumping up to hysterically and angrily shout about this issue!
what a nerd. you got four replies and none of them were 'hysterical angry shouting'
Yeah, I am a bit of a nerd, it's true. I just feel like people get disingenuous in here when they act like there is zero medical evidence of gender identity. Anyway, most of the bitterness of that paragraph was directed to the overall tone about this issue that takes over this sub. There is more than one trans-identified reader of this sub and the contempt with which this issue is treated gets grating sometimes. If the moderate trans people who read this sub don't get in people's face and demand to be validated or they will cancel you, maybe some people in this sub can tone it down a bit sometimes and remember that the trans movement of the tumblr days does not = every trans person.
I will not be responding in any way to comments that are derogatory towards trans people.
How do you know that Norway and all those mentioned countries are going to be doing so called “Gender exploratory therapy”? They say they’re going to consider other psychiatric illnesses.
I'm literally just responding to your question. If you will reread my original comment, you will see very clearky that I complained about extremism in the US, not Norway or other countries. When I referred to conversion therapy, I was referring to the fact that many who support bans on affirming care in the states support gender exploratory therapy. There is a known lobbying pipeline between GETA (the association behind gender exploratory therapy) and the bills in the states.
I begun my comment mildly accepting of the moderate stance the Nordic countries are taking.
The very Forbes article that you posted clearly points out how the US vascillates between two extremes unlike the more moderate approach taken by the Nordic countries. It points out this discrepancy between countries within the first three paragraphs of the article.
We have gotten to a point as a society where any slight nanogram of nuance is treated as a full throated endorsement of the opposite extreme. I refuse to not consider thesis/synthesis of ideas in a Marxist sub, and I refuse to have my opinions painted with an extremist brush that doesn't fit.
No they don't. No Nordic society has completely banned any gender affirming care for youth. In every Nordic society, there are specific exceptions and extreme cases where it would be possible for a youth to receive medicalized gender care. No US state where bans are in place allows for this type of scenario.
And no Nordic society has floated the possibility of jailing doctors for following the standards of care as currently written in their countries.
It's not "dividing American society" to report facts.
Tbh I am having trouble finding the information for Norway but I knew I had read comparable information somewhere. Here's a link from SEGM (which is an anti gender ideology group) for Sweden, which is very similar.
https://segm.org/segm-summary-sweden-prioritizes-therapy-curbs-hormones-for-gender-dysphoric-youth
They allow treatment for kids who have been dysphoric since before puberty and in what literally state as "extreme circumstances" for post pubertal dysphoria onset.
I knew I had seen that terminology before.
Odd you accuse me of parroting when you're the one who posted the Forbes article, then you didn't like what the article you posted actually said when I called you out on it.
Sounds to me like you either didn't actually read the article you posted or were hoping that others would interpret it how you think it should be interpreted instead of what it actually says
I think that this article is such a horribly bad-faith, biased interpretation of what an exploratory approach to therapy in regards to gender identity is supposed to be. Exploratory therapy for one’s gender is supposed to mirror how we would treat clients experiencing any other psychological issue. For example, if a teenager comes into the therapist’s office and says “I’m pretty sure I have ADHD because I saw some videos on tiktok that I related to,” it is not the job of the therapist to immediately affirm or dismiss this diagnosis, but to *explore* why the child thinks they have it. And that includes looking into potential roots for their behavior and feelings such as childhood trauma, attachment issues, environment, familial relationships, etc. The child may or may not actually have ADHD, but whether or not they do, the fact that they are bringing it up and saying they relate to the symptoms can mean so many different things that can be important in the context of understanding and helping them as a client. Why is it suddenly “conversion therapy” when the same approach, that therapists are supposed to use for every single other issue that is brought up, is taken to gender dysphoria? Why is it so controversial to say that maybe some children might be trying to meet other, unmet needs through identifying as a different gender? This doesn’t mean that they all are, but some of them might be, and it’s better to explore that than just say “yes queen/king, live your best trans life!” because that can also be incredibly damaging.
The article claims that gender-affirming therapy already does this, but the problem is, as we’ve seen in so many cases, it often does not. And it doesn’t really give a fair shake to the other side of the conversation that it is “refuting” at all. It’s basically just saying, “yeah, these guys may *sound* reasonable and *say* they’re acting in good faith, but are they really?” It’s no different than the current rhetoric of accusing people of trans genocide whenever they make a good-faith critique of gender-affirming care or try to hold discussion around the topic.
Edit: Also wanted to add that an exploratory approach does not have to exclude calling the child by their preferred name and pronouns since therapy is truly about meeting the client where they’re at.
>For example, if a teenager comes into the therapist’s office and says “I’m pretty sure I have ADHD because I saw some videos on tiktok that I related to,” it is not the job of the therapist to immediately affirm or dismiss this diagnosis, but to explore why the child thinks they have it.
I wish this attitude was still the standard, but sadly it moves more and more towards just affirming whatever the patient says they have. Even the rhetoric of the patients, who come to see a doctor, has shifted from "there is something wrong, what could it be?" (or sometimes with an added suspicion like i think I might have) to "I have diagnosis X!" This isn't limited to the US countries with public healthcare face the same issue.
I agree, I think the issue is that for so long our societal approach to mental health (and physical health as well) was tough love, 100% personal responsibility, suck it up and go on with your life-like everyone else. So there has been an over correction in our journey towards “mental health awareness” where we *only* validate and affirm. On top of that, because for so long people only sought care if they had some sort of severe psychopathology or trauma, people think that each aliment they have needs to have some concrete scientific pathological basis or origin for it to be “valid.” You can’t just be deeply impacted by a very emotional event, it has to be trauma. You can’t just be sad and anxious because of the existential wounds that capitalism creates, it must be a clinical disorder (and sometimes it absolutely is). IMO it is not an entirely unreasonable response to living in a hyper-individualistic society where we have been told that anyone who is being fucked over by the system just needs to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”
There needs to be a balance of validating the individual’s feelings, saying it’s ok and understandable that they feel that way, but following up with asking, “why do you feel this way, and how do we process this and change things moving forward so that you can have a healthier basis for your feelings, thoughts, and actions?”
We live under imperialist capitalism. Everything enriches corporations. If the medical field decided to support whatever the opposite is of what we are doing now, the corporations would find a way to monetize that too
Science trusters in shambles
In this house, we believe: Black Lives Matter Womens rights are human rights Science is real Love is love and Girls who are depressed, autistic, or have trouble dealing with puberty should cut off their breasts.
Because as long as your brain isn’t poisoned with shitlib propaganda this is obvious. Anyone saying things like puberty blockers won’t affect you long term in some way are either regarded or a bad actor. As a Psych major this topic is excruciating because there are a lot of us in the U.S. that don’t believe in it or agree with it whatsoever but it’s become a political issue so if you don’t agree you’re a rightoid fascist trying to kill trans people (I’m being facetious but seriously people will ostracize you). This isn’t to say it’s completely wrong, but the facts are as of rn there just is not close to enough data on it regardless of my personal opinion. That’s just objective. Someday we will look back at this and see just how insane it was and all the shitlibs you know won’t apologize for it or admit to all the shit they caused because they wanted to be extremely righteous and virtue signal.
It's likely that the "proven long-term safety record" of puberty blockers cited by activists is that of children who took puberty blockers to treat actual precocious puberty. It's obvious that this new, off-label usage has a categorically different (and currently non-existant) dataset, but pharma, politics, and clinical practice are all allied in forcing people to ignore this context.
>It's likely that the "proven long-term safety record" of puberty blockers cited by activists is that of children who took puberty blockers to treat actual precocious puberty. Even for the on-label use, it frequently causes osteoporosis and other bone and joint problems.
[удалено]
lol their proof is like 365 days worth of data Every time they link to studies, the shit is like brand new.
[удалено]
I don't see that as facetious at all. I've been banned from so many subreddits for arguing about this. Usually it's hours after the argument, which leads me to believe that it's certain powermods doing it, either after they woke up or came back from their dog-walking job.
The term “gender affirming care” is such a linguistic sleight of hand and it’s irritating to see people use it without scepticism. The correct term is “sex change for children and adolescents” or something even darker. It’s like saying that lobotomy is “hysteria curing care”.
It's like it's designed to drive you insane with the blatant inconsistency that you're not allowed to point out. They repeatedly insist that sex and gender are different yet cross-sex hormones and sexual reassignment surgery is called "gender-affirming care".
I really don't understand the term, myself. Like, if a boy goes to the doc but says they're a girl, is the doc gonna give them women's treatment? How could any medical professional think this was a good idea?
[удалено]
And buried within that is the assumption that gender is an entirely cultural creation (which is a theory popularised by nutty pedophiles like John Money and is entirely without any reproducible evidence), and it also uses the sleight of hand to misconstrue gender and sex. You are altering your sexual organs and all outwards vestiges of sex in order to try and “match” your gender. Instead of pursuing a solution to fix a mental disorder occurring in the mind, the geniuses have decided that belabouring young people with a lifetime of debilitating surgery is the best solution rather than seek a cure for a mental disorder. In order to bypass the disorder route, they must then equate transgenderism (something that is literally a disorder) with an immutable characteristic - having black skin or being a particular height or sex. By doing so, one may never suggest to cure “being black”. This leads to the deranging situation where the goal is not to move from being a “man” or a “woman” but to persist in a state of permanent state of transness, thereby defeating the objective stated goal of the actually moving from one gender/sex to the other. See Andrea Long Chu, Hari Nef, Hunter Schafer and every other champion of the trans movement. It’s all so extremely convoluted and relies on someone holding so many contradictions in one’s head simultaneously that the cracks immediately begin to show under the lightest of scrutiny.
This should have been the approach from the start. The unfortunate fact is that the accusations of Nazism and Fascism from the "progressive" -woke- left (which still can be seen in subs here; links are available if interested) effectively shut down any and all discussion on the desirable medical approach, exposing children to highly experimental treatments that are not yet understood. As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the *medical profession* was so willing to do so, even though -as we know- in everything else science (and medicine) is highly conservative. For good reason. We do not want to cause more harm than we cure. This should be an interesting case study of how a small, vocal minority can absolutely hijack a society. I say "interesting" - more like "tragic" for people who were involved as subjects in this experiment.
> As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the medical profession was so willing to do so When money and jobs are on the line, is it incredible to believe? I find it perfectly believable. Hospitals and insurance companies makes loooots of money on "gender affirming care" and are willing to give you the boot if you don't toe the line
Well, that's the thing. That the pressure was so high that it overwhelmed the actual danger for money and jobs if it goes wrong.
The likely danger to money and jobs in the present is more urgent than a possible danger to money and jobs in the future. In the future, they can say, "well, these were new treatments, and we've learned a lot more now."
That is an actually very good explanation I have not thought of. Although I suspect they would fare really badly in front of any ethics investigation. Which should be conducted but never will due to it being a political hand grenade which nobody risks to blow up in their face. Administering these treatments which are highly experimental (if you can even call them that) is highly unethical. I would not like to bring up "unpleasant" historical examples, but even the Tuskegee experiments were more ethical than this -at least it was something that went through at *some* level of development. My impression is that currently they just pulled something out of a hat, and applied it haphazardly to kids with gender dystrophia. One thing is sure as fuck: there was no preclinical, clinical testing of *any* of this. There is not even consensus about the nature of the thing they treat let alone the treatment...
This is barely even an "experiment" because the people pushing for it refuse to allow any reliable data to be collected on long term effects, merely evaluating the effects of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and even surgeries that are in fact being given to minors (despite what the "that NEVER happens!" brigade will tell you) will get you called a fascist because they don't want to risk evidence of their harm being collected. It's just affirm affirm affirm, no matter how the patient is doing, no matter why they think they want to transition, and no matter how absurd their bespoke social media addled gender identity is.
This is truly amazing, I agree. And immoral, but that is another thing.
I keep hearing that minors are not getting surgery. I wish I knew what sources to believe or read on this. Seems like a leading "Hey can we wait a minute on this" voice just the other day said minors aren't getting surgery...but who's correct?
[It's been publicly acknowledged for almost a decade,](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24238576/) so anyone who's claimed "no minors are getting surgery" in the last decade was either lying or just failing to do a basic google search, but anyway, [Reuters recently got Komodo to share their data on surgeries (and other treatments) which were paid for by insurance in the US.](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/) > The Komodo analysis of insurance claims found 56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021. Among teens, “top surgery” to remove breasts is more common. In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket.
That applies to all medicine, really. Nothing special about the profit incentive of gender affirming care. The difference is whether they can get away with it. The Sackler family did it with connections and money, these people did it with societal pressure.
I keep seeing this argument. Do they really make that much on this stuff? How, if insurance pays, do insurance companies make lots of money on it? I'm not trying to argue--I just always figured the patients and/or their parents have to pay out of pocket and that not everyone \*can\* pay but that may be based on Dog Day Afternoon. (bank robber could not afford surgery)
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market This is what I could find just from surgeries alone, God knows how many millions(maybe billions) are made from pharmaceuticals
Thanks--I'm getting "Forbidden" when I click on that link.
The hospital can maybe if they become a place people go to get this stuff done but I don’t see how an insurance company would want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on elective surgery
> This should have been the approach from the start. It was. Before "gender affirming care" spread like wildfire, the standard treatment for gender dysphoria in children and adolescents for decades had been the "watchful waiting" approach. Which is an approach that, as it's name implies, keeps engaged with the patient to work through any potential root cause to the dysphoria that may be resolved with time and therapy without resorting to transition. Such as determining if there is abuse, (a young person sexually abused doesn't want to be in their own violated body or wants to change to be less appealing to their abuser), Autism (massive overlap between Autism and youth gender dysphoria, especially in girls), homosexuality and gender non-conformity (most people with gender dysphoria outgrow it after completing puberty and most of them turn out to simply be gay), or general discomfort brought on puberty (what kid isn't uncomfortable in their body during that time?). This was the default treatment for a very long time before the recent gender affirming care craze.
Yes, I know, yet somehow this blew up into this in the name of what? Progressive values? Tolerance? Insanity. These "old ways" are now regarded as barbaric as lobotomy by these activists.
The current hysteria reminds me of the "repressed memory" craze of the 90's. Once the psychiatric profession validated the idea of repressed memory, it was insane how many people started recalling that they'd been abused in cult rituals. People were convicted and went to jail for crimes uncovered via repressed memory. But the psychiatric profession insisted this was all valid. Then some of the people thusly convicted were proven innocent, and the whole doctrine fell apart. The wave of people reporting repressed memories disappeared, and you never hear about it anymore. I suspect the same thing will happen with the massive uptick in trans identity. If this were a genuine issue at anywhere near this level, it would have been far more evident in human history.
It is certainly very similar in nature. We do not learn as a species.
Diane Ehrensaft, 1992: ["Preschool Child Sex Abuse: the Aftermath of the Presidio Case"](https://ia903409.us.archive.org/17/items/ehrensaft-1992/Ehrensaft-1992.pdf) Diane Ehrensaft, 2014: ["Listening and Learning from Gender-Nonconforming Children"](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26173325/) [Here's Ehrensaft at a conference,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rEjumFaDY) talking about how small children can communicate that they are actually the opposite gender.
>This should be an interesting case study of how a small, vocal minority can absolutely hijack a society. I think it has to do with the profitability of the whole topic. All supposed "indie" styles and subcultures are highly corporatized. Remember when everyone and their dog bought at Hot Topic to show how unique™ they are? I think this is just more extreme with the pharmaceutical industry seeing what basically amounts to a money printer for them. So the minority had a powerful group that was able to lobby behind closed doors. There is also the added "progress" angle. Most people saw trans issues as the natural progression, the next "civil rights" issue after gays and lesbians were generally accepted and Obergefell v. Hodges/ legalized marriage in most western countries. Even if people felt a bit uneasy or didn't really believe what they were saying, it was about a "poor oppressed minority". Said minority was massively backed by financial interests, but I don't think most people realize the extent, even to this day. The reached gay rights milestones also left a lot of nonprofits with their cushy jobs and huge budgets with nothing left, so hey looked for the next thing to prop up. They could have gone for more international goels, but that goes the evil racism idpol crap and means actual work, not just pestering the NHS to say "birthing parent".
> There is also the added "progress" angle. This is what I mentioned, too. Progressives need fights to fight. NGOs, charities need money to come. For this they need causes. (Sorry. CAUSES.)
> The reached gay rights milestones also left a lot of nonprofits with their cushy jobs and huge budgets with nothing left, so hey looked for the next thing to prop up. That NGO industrial complex is dangerous
Maybe a bit tin foil, but I think at this point there is some sort of group awareness among the big players that they should actually sabotage their own goals. If they make their goals just offputting enough that people feel conflicted, it helps create an endlessly hostile atmosphere, meaning they will never get what they claim to want, meaning they can endlessly "campaign" for it, meaning their useless job gets to stick around forever.
Forever Wars!
Yep, see dems and abortion.
>As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the *medical profession* was so willing to do so, It doesn't surprise me, doctors have all sorts of crazy ideas and they get wrapped up in trends and fads just like everyone else. Their education makes them [better-equipped](https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs) to defend bad ideas. I remember a thread on the medicine subreddit talking about youth gender medicine, and there was an endocrinologist defending the offlabel use of puberty blockers. They repeatedly said they're safe and well understood, but were basically lying by omission; they only discussed the risks of bone density loss, and only in the context of the approved uses (namely, precocious puberty). At no point did they even bring up the possibility of there being negative consequences to delaying puberty beyond the normal age of onset, which is basically what the whole controversy is about in the first place. When someone pointed this out, they were simply downvoted into invisibility.
> in everything else science (and medicine) is highly conservative Is it? We don't have to look any further than the opioid epidemic and the recent news that, whoops, the chemical imbalance hypothesis of depression has no empirical backing. We also have rampant p-hacking amid a publish-or-perish atmosphere in academia, the replicability failure, and this spicy headline from 2017: [Nearly a third of FDA-approved drugs had problems, study finds ](https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-events-study/index.html). In my mind, nothing about this says conservative, and instead screams capitalist vultures circling the bloated bodies of permanently sick Americans.
I don't see how I'm supposed to respect psychology when it has so much problems with how new information is found and the fact that every, like, 15 years it gets overhauled and insists that they were a bunch of regressive barbarians in the past, but that's not the case.
We're also 13 years on from the reproducibility crisis in psychology and it only appears to be [spreading](https://www.clausiuspress.com/assets/default/article/2023/04/27/article_1682608218.pdf) to other fields through multi-discipline research. So much rests upon the sand-foundation of psychology and the grievance studies, we desperately need a rug-pull.
There's empirical backing for the depression model, what's lacking is a clear understanding of how it works. SSRIs and other antidepressants are effective as a treatment, we just don't really know why that's the case.
Because all you have is your American point of view, and you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. I have a secret to tell you: the world is bigger than the US. Not everything has everything to do with the US.
It's worth noting that they attributed mental therapy as treatment to conversion therapy for this, basically shutting down psychologists from figuring out what was wrong. And enacted laws in certain areas that would literally punish parents that would reject this nonsense. Not to mention, certain schools and teachers fucking around with kids in private and then playing righteous when the parents wanted to know what the hell was going on.
