American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

OptimalTates cited experts rejecting one of the concerns about gender affirmation - rapid onset gender dysphoria. So let’s give him that - strike Littman’s research from the debate.

That doesn’t negate the core concern I’m citing - that there is pressure on people doing assessments to validate gender affirmations without due diligence, and that this can cause harm. The people making that assertion seem to be credible experts in their field (and, it bears repeating, are transgendered themselves). They say many colleagues share their concerns, but are afraid to speak out due to the political climate.

Is your position that this is not happening?

And just to make sure I’m not wasting my time here, have you read the first article I linked to?

I’ve read both articles. I recognise that these are legitimate concerns, but where we differ and what I’m asking you to recognise or at least provide some evidence of, is the seriousness of this problem. The reason I’m asking is that what we’re talking about is a state (Texas) making tangible moves towards deeming all treatment for gender dysphoria for those under 18 as “child abuse” and you felt it necessary to bring up trans activists suppressing research (which there doesn’t seem to be evidence of), and then now you’re suggesting that some doctors are rushing to treatment to conform to societal pressure? Again, it would be nice to have some actual evidence of this beyond the anecdotal, but I am also genuinely curious what point are you trying to make in relation to the topic? That there may be some justification for laws that restrict the decisions of all trained medical professionals because of this seemingly overwhelming and powerful social influence causing some of these professionals to carry out careless treatment? Or what?

Can you explain why you are frequently citing their identity as a means to validate their opinions which are medical and treatment based in nature?

And, again, can you explain what you thought was compellingly scientific about Susan Bradley citing a transphobic Catholic blogger? I genuinely would like an answer to this, because I don’t want to make any judgements about why you thought that article should be held up as important and scientific and gave no criticism of it while dismissing OT for providing an actual study. I know you only selectively reply to things but it would be nice to hear your explanation of this.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And just to make sure I’m not wasting my time here, have you read the first article I linked to?

I've reread it and now knowing what I know, it's actually terrible. Like getting basic facts wrong.

The latest skirmish was set off by comments made by Marci Bowers, MD, president-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Erica Anderson, PhD, president of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health.

The comments have drawn controversy because of their claim that some adolescents are experiencing what has been dubbed "rapid-onset" gender dysphoria.

Dr. Marci Bowers never claims that. From her website:

https://marcibowers.com/transfem/resources/faq/

What is ROGD?

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others.

https://marcibowers.com/transfem/dea...s-and-friends/

Regarding the 10/4/21 article by Abigail Shrier, I remain disappointed by the tone and intent of the article.

So it's a bad retelling of an article already taken out of context to try and shoehorn in a discredited concept (or at least the only actual research not supporting it). If PepsiFree has not read it, I would suggest he does not.

Instead I would recommend this interview: https://quillette.com/2022/01/06/a-t...ath-and-wpath/

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is your position that this is not happening?

And just to make sure I’m not wasting my time here, have you read the first article I linked to?

Honest question here, Cliff - are Pepsi and Optimal wasting their time? Presented with overwhelmingly convincing evidence that your initial article and position were unsupported and outdated, are you reevaluating your position at all?

I thought your article was interesting - I definitely don't want social pressure applied to the science behind treating young trans people. But it seems that issue doesn't exist, or does to such a small degree that it's an irrelevant consideration. That has been well proven here.

So your conclusion/concern has been discredited. Are you so dogmatic that acknowledging that is impossible for you? If so, it's not you wasting time, it's the people engaging with you. And it would suggest that you do not enter these discussions in good faith, but rather with a heavy ideological agenda. Frustratingly, an unacknowledged agenda demonstrating lack of self-awareness.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Honest question here, Cliff - are Pepsi and Optimal wasting their time? Presented with overwhelmingly convincing evidence that your initial article and position were unsupported and outdated, are you reevaluating your position at all?

I thought your article was interesting - I definitely don't want social pressure applied to the science behind treating young trans people. But it seems that issue doesn't exist, or does to such a small degree that it's an irrelevant consideration. That has been well proven here.

