American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Trans activists are also trying to suppress research and medical opinions they don’t like. Read the article I linked to.

of course they do, as the church and right wing try to supress research and medical opinions they dont like as well, I can only hope our medical establishment is robust enough to continue to apply the checks and balances we need in order to come up with the right answers

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

That's really great, and I posted before I fully support a trans persons right and decision to undertake surgery if they and their doctor feel its the right course of action I'd also go so far as to say the government should help foot the bill if not cover it entirely if it indeed improves their health outcomes and lowers the burden on public health.

Classic projection.

Quoting you is projection? You alright? Need to go outside and touch grass?

Man, you go so far as to say a medical procedure should be partially, maybe even fully covered… while living in a country that already covers medical procedures… that’s some strong support for the community. Big statement from you

I think what most people are getting at, which seems entirely controversial, it’s that some procedures Texas is declaring as child abuse are beneficial to children, some aren’t even available to children, and the science itself is evolving, so making something like hormone blockers illegal for children (which again, have other uses beyond this hot button issue) seems about as logical as saying every kid should get gender reassignment surgery at 12. There’s just nothing to support those positions.

So again, pull back off the ledge, it’s going to be alright. I’m sorry you’re not getting sufficiently “flamed” that you need to resort to ranting about extremists and the woke mob, but I promise that you’re only hurting the validity of your own opinion by doing it. The best you can do is take a pause and learn something, but thanks for sharing your opinion with me regardless.

[PeteMoss]

I'm not mad, you're mad!

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Trans activists are also trying to suppress research and medical opinions they don’t like. Read the article I linked to.

The article doesn't mention specific research unless I missed it. Reading a bit more about the characters involved, at least from probably bias sources, it seems that the opinions they are trying to "suppress" are entirely because the research doesn't support their opinions. Namely that detransition due to regret is relatively insignificant at 0.5-2.0% according to current studies.

Their argument is that we can likely see this number increase due to shoddy patient care but really haven't provided much evidence if any. And even then their argument appears to be crappy doctors, not crappy policies.

Care to provide examples of what research is being suppressed?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Man, you go so far as to say a medical procedure should be partially, maybe even fully covered… while living in a country that already covers medical procedures… that’s some strong support for the community. Big statement from you

In USA very little is covered. And in Canada not everything is, or, is partially covered. My Dad had to get surgey to help with some skin issues near his eye. Had to pay out of pocket for it be done with a laser so the scarring wouldn't be as bad.

You're focused so heavily on my motivations it's impossible to even have a discussion on the specifics.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

A persons motivations should always be questioned/brought to light

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

In USA very little is covered. And in Canada not everything is, or, is partially covered. My Dad had to get surgey to help with some skin issues near his eye. Had to pay out of pocket for it be done with a laser so the scarring wouldn't be as bad.

You're focused so heavily on my motivations it's impossible to even have a discussion on the specifics.

So do you think your posts focused on the motivations of others are helping the potential of a proper discussion, or hindering it? Do you want to actually have a conversation? Or do you want to rant about the woke mob? You’re free to decide.

You’re also free to respond to the very next paragraph of my post if you want to chat “specifics.” Doesn’t seem too impossible when it was right there for you to respond to if you wanted and you consciously deleted that part of the post instead.

You can also read this if you want: https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/ho...er-transition/

It covers some of the things you seems confused or concerned about, and provides diverse opinions from professionals so you don’t have to worry about it being to promotional of the leftist agenda or whatever. Worth a read.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

The article doesn't mention specific research unless I missed it. Reading a bit more about the characters involved, at least from probably bias sources, it seems that the opinions they are trying to "suppress" are entirely because the research doesn't support their opinions. Namely that detransition due to regret is relatively insignificant at 0.5-2.0% according to current studies.

Their argument is that we can likely see this number increase due to shoddy patient care but really haven't provided much evidence if any. And even then their argument appears to be crappy doctors, not crappy policies.

Care to provide examples of what research is being suppressed?

The research into adolescent onset gender dysphoria.

Trans activists (and activists of all stripes) rarely have much patience for the nuances and tradeoffs revealed by science. The pressure towards gender affirmation is real. Just because it might be the best choice in 90 per cent of cases doesn’t mean skepticism and caution should be treated with hostility.

Keep in mind that the studies on attitudes towards de-transitioning are mostly based on people who transitioned decades ago, before the recent explosion in the numbers of adolescents reporting dysphoria. Given that it’s increasingly common today to see improbable clusters of five or six adolescents who know one another reporting dysphoria, there’s reason to believe there are sometimes social influences at play. And recognizing that isn’t an attack on transgendered individuals - it’s science.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The research into adolescent onset gender dysphoria.

Trans activists (and activists of all stripes) rarely have much patience for the nuances and tradeoffs revealed by science. The pressure towards gender affirmation is real. Just because it might be the best choice in 90 per cent of cases doesn’t mean skepticism and caution should be treated with hostility.

Keep in mind that the studies on attitudes towards de-transitioning are mostly based on people who transitioned decades ago, before the recent explosion in the numbers of adolescents reporting dysphoria. Given that it’s increasingly common today to see improbable clusters of five or six adolescents who know one another reporting dysphoria, there’s reason to believe there are sometimes social influences at play. And recognizing that isn’t an attack on transgendered individuals - it’s science.

Translation: No OptimalTates, Cliff will not be providing actual examples of the research he claims is being suppressed. But don’t worry, he’ll still double down on his claim.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The research into adolescent onset gender dysphoria.

Absolutely perfect. I was hoping you would say that. There was no research into rapid onset gender dysphoria. At least none that supports it. There was a hypothesis.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-...4/fulltext#%20

Actual research done on it showed no support.

So again, I ask what research is being suppressed. You can't suppress research that was never done.

We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 years seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in rapid onset gender dysphoria were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Oh dear.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The research into adolescent onset gender dysphoria.

Trans activists (and activists of all stripes) rarely have much patience for the nuances and tradeoffs revealed by science. The pressure towards gender affirmation is real. Just because it might be the best choice in 90 per cent of cases doesn’t mean skepticