If puberty blockers are truly bad, then we should be looking at allowing HRT to start as soon as puberty begins. Then we would be allowing young people to make choices about their bodies, but surely that's no worse than imposing the alternative choice on them.
If puberty blockers are truly bad, then we should be looking at allowing HRT to start as soon as puberty begins. Then we would be allowing young people to make choices about their bodies, but surely that's no worse than imposing the alternative choice on them.
I think the point is that we don't know the consequences.
The hardship is that you have genuinely Homophobic Transphobic hateful people arguing against them along side, reasonable science based researchers. The later gets lumped in with the former.
Just the same you have people who want them as a cure all that will solve their problems and nothing bad will come of it and that is not a reasonable position.
I know Hormonal interventions are far from new, all the same, using an excess of caution is not a bad thing.
I say, give as many non invasive interventions as possible, therapy, counseling, safe spaces gender affirming behavior until we know for certain that we are not severely damaging peoples bodies before they can consent.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
I say, give as many non invasive interventions as possible, therapy, counseling, safe spaces gender affirming behavior until we know for certain that we are not severely damaging peoples bodies before they can consent.
Here's the thing. Not doing HRT/puberty blockers is as much a permanent, potentially damaging choice as HRT/puberty blockers. Inaction isn't safer than action just because it's passive.
Again, my best friend is a trans woman. I regularly see how the effects of male puberty are still traumatic wounds for her even after HRT and surgery. Having gone through all three she rates male puberty as more traumatic than having an alcoholic, abusive stepdad or living on extreme poverty-level spending.
But I'm the kind of guy who thinks you should be charged with four murders if you don't flip the trolley problem switch, so I do recognize that people have a hard time getting over their "default state" bias.
Interesting talk about the how our immigration system went out of control, dismantling our skilled immigration system, focusing on low skill low wage bodies, etc.
From the how government ignored experts and just went from calling everybody xenophobic and racists to now having to try undo their policies that they entrenched over the decade. Opening Statements to the House of Commons.
The Following User Says Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Here's the thing. Not doing HRT/puberty blockers is as much a permanent, potentially damaging choice as HRT/puberty blockers. Inaction isn't safer than action just because it's passive.
Again, my best friend is a trans woman. I regularly see how the effects of male puberty are still traumatic wounds for her even after HRT and surgery. Having gone through all three she rates male puberty as more traumatic than having an alcoholic, abusive stepdad or living on extreme poverty-level spending.
We cannot lose sight of that of the bolded, you're absolutely right. Often in health care the end goal is minimizing harm. There are rarely perfect solutions. Unfortunately, because middle term and long term wellness outcomes are not known, the effects of puberty blockers, will, and should be scrutinized until there is a greater scientific understanding. This will be an on going debate for 70-80 years when results are proven.*
In the mean time, therapy, counseling, safe spaces and supporting gender affirming behavior needs to be a top priority. That and having zero tolerance for Christo fascist evangelicals.
*I would like to make an extended point on the subject below
Spoiler!
The difficulty is that not all parties can consent.
An historical example of how this can be muddy water is Dr. R.G. Ferguson, and his use of the BCG vaccine on Native children of the Qu'Appelle reserve.
Quote:
Clinical trials have demonstrated conflicting results regarding BCG vaccine's efficacy. Meta-analytic reviews have estimated the vaccine efficacy in preventing any TB disease at approximately 51%. The protective effect of BCG vaccine against disseminated TB in the newborn is estimated to be 78%.
That said, at the time, no one knew this would work, and in effect he administered the Vaccine to children with no informed consent. Despite the fact that he was a forerunner in TB care, and helped saved millions of lives world wide with his research and no doubt the lives of many of those children, he is widely criticized for conducting medical experiments without informed consent. Historian Maureen Lux has pulled no punches in criticizing Dr. R.G. Ferguson and he is increasingly remembered as a harmful actor.
In this instance peoples in the Qu'Appelle reserve and Indigenous peoples across the country were continually asking for help with respect to TB care. No less, they did not provide informed consent to receive a novel treatment, the long term effects of which would not be known for another 40-50 years. Despite Fergusson trying his best, and in desperation trying to save lives has been cast as a villain and has been made an example of. Which in the end in likely correct, because informed consent excessive trials are fundamental to healthcare that reduces harm and promotes well being.
That graph is not accurate and nonsensical. Here's a link to Trevor Tombe's article about the disparity in GDP per capita. You know, from a real economist. Hint: there's been a gap for a very long time.
Oh it absolutely is. Because it's completely illogical. If you want to let adults decide what body they're going to have, you need to keep them from getting their assigned at birth, default body. And that's what puberty blockers do. Puberty blockers are life altering, yeah. But not as life-altering as puberty is. And certainly not as life-altering as going through the puberty you don't want. Hormone replacement therapy and surgery only go far. The best way to deal with undesired traits is to not develop them in the first place.
If you're a random dolt plucked from the street you could be forgiven for not understanding this, but if you're a leader whose job it is to make educated decisions on behalf of the electorate, screwing it up this bad requires either willful malice or willful ignorance.
I'd agree if it wasn't pre teens making these decisions. I'm not super confident in the life experience of a child to make this type of decision.
Would you be comfortable letting 12 year olds marry whoever they wanted if they were convinced it was the right decision for them?
I'd agree if it wasn't pre teens making these decisions. I'm not super confident in the life experience of a child to make this type of decision.
Would you be comfortable letting 12 year olds marry whoever they wanted if they were convinced it was the right decision for them?
No, I wouldn't. But I also kind of think that marriage is kind of stupid and that people shouldn't make promises forever. I actually don't like irreversibility, particularly artificial irreversibility, where a person or institution binds itself from what may be the future best decision.