So your conclusion/concern has been discredited. Are you so dogmatic that acknowledging that is impossible for you? If so, it's not you wasting time, it's the people engaging with you. And it would suggest that you do not enter these discussions in good faith, but rather with a heavy ideological agenda. Frustratingly, an unacknowledged agenda demonstrating lack of self-awareness.

I don’t think it has been discredited. I stepped into this conversation to counter an assertion that only one side is politicizing the issue. That isn’t true. Even one of the experts in the first article who criticized the comments by Bowers and Anderson admitted that their concerns are legitimate, it was the platform they expressed them on that he disagreed with.

And I admit I’m wrong more than a lot of regular posters here. There are people with hundreds of contentious posts under their names here who have never once conceded that they’re wrong. You don’t have to scroll far up in this thread to see some of them. There are people who post almost nothing but sneers and ad hominems, dozens of times a week. And I don’t see anyone accusing them of participating in bad faith.

[afc wimbledon]

Trump's fundraising is cranking up to higher levels, not even 4pm and I have already got 8 begging emails, could be he is losing his Russian money

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I tend to just avoid all political discussions about transgender issues entirely because holy #### is it ever not worth the headache, but this seems like a lot of back and forth to resolve the statement "only one side is politicizing this issue", which seems to me to be categorically wrong pretty much no matter what issue that statement could be said about.

[bob-loblaw]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1501268087487741957

This can't be a good sign for other seditionists.

[MRCboicgy]

Back on the states going after trans folks - Idaho wants to make it life in prison for providing even hormones to trans teens. And get this, if you move out of state to do so, they still want to come after you.



https://lawandcrime.com/lgbt/idaho-l...e-house-floor/


Will this get fully passed as-is? It's Idaho, so there's definitely a chance. Either way, the fact this passed the House in any state in 2022 scary.

[photon]

Florida students protest the Don't Say Gay bill there too: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...258919318.html

[driveway]

There can definitely be problems with providing medical interventions to young people expressing a desire to transition, but laws which are designed to 'protect' these young people from making 'bad decisions' will almost certainly have the opposite effect.

Are there people today who regret transitioning? Certainly. Will there likely be more in the future? Definitely. Is there a higher risk of someone who tranistions young coming to regret the choice? I'm not sure, but it stands to reason. Should we then make it more difficult for young people to transition? Absolutely not, in fact we should do the opposite.

Laws which put any barriers in the way of people freely expressing their gender identity, such as the "Don't Say Gay" law in Florida, create stigma and prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community, support heteronormative behaviors and reinforce the cultural prejudice that being anything other than Cis is wrong. This increases the likelihood that young people will take medical steps to transition.

How?

Diagnosed medical conditions such as Gender Dysphoria are respected, culturally and legally, in a way that self-identification is simply not. This creates a pathway for young people who are experiencing some kind of identity dysphoria to pursue what looks like an acceptable avenue when other expressions of gender or sexual identity are dismissed or suppressed. What this does is it forces the choice of medical intervention onto people who otherwise might be satisfied with some other kind of non-conforming gender identity. A person who would ultimately find comfort and a sense of self by dressing or presenting in an androgynous or transgendered fashion is told that the only way this is acceptible is if they 'suffer' from the diagnosible condition of gender dysphoria. As suffering from identity issues (crushingly hard at any age) is particularly difficult for adolescents, they can easily end up being pushed towards medical options as anything feels better than what they are currently experiencing, even if it ultimately isn't what's right for them.

Unfortunately, medical options have long-lasting consequences in the way that other non-conforming gender expressions don't. Not to mention the cudgel anti-LGBTQ+ people will create out of a few examples of people regretting their choice to transition at a young age.

So what to do? Push for the acceptance of all forms of gender expression at any age. If young people feel the ability to experiment and try things they will, they absolutely will go through 'phases' where they find a degree of comfort in non-conforming expressions which change and even fully revert over time. If this individual experimentation and expression is not only allowed, but actively encouraged, what you end up with is adolescents trying things and then making decisions about what is actually right for them in the long term without being required to make medical choices.