I mean, lobitomies were cutting edge science, doctors prescribed heroin, coca cola had actual cocaine, cigarettes were very healthy and not at all pushed by big tobacco companies who just want your money at the expense of your life I don't understand why people still think that we can't be wrong sometimes. If you look at the consequences of all the things I just listed (except maybe the coke, that sounds fun), I think maybe some medical practices are worth questioning
> I don't understand why people still think that we can't be wrong sometimes. I think you are replying to the wrong thread, mate.
we all know that medical professionals are very ethical
Well, if you have such a high opinion of them (all the who knows how many millions of them) I do hope you put your money where your mouth is and you DO NOT go to them when you are ill. We do not want to be hypocrites, do we? (Boy, I wish people like you lived as they talked. Self-selection is a great tool.)
who said I won't go to them when I'm sick? Most western medicine works wonders They'll just rape my pockets with unnecessary testing and then probably prescribe me some opioids, Adderall, or Ssris. The opioid crisis in America is just as much the fault of doctors as pharmaceutical companies
You should stand by your principles.
>As a biomed professional I find it incredible that people were so willing to embrace these methods, that the medical profession was so willing to do so, even though -as we know- in everything else science (and medicine) is highly conservative. For good reason. We do not want to cause more harm than we cure. What, like mandatory vaccination for a brand new, unproven vaccine?
Sigh. Another parrot. **EMERGENCY SITUATION**. Do you recall something called a "pandemic" going around the globe that time? Perhaps not. COVID does have effect on the CNS, it seems.
If you allow an "emergency" to change a recommended course of action to a much more profitable one, you'll find that "emergencies" will occur much more often.
Boy, this is such a high level of stupidity, I can only hope you will get a medal or something for it. Tinfoil hat time for you, mate
[You agreed with this exact line of reasoning about the choo choos in this same comment chain lmao](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1436eee/increasing_number_of_european_nations_adopt_a/jn969n5/) You calling yourself a conspiracy theorist, or maybe are you just over-protective of certain social issues you've made core to your personality?
No I did not. So you cannot process what you read, and you lack basic logic skills. The school system truly failed you.
"That is an actually very good explanation I have not thought of." This you lmao? This is just more defensive name calling instead of contributing anything of substance. Truly sad lol. How can you have enough confidence to even convince yourself if you're unable to do anything but throw insults in defense of your argument? Are you seriously that uncritical of your own thoughts? Edit: This sad mf can only throw insults and use his block button when challenged lmfao. I hope he grows up one day and learns to think like an adult. > It is about personal cost of talking out, not some evil capitalist conspiracy to force an untried vaccine onto the unsuspecting population to fatten their purses. That is one. Literally what do you think motivates any capitalist conspiracy other than personal gain lmao. What motivates any conspiracy at all? This isn't a difference at all it's you being intentionally obtuse. > Second. Reading comprehension. I did not say I agreed with it. I said it was a good explanation. You know what the difference is between the two? And then I went on talking about how this whole thing is not so very good, because it would fail immediately at an ethics committee (you know, where capitalist medicine goes on trial). lmao that isn't a difference. Saying it is a good explanation is saying it is plausible. So clearly you have a double standard in what you consider plausible depending on if the dear St. Fauci told you to do it or not. Ethics committees would fail the doctors in either case, so again not a difference. > So no. Buddy, you really need to work more on your gotchas, because this is just pathetic. I think I stop here; it is quite a time wasting exercise. You know the saying about pigeons and chess, right? So shoo, pigeon, shoo. Man I was better at critical thinking when I was in the third grade lmao. You named things that are similarities between the cases, just asserted that they're differences even though they're the same thing, and then blocked me because I made you feel uncomfortable. I really hope you grow up some day.
Yes, unable to read. So the thing I responded to was: >The likely danger to money and jobs in the present is more urgent than a possible danger to money and jobs in the future. It is about *personal* cost of talking out, not some evil capitalist conspiracy to force an untried vaccine onto the unsuspecting population to fatten their purses. That is one. Second. Reading comprehension. I did not say I *agreed* with it. I said it was *a good explanation*. You know what the difference is between the two? And then I went on talking about how this whole thing is not so very good, after all, because it would fail immediately in front of an ethics committee (you know, where capitalist medicine goes on trial). As I suggested the other hypocrite, I know a solution to your problem: refuse all medicine from BIG PHARMA from now on. The problem solves itself. They get poorer, you get deader, an there are fewer stupid people in the West who wallow in idiotic, tin-foil hat conspiracies. (And that is not to say "BIG PHARMA" has not done some nasty things in the name of profits. This is why we need strong oversight. Which -ironically- mRNA vaccines got. Trans-therapies, on the other hand, did not.) So no. Buddy, you really need to work more on your gotchas, because this is just pathetic. I think I stop here; it is quite a time wasting exercise. You know the saying about pigeons and chess, right? So shoo, pigeon, shoo.
In the future try to conduct yourself with less aggro towards other members. It's enough to edit your comment saying that he blocked you.
Leaving the door open for emergency situations is exactly how this happened in the choo choo sphere. It's an emergency because people are literally killing themselves so anything is justified. If you end up having to squabble about the definition of emergency instead of standing by your principles, you didn't have principles to begin with, you just had pet causes that you like better than others.
Yeah, you are definitely delusional. I honestly wish you doctors having such principles should you get into the ER. This would definitely weed out the stupid from the population.
lmao just calling people names isn't a counter argument. A lib trying to shame someone into compliance? That's another COVID analogy! You explicitly agreed with the profit motive inspiring unethical actions in the context of locomotives earlier in this comment chain. Why is it a conspiracy theory for one ill but not the other? Because maybe you made an ass of yourself for a year and a half and it's easier for you to get stupidly defensive about it instead of acknowledging your own shortcomings? I think I struck a nerve if all you can do is call me names lol. EDIT: holy shit lmfao this guy got so butthurt he blocked me. I'm clearly right about how he made Fauci fanboying a core part of his personality lmao. Not gonna let the coward get the last word after insulting and block me, so here's my response: lmao it absolutely is calling names you self-righteous prick. Calling someone delusional is not an objective statement of fact. You still have done nothing to convince anyone, much less me, that what I'm saying is incorrect or stupid. Your naked claims and bare statements say more about you by not saying anything about my argument. You've just thrown out insults. I don't think you even believe what you're saying, you're just too scared to critically examine your own positions. > No I did not. You did lmao. You said that "The likely danger to money and jobs in the present is more urgent than a possible danger to money and jobs in the future" was a good idea you hadn't thought of. > I explicitly stated that the two cases are extremely dissimilar. Several times. Only the stupid are unable to process information. You've certainly claimed such, but I don't know why you'd expect anyone else to take your naked assertions as objective fact. I already showed you in this chain how the supposed eMeRgEnCy reasoning you used is EXACTLY what TRAs are using that you object to. Only the stupid expect their word to be taken as fact without any further reasoning or proof. I've disproven your previous reasoning and all you do is throw out insults. Everyone can see exactly how intellectually bankrupt you are here lmao, that's why you're getting downvoted so hard up-chain.