My point though is that when a child hits puberty, there are three choices. Male puberty, female puberty, or puberty blockers. The flexible choice is puberty blockers. Male and female puberty both have effects that are only partially reversible.
So given that a choice has to be made, who should make it? For those who believe in "my body, my choice", this is decision that should be made by a patient and their doctor. Not the state, not the parents. Would you be comfortable forcing a 12-year old to carry a baby to term?
That graph is not accurate and nonsensical. Here's a link to Trevor Tombe's article about the disparity in GDP per capita. You know, from a real economist. Hint: there's been a gap for a very long time.
No, I wouldn't. But I also kind of think that marriage is kind of stupid and that people shouldn't make promises forever. I actually don't irreversibility, particularly artificial irreversibility, where a person or institution binds itself from what may be the future best decision.
My point though is that when a child hits puberty, there are three choices. Male puberty, female puberty, or puberty blockers. The flexible choice is puberty blockers. Male and female puberty both have effects that are only partially reversible.
So given that a choice has to be made, who should make it? For those who believe in "my body, my choice", this is decision that should be made by a patient and their doctor. Not the state, not the parents. Would you be comfortable forcing a 12-year old to carry a baby to term?
I can see the arguments for banning abortion. I can see the arguments for allowing it. I think both have validity and neither side is wrong or bad humans for having those opinions. Same applies here because there is no perfect solution.
You do realize that if you take the data in Tombe's article and normalize it to 1995, you get the same graph as Elon's post, right?
And you do realize that even with the existing gap between the two countries since the 1970s, it started widening notably in late 2014, mainly due to the oil price crash, A full year before Trudeau took office and well still under the Harper administration?
This decline marked the beginning of a lag in Canada's GDP per capita growth compared to the U.S. and other advanced economies. Although the gap continued to widen under Trudeau’s leadership from 2015 onward, it was largely due to pre-existing economic dependencies and productivity challenges rather than his administration alone. Canada's slower productivity growth, low investment in technology and R&D, and reliance on resource-driven economies are key reasons behind its stagnation in GDP per capita. Rapid population growth has also diluted per capita gains, as productivity struggles to keep pace.
So before we go and praise Elmo's tweets of gas lighting politicians he doesn't like, let's consider nuance before nonsense, shall we?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
I can see the arguments for banning abortion. I can see the arguments for allowing it. I think both have validity and neither side is wrong or bad humans for having those opinions. Same applies here because there is no perfect solution.
Do you think if it was men who got pregnant, and not women, that we'd be having any discussion at all about removing the man's ability to make their own decisions about what happens to their body?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Only a zealot believes there’s no moral complexity around abortion. Most people believe a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection under the law sometime before birth - the question is when. You see this in polling - 8 per cent of Americans believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances, while 19 per cent believe it should be legal in all cases. And yet the debate is couched in those two extremists, unpopular stances.
Even if they took only the opinions of women into account, U.S. states would allow ready and free access to abortions in the first trimester, with abortion restricted only to medical emergency in the third trimester. So pretty much the abortion laws what every country in Western Europe has.
Instead, the ferocious polarization of American political activism makes it difficult for states to craft abortion legislation that accords with the values of most citizens. So they wind up with many U.S. states imposing far tighter restrictions than anywhere in Western Europe, while many others have fewer restrictions than anywhere in Europe.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Only a zealot believes there’s no moral complexity around abortion. Most people believe a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection under the law sometime before birth - the question is when. You see this in polling - 8 per cent of Americans believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances, while 19 per cent believe it should be legal in all cases. And yet the debate is couched in those two extremists, unpopular stances.
Even if they took only the opinions of women into account, U.S. states would allow ready and free access to abortions in the first trimester, with abortion restricted only to medical emergency in the third trimester. So pretty much the abortion laws what every country in Western Europe has.
Instead, the ferocious polarization of American political activism makes it difficult for states to craft abortion legislation that accords with the values of most citizens. So they wind up with many U.S. states imposing far tighter restrictions than anywhere in Western Europe, while many others have fewer restrictions than anywhere in Europe.
Neat, but the discussion is around whether abortion should be allowed at all or not. So it’s 8% that believe it shouldn’t, and the rest that believe it should.
Not much of a debate.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Only a zealot believes there’s no moral complexity around abortion. Most people believe a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection under the law sometime before birth - the question is when. You see this in polling - 8 per cent of Americans believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances, while 19 per cent believe it should be legal in all cases. And yet the debate is couched in those two extremists, unpopular stances.
Even if they took only the opinions of women into account, U.S. states would allow ready and free access to abortions in the first trimester, with abortion restricted only to medical emergency in the third trimester. So pretty much the abortion laws what every country in Western Europe has.
Instead, the ferocious polarization of American political activism makes it difficult for states to craft abortion legislation that accords with the values of most citizens. So they wind up with many U.S. states imposing far tighter restrictions than anywhere in Western Europe, while many others have fewer restrictions than anywhere in Europe.
But having fewer restrictions and allowing non-medically necessary 3rd trimester abortion doesn’t actually change policy. So while people are opposed to them they don’t actually happen in the circumstances people imagine.
So the debate between legal in all circumstances and 22 or 24 week bans doesn’t really exist.
So it really is an overwhelming % of people that are in favour of abortion when practical and not the debate between two extremes you describe.
Do you think if it was men who got pregnant, and not women, that we'd be having any discussion at all about removing the man's ability to make their own decisions about what happens to their body?
I’m going with yes there would still be debate as we still allow circumcision for religious purposes without consent.