These laws, such as the one MRCboicgy (wow, I just fully read your username for the first time, I always saw it as MRCbiology before) posted above from Idaho, while they purport to 'protect' the youth will have exactly the opposite effect by continuing the privileging of heteronormative and cisgendered people in society.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Back on the states going after trans folks - Idaho wants to make it life in prison for providing even hormones to trans teens. And get this, if you move out of state to do so, they still want to come after you.

https://lawandcrime.com/lgbt/idaho-l...e-house-floor/

Will this get fully passed as-is? It's Idaho, so there's definitely a chance. Either way, the fact this passed the House in any state in 2022 scary.

I was told we shouldn't be concerned about those on the right legislating their morality upon us, and that it's a boogie man, so this can't possibly be happening.

[PepsiFree]

Treating gender dysphoria is child abuse in Texas, life in prison for hormone therapy in Idaho, legally can’t talk about gay people until a certain age in Florida… can we get some stories about trans activists being mean to create some balance here? Glad there are people always ready to bring up how clearly both sides are the problem!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Treating gender dysphoria is child abuse in Texas, life in prison for hormone therapy in Idaho, legally can’t talk about gay people until a certain age in Florida… can we get some stories about trans activists being mean to create some balance here? Glad there are people always ready to bring up how clearly both sides are the problem!

These are just good people fighting for their freedom to discriminate. Real heroes.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Treating gender dysphoria is child abuse in Texas, life in prison for hormone therapy in Idaho, legally can’t talk about gay people until a certain age in Florida… can we get some stories about trans activists being mean to create some balance here? Glad there are people always ready to bring up how clearly both sides are the problem!

Absolutely not. No both sides about this one. It's even a more serious problem then people think. It's really all setting up to go after abortion and reproductive rights without going after abortion.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Treating gender dysphoria is child abuse in Texas, life in prison for hormone therapy in Idaho, legally can’t talk about gay people until a certain age in Florida… can we get some stories about trans activists being mean to create some balance here? Glad there are people always ready to bring up how clearly both sides are the problem!

The point is there are more than two sides. Framing the issue as gender-affirming trans activists vs bigoted Republican lawmakers obscures the reality that most people - including most experts on the subject - are neither. That kind of polarization makes for profitable social media engagement, but poor public dialogue.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The point is there are more than two sides. Framing the issue as gender-affirming trans activists vs bigoted Republican lawmakers obscures the reality that most people - including most experts on the subject - are neither. That kind of polarization makes for profitable social media engagement, but poor public dialogue.

Cool. Thanks. Not sure who was considering those two types of people as “the two sides” in this, but I believe you if you say it’s happening.

Any thoughts on the actual issues being talked about, or?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And I admit I’m wrong more than a lot of regular posters here. There are people with hundreds of contentious posts under their names here who have never once conceded that they’re wrong. You don’t have to scroll far up in this thread to see some of them.

You should call those posters out by name. Hopefully they don’t pick apart the silliness of vaguely trying to imply that because you’ve been admittedly wrong in the past on certain things they by default should have also been wrong about other things. Just cause.

There are people who post almost nothing but sneers and ad hominems, dozens of times a week. And I don’t see anyone accusing them of participating in bad faith.

You should call them out when they do it instead of trying to play the victim and using what others do as an excuse for your own personal actions. Be the change you want to see Cliff

[wittynickname]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1502015734871904264


So Missouri has determined that it's better for the mother to die instead of allowing abortion for even the most stringent of cases. Trying to force an ectopic pregnancy to term will kill women and will save exactly zero fetuses.

Most likely they'll "compromise" on this monstrosity as a way to still pass something that's only slightly less abhorrent and draconian.

[Ozy_Flame]

Man, the descent into right-wing social regressiveness among multiple states in the last couple of weeks is debilitating.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Man, the descent into right-wing social regressiveness among multiple states in the last couple of weeks is debilitating.

yeh but Hillary right!?!