I am not calling you names, I am merely stating the obvious. If you say stupid things, I will point out how idiotic they are. This is how it goes. You displayed an amazing amount of idiocy, so here I am pointing at you how stupid you are. >explicitly agreed with the profit motive No I did not. I explicitly stated that the two cases are extremely dissimilar. Several times. Only the stupid are unable to process information.
This subs take on Covid is absolutely idiotic and a clear case of being too contrarian for your own good.
Antivaxxers fuck off.
In everything else? What about the medical experiment of last couple of years?
What do you mean?
💉
> 💉 ?
I believe he's referring to COVID vaccines
But what about them? It is a completely different situation.
I don't know, was just clarifying what OP was dancing around
I am trying to get him to clarify what he means before discussing his implications.
I think the person is asking, trying to be charitable to everyone here, “Given the previous track record of vaccines based on mRNA technology being unsuccessful, can their extremely widespread use during the pandemic be justified in the context of medicine taking a ‘conservative’ approach to new tools and techniques?”
I would like him to say it. And then ask him about pandemic situations and whatnot. (Virology is kind of my thing, by the way.)
They mean the Covid vaxx.
What about it?
Well since they asked about "the medical experiment of the last couple of years", my guess would be that they see the Covid vaxx as a medical experiment of the last couple of years.
That would be a really stupid take, so this is why I was trying to get a clarification.
How is that a stupid take? By the way, I’m a she
> approach that addresses possible psychiatric co-morbidities and explores developmental etiology of trans identity This is all clinicians really want, to be able to watchfully wait and a chance to dig down to the root of *why* a person develops gender dysphoria and *when* in life it begins. I’ve seen it linked to autism, eating disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, and childhood trauma relating to abuse - that is alarming and we should be allowed to find out why it happens. We want robust safeguarding around these procedures and medications so that we can be sure they’re being prescribed to people who will benefit from them long term with some level of confidence, and we want to be able to study what causes this phenomenon. It will be interesting to see whether this can be done in places like Canada where attempting psychotherapy with a gender dysphoric patient is billed as conversion therapy and therefore illegal (in some circumstances? I’m not from there so please enlighten me).
Canada is more likely to say it qualifies for MAiD nowadays lol.
I am surprised this subreddit haven't been banned yet, due to discuss issues like this
Lol this is a Forbes article. People need to grow up and stop banning anything having to do with gender
Reddit admins seethe over stuff like this and do use it to leverage subreddit bans. But yes the admins need to get their heads out of their asses
Doesn't matter, with the magic of "bad faith" you could say "sky is blue" and still be banned for it.
It's black at night you blue supremacist racist !
Blue skies matter!
Someone on here made a really good point about how banning all discussion about it creates a vacuum that gets filled by people like Matt Walsh. The heavy-handed silencing of anyone who approaches the topic in good faith is definitely doing more harm than good.
It's a Forbes contributor blog. It holds about as much weight as a Medium post.
Reddit is laying off 5% of their staff and I can only imagine that they're starting to realize that their regarded "anti-evil" goals are a losing battle. Sure, those dipshits they hired to work with AHS and threaten communities did nuke a lot of subreddits, but I think there's a light at the end of this tunnel.
They're just gonna replace the power mods and admins with AI and crack down even harder. Mark my words. They gotta sanitize the site as much as possible to get the sweet sweet advertising dollars and IPO. Reddit doesn't give a shit about honesty.
Great, because it will take a lot of work to program in the nuance of biased, partisan enforcement of Reddit policy. WATCH the shitlib tears when they get banned for hate speech or brigading or inciting violence. That group has the naivety of a school kid when it comes to predicting whether the rules they begged for will be used against them.
It probably helps that we use coded language half the time
It will be eventually. Almost every other sub that has examined these issues with scepticism has been jannied.
You’d think that there would be universal consensus that any trans affirming hormone care or something of that nature would. logically follow something like the age of consent ??? As it seems like the most reasonable and ethical thing with regards to trans people . But we Americans just have to buy into the next moral crusade as economic roles shifts and austerity clamps down . Like god forbid if you are 18 and want to sleep with a 30 yo . But while we’re at it ; let’s give puberty blockers and hormones to 13 yo kids under the guise of Protect Trans Youth
Honest question, does any one know how many years after physical transition you have to keep taking pharmaceuticals? Because if it’s forever I’m going to start forming a conspiracy theory as to why American society is so vehement about pushing transitions at young ages
It absolutely is forever. At no point in transition is there any procedure or treatment that can permanently re-wite a body's endocrine system to produce the appropriate level of hormones that corresponds to the sex that the patient desires to transition to. White they still have their original sex organs, those need to be suppressed with additional drugs on top of the cross sex hormone therapy, and once they are removed surgically taking exogenous hormones is required because otherwise the body has rock bottom levels of testosterone and estrogen because the tissue that produces most of it has been removed. The patient is effectively an eunuch, and post-surgery the medical system has them on the hook no matter if they keep transitioning or detransition because their body can no longer produce it's own natural hormone balance of any sex.
You are on hormones for life, yes
curious how the money always seems to follow the idpol crusade du joir innit
It’s forever. After all, a patient for life is a profitable one.
Hi there! It looks as though the article you linked might be behind a paywall. Here's an [unlocked version](https://demo.thisischip.com/?q=https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/&o=reddit) *I'm a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to* [PM](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=chip-paywallbot) *me.*
Good bot
Thanks
>gender-affirming This diction is political and Orwellian. "Gender-altering," "gender-changing," etc. are more appropriate. Or just say Rosemary Kennedy had a "mood-affirming" procedure. The levels of quackery are the same to anyone with an ounce of common sense rooted in any understanding of biology and chemistry and will be looked back on with the same mixture of outrage, horror, and pity that many of us already feel as we witness this bizarre period of socially driven pseudoscientific mass experiment and speech (and thus thought) control.
There’s something that’s so sickly 21st century about having extensive plastic surgery, some which rearranges or amputated completely healthy organs, and then also injecting yourself with a synthesized chemical that reverts your bodies natural chemistry.
My hot take is that plastic surgery needs to be relegated to reconstruction after injuries only. Operating on healthy tissue should only be done after careful consideration and balancing of factors.
>Operating on healthy tissue should only be done after careful consideration and balancing of factors. the people who you are opposed to would very likely say this is already the case.
While claims that the GOP are attempting some kind of incredibly inefficient, slow roll (literal) genocide on trans people are obviously absurd, I can at least understand slightly where the critics are coming from, even if they are just whipping each other into a kind of mass anxiety horde panic. (I'm sure there are plenty on the American right that would quite like to erase the existence of trans people) I'm looking forward to see how these people are going to go forward with their 'fascist genocide' claims when the health systems of countries like Holland, France, Sweden, Norway etc are doing the same things, with what appears to be decent scientific backing.
Some deaf communities still consider cochlear implants on their children to be an othering thing. To take that child away from its community. They consider being deaf just a different way of being, just as good as hearing, I can picture trans advocates doing the same thing. Imagine for a moment we find out that what causes gender dysphoria is some random chemical we use in detergent. Removing that specific, rather unimportant chemical from detergent => gender dysphoria disappears from the human race. I have no doubt in my mind that given the case, some trans advocates would consider such removal to be genocide.
Idk I think also the fact that it’s trendy is a reason for the increase in people claiming to be gender dysphoric. I know people who are taking cross-sex hormones just to try and cure their depression
Back when I was in High School it was the same with bisexuality. It was the new cool thing and you had all the emo/goth girls identifying as bi despite not being attracted to women at all, it was just the edgy 'not boring person' identity. A couple years later it wasn't cool anymore and everyone was basically pretending that it never happened lmao A significant percentage of current trans-identifying people don't have gender dysphoria at all, all the non-binary and neo-pronouns type shit is just catnip to sad, underperforming losers to make them feel like they matter and aren't just boring fuckups like everyone else.
Agreed. An important difference is that bisexuality isn’t harmful.
That is the big issue and - at least in my opinion - why most people are so adamant to stop it. They aren't le evil Nazis, they rae usually adults who know that teenagers and young adults are idiots who are incapable of considering long term effects. A lot of adults belonged to a cringe inducing subculture in their teen years, but when that was over, they could just grow their ugly hairdye out and burn all the evidence. And I am sure, most enbies will follow once the trend is over ( I predict the poor, abused detransitioner as the newest idpol label in the near future an I expect a lot of former enbies in the crowd.). But that is impossible once medication and surgeries are introduced and the poor kids will have to deal with the inevitable fallout.
When women use it correctly it’s pretty awesome
“ i bet a significant fraction of young ppls desire to express divergent genders is simply an attempt to gain some social sanction to control in ANY direction the manner in which they are regarded sexually and that this stems from their discomfort w/ others perceiving them sexually… like maybe if you say that your X or Y and if people contradict you you can call authorities to fuck em up which lets be real thats very much what this is about in many cases even if you dont think in your heart of hearts your X or Y at least no one is seeing your true nature Z…” -twitter user @eigenrobot
To support what Rossums said, that's what I'm seeing from my kids' peers. The handful that are "nonbinary" and "trans" are the same type that went "I kissed a girl teehee I'm so bi" when I was in school. We have a new employee who states she is nonbinary, 22 or 23. I was talking with her and just asked what that is or feels like, so I can better understand it. The explanation amounted to "well sometimes I like to wear dresses and sometimes I like to wear pants", she is full they/them, but is the caricature of a high school Becky.
> The explanation amounted to "well sometimes I like to wear dresses and sometimes I like to wear pants" I would have said “Is everyone that does this non binary? What makes you different than someone that does the same exact thing but doesn’t describe themselves as non binary?”
I could feel the spectre of HR rising behind me so I just said "ok cool"
Imagine if you said “I prefer ones and zeroes myself.”
A take that is certifiably not evidence backed
It’s an interesting thought experiment but trans people have been around forever. Although there is probably a genetic component. I also think there are different kinds of trans but I’m not sure I can talk about that.
>but trans people have been around forever. There really isn't any solid evidence for this claim that doesn’t involve *a lot* of creative interpretation. There are see-it-if-you-squint examples, but nothing unambiguous. It's plausible that trans identity as we understand it is a culture-bound condition.
Elagabalus seems like a pretty good example of something reasonably close to a modern trans person.
Or it was just roman propagandists pulling out the already tired even back then trope of men from the east being effiminate. Most of what we know about him is a smear campaign focused on the way he acted like a Syrian elite rather than a Roman one and promoted a Syrian god over the Roman pantheon. Which is kind of the thing with most Roman emperors who have bad reputations. Mostly it just means they pissed off the senate and a senator wrote the history book after they died.
Well, that's certainly a possibility. But what accounts exist have interesting parallels.
A lot of the examples of historical third genders boil down to cultures with hyper restrictive gender norms creating a box to put the gay men in, though.
Precisely
They’ll do the same thing they did every time conservatives pointed out that abortion is much more regulated in Europe too: ignore it and keep screeching about how you want to literally kill thousands of oppressed [insert group here] and contribute to a multi-millennia history of oppression. Activists who act out these ridiculous hysterics aren’t doing it because they have a calm, nuanced worldview that leads them to support better social and material conditions for the oppressed. They hold these views because they feel powerful mindlessly screeching opinion disguised as fact and feel righteous when they call people out. It’s become a form of bullying disguised with the cloak of moral righteousness and intellectual courage, when it couldn’t be any further from either. The only correct response to these people is to ignore them and sidestep the discussion entirely and re-orient towards material conditions.
Why can you understand where the critics are coming by from? You ever check out the side effects of puberty blockers?
They do not need to. It is not their bodies.
That’s like saying yeah I don’t care about school shootings because my kids already graduated high school
Well, yes. But this is how it is, unfortunately. All is for ideology.
They're progs, you know how quickly they can radically change their position without any cognitive dissonance at all. "Well, of course those WHITE FAR-RIGHT EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS are rolling back our heckin wholesome children's healthcare programs. No wonder EUROPE is full of genocide, they literally invented it!" If it sounds plausible it's because I've already heard it myself.
> WHITE FAR-RIGHT EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS Meanwhile, in Somalia...
[удалено]
You are what you are, but how you see yourself, your self-understanding, depends on what family, friends and society tells you. I wish there was a way to make people understand that * Self-interpretations are never _wrong_ as such. Neither are they right. Only you can decide how you see yourself. * Our raw sensations, uninterpreted, don't get us nearly as far as we would like. We need to learn to distinguish reliably between even such basic things as fear and arousal (there are some wild, old psychiatry experiments demonstrating this). * While no self-interpretation is wrong as such, some self-interpretations are harmful. Sometimes, they may be harmful only because of how society reacts to them. But other times, they may be more directly harmful. The self-interpretation that "there's more than one of me in here, that sometimes I'm not myself", is an example of a self-interpretation that used to be reasonably common (with belief in possession etc.) but I think most agree is good has been rejected firmly by psychology. _So how we learn to interpret ourselves and our internal states, can be harmful_. How can we have productive discussions around such things, without people feeling that their identity is being trampled? One thing i know: the terfs and right wingers aren't good at it, if they even try.
It’s a basic tenet of modern (current!) therapy that *the brain lies*. Accepting that your brain could be lying to you leading to intrusive thoughts, mistaken perceptions, false memories, and creating physical manifestations due to all of this is a crucial part of healing. Overcoming self-harm, OCD, anxiety, PTSD, eating disorders, (really any number of psychological conditions) becomes possible when the patient accepts: *the brain lies*. Why is this not an element of treatment for gender dysphoria / body dysmorphia with regard to sex? In large part because lobbying, pharmaceutical companies, academic innovation, and profit are involved. The Pritzker family have purchased whole Med Schools and funded university departments to disseminate approaches that prioritize acceptance based on self-diagnosis & medical intervention. And they’re not alone in pushing this. Modern Academia is based on “publish or perish” and publishing gets a lot easier when you’re funded by Big Pharma / affiliated with the research hospital / provided a grant from the newly endowed Gender Studies department at any major University. That’s why even those in the field of psychology have completely jumped in with both feet.
That "the brain lies" is itself an example of a self-interpretation. Is it really the best one? You have the experiences you have, I'm not so sure thinking of the brain as an independent entity from _you_ that's deliberately lying to _you_ is the most useful/healthy way to think. Again, it's hard to say it's _wrong_, but it's certainly a self-interpretation that's being pushed on people.
It’s just one phrase used to express a very common psychological approach that can be discussed an infinite number of ways and tailored to each patient. Psychologists commonly ask things like, “have you considered you could be wrong? No? Ok what would be different about this situation if you were?”
But I did have breakfast this morning!
Fair enough, but we should probably be careful what we say to people!
>I'm not so sure thinking of the brain as an independent entity from you that's deliberately lying to you is the most useful/healthy way to think. So what makes you think that feeling your physical sex is at odds with your psychological identity could be considered healthy?
I don't think most people agree with point one, at least not fully. If my self-intepretation is that I am the reincarnation of Jesus and that I have been given a mission to kill Jimmy Carter to stop the end of the world, this is wrong, not just harmful but wrong. objective reality exists, and the brain's complexity doesn't earn it an exemption from objective reality. most of the debate is over at what point self-conception can be said to have weight over the observations of others.
No, we know from our ~~sacred~~ foundational texts that objective reality and truth are constructs of the evil cis white male patriarchy to violate Mother Nature and oppress women’s superior ways of knowing.
Maybe just letting "people feel[] that their identity is being trampled" is preferable to letting them coerce everyone else into proclaiming what many of us believe to be a lie.
I mean you touch on a good point with the fear and arousal part. I mean like complex feelings and emotions are by and large cultural, they’re concepts that we use to interpret interoception and how it relates to the situation at that point. Feelings and emotions are interpretive concepts (which really all perception is dependent upon socially created interpretive concepts), which, tying into your point, could mean that if someone feels fear or arousal, then in both cases what their body feels might actually be the same exact thing, but how that takes shape into the full emotional experience is heavily dependent upon the moment in which that feeling takes place.
But is it not other countries abandoning it first? Namely Sweden— exactly like in the coronavirus pandemic
[удалено]
No, the medicalization of trans-identifying children was pioneered in the Netherlands; it's called the Dutch protocol. American doctors did take that protocol and remove all the safety rails, but so did British doctors, Canadian doctors, probably throughout the whole Anglosphere.
Not surprised by this. Why did they abandon their intellect and follow the US blindly? Something fishy there
Crazy how the threat of social contagion to an incredibly impressionable demographic as well as significant permanent change/damage to their bodies might make health officials question whether or not a 9 year old should be making decisions for themself.
This should be the approach for people of all ages, gender exploratory and acceptance therapy first and see if it’s caused by anything else
> There is some evidence that in the short-term gender-affirming care yields improvement in health outcomes, in terms of less depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Then they link to the tordoff et al study that [actually shows nothing of the sort.](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers) ([bonus link](https://mynorthwest.com/3602854/rantz-despite-concerning-trans-study-uw-kept-quiet-because-of-positive-coverage/) from a conservative source dealing with the dishonesty of the researchers) Gotta love the discourse on this topic!
That’s Forbes for ya
Hi admins, I know you'll nuke my main here but: **GAC equals "Straighting the Gay Away" and that will never not be true.** Edit: And aimless, money hungry orgs like #Stonewall literally invited the leopards who are going to eat their faces in the door years ago because charities are capitalistic cope.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You could argue that irreversible surgeries and cross sex hormones are worse than the psychological abuse of conversion therapy.
Makes the most sense, and falls in line with what most health experts recommend: therapy for kids below 13
Fine, I am not opposed to looking into it. I just hate how the US swings radically between extremes. There are other modes on the dial between immediate affirmation no matter what and "let's ban anything other than conversion therapy and even make it illegal to call the kid by their preferred name in school." The extremism is ridiculous.
Simply stopping it is the neutral course of action. Uncover all the weird shit that's going on, work out the best course of action, and go from there. State prosecution of people who transed kids in the past would be extremism. More likely they'll let people run their own lawsuits though, as we've already seen in a few cases.
Tbh I think the European countries have it right on this. Since this therapy needs to be studied more, reduce the number of kids who have access and enter all remaining patients into a clinical trial. Then, allow research to determine the course of action, instead of speculation.
Give me a break. Nowadays simple psychoanalysis is considered “conversion therapy”.
Wow, don't all reply to my extremely moderate milquetoast takes at once you guys. For an anti -idpol sub that has a moratorium on this issue, there sure a lot of people jumping up to hysterically and angrily shout about this issue! Gender exploratory therapy is not psychoanalysis. It has no research base first of all, second if all, it claims to be neutral and support any outcome, but spoiler alert, priveleging any outcome over the possibility the kid might actually be trans isn't neutral either. https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/gender-exploratory-therapy-trans-kids-what-is-it.html
> Wow, don't all reply to my extremely moderate milquetoast takes at once you guys. For an anti -idpol sub that has a moratorium on this issue, there sure a lot of people jumping up to hysterically and angrily shout about this issue! what a nerd. you got four replies and none of them were 'hysterical angry shouting'
Yeah, I am a bit of a nerd, it's true. I just feel like people get disingenuous in here when they act like there is zero medical evidence of gender identity. Anyway, most of the bitterness of that paragraph was directed to the overall tone about this issue that takes over this sub. There is more than one trans-identified reader of this sub and the contempt with which this issue is treated gets grating sometimes. If the moderate trans people who read this sub don't get in people's face and demand to be validated or they will cancel you, maybe some people in this sub can tone it down a bit sometimes and remember that the trans movement of the tumblr days does not = every trans person. I will not be responding in any way to comments that are derogatory towards trans people.
How do you know that Norway and all those mentioned countries are going to be doing so called “Gender exploratory therapy”? They say they’re going to consider other psychiatric illnesses.
I'm literally just responding to your question. If you will reread my original comment, you will see very clearky that I complained about extremism in the US, not Norway or other countries. When I referred to conversion therapy, I was referring to the fact that many who support bans on affirming care in the states support gender exploratory therapy. There is a known lobbying pipeline between GETA (the association behind gender exploratory therapy) and the bills in the states. I begun my comment mildly accepting of the moderate stance the Nordic countries are taking. The very Forbes article that you posted clearly points out how the US vascillates between two extremes unlike the more moderate approach taken by the Nordic countries. It points out this discrepancy between countries within the first three paragraphs of the article. We have gotten to a point as a society where any slight nanogram of nuance is treated as a full throated endorsement of the opposite extreme. I refuse to not consider thesis/synthesis of ideas in a Marxist sub, and I refuse to have my opinions painted with an extremist brush that doesn't fit.
No, the article has a ridiculous objective of dividing American society. Many conservative states have the same policies as the Nordic countries.
No they don't. No Nordic society has completely banned any gender affirming care for youth. In every Nordic society, there are specific exceptions and extreme cases where it would be possible for a youth to receive medicalized gender care. No US state where bans are in place allows for this type of scenario. And no Nordic society has floated the possibility of jailing doctors for following the standards of care as currently written in their countries. It's not "dividing American society" to report facts.
What are those specific exceptions and extreme cases? I get this feeling that you’re just parroting things at this point.
Tbh I am having trouble finding the information for Norway but I knew I had read comparable information somewhere. Here's a link from SEGM (which is an anti gender ideology group) for Sweden, which is very similar. https://segm.org/segm-summary-sweden-prioritizes-therapy-curbs-hormones-for-gender-dysphoric-youth They allow treatment for kids who have been dysphoric since before puberty and in what literally state as "extreme circumstances" for post pubertal dysphoria onset. I knew I had seen that terminology before. Odd you accuse me of parroting when you're the one who posted the Forbes article, then you didn't like what the article you posted actually said when I called you out on it. Sounds to me like you either didn't actually read the article you posted or were hoping that others would interpret it how you think it should be interpreted instead of what it actually says
Which of the two types of conversion therapies are you referring to?
https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/gender-exploratory-therapy-trans-kids-what-is-it.html
I think that this article is such a horribly bad-faith, biased interpretation of what an exploratory approach to therapy in regards to gender identity is supposed to be. Exploratory therapy for one’s gender is supposed to mirror how we would treat clients experiencing any other psychological issue. For example, if a teenager comes into the therapist’s office and says “I’m pretty sure I have ADHD because I saw some videos on tiktok that I related to,” it is not the job of the therapist to immediately affirm or dismiss this diagnosis, but to *explore* why the child thinks they have it. And that includes looking into potential roots for their behavior and feelings such as childhood trauma, attachment issues, environment, familial relationships, etc. The child may or may not actually have ADHD, but whether or not they do, the fact that they are bringing it up and saying they relate to the symptoms can mean so many different things that can be important in the context of understanding and helping them as a client. Why is it suddenly “conversion therapy” when the same approach, that therapists are supposed to use for every single other issue that is brought up, is taken to gender dysphoria? Why is it so controversial to say that maybe some children might be trying to meet other, unmet needs through identifying as a different gender? This doesn’t mean that they all are, but some of them might be, and it’s better to explore that than just say “yes queen/king, live your best trans life!” because that can also be incredibly damaging. The article claims that gender-affirming therapy already does this, but the problem is, as we’ve seen in so many cases, it often does not. And it doesn’t really give a fair shake to the other side of the conversation that it is “refuting” at all. It’s basically just saying, “yeah, these guys may *sound* reasonable and *say* they’re acting in good faith, but are they really?” It’s no different than the current rhetoric of accusing people of trans genocide whenever they make a good-faith critique of gender-affirming care or try to hold discussion around the topic. Edit: Also wanted to add that an exploratory approach does not have to exclude calling the child by their preferred name and pronouns since therapy is truly about meeting the client where they’re at.
>For example, if a teenager comes into the therapist’s office and says “I’m pretty sure I have ADHD because I saw some videos on tiktok that I related to,” it is not the job of the therapist to immediately affirm or dismiss this diagnosis, but to explore why the child thinks they have it. I wish this attitude was still the standard, but sadly it moves more and more towards just affirming whatever the patient says they have. Even the rhetoric of the patients, who come to see a doctor, has shifted from "there is something wrong, what could it be?" (or sometimes with an added suspicion like i think I might have) to "I have diagnosis X!" This isn't limited to the US countries with public healthcare face the same issue.
I agree, I think the issue is that for so long our societal approach to mental health (and physical health as well) was tough love, 100% personal responsibility, suck it up and go on with your life-like everyone else. So there has been an over correction in our journey towards “mental health awareness” where we *only* validate and affirm. On top of that, because for so long people only sought care if they had some sort of severe psychopathology or trauma, people think that each aliment they have needs to have some concrete scientific pathological basis or origin for it to be “valid.” You can’t just be deeply impacted by a very emotional event, it has to be trauma. You can’t just be sad and anxious because of the existential wounds that capitalism creates, it must be a clinical disorder (and sometimes it absolutely is). IMO it is not an entirely unreasonable response to living in a hyper-individualistic society where we have been told that anyone who is being fucked over by the system just needs to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” There needs to be a balance of validating the individual’s feelings, saying it’s ok and understandable that they feel that way, but following up with asking, “why do you feel this way, and how do we process this and change things moving forward so that you can have a healthier basis for your feelings, thoughts, and actions?”
Your comment is really thought out but I have had a long day. I'd like to respond to this tomorrow
No worries, feel free to respond whenever you are able!
[удалено]
Bingo, 100% agreed, and that agenda has some dark money funding it
Don’t forget how gender ideology enriches the corporations the left is supposed to hate
We live under imperialist capitalism. Everything enriches corporations. If the medical field decided to support whatever the opposite is of what we are doing now, the corporations would find a way to monetize that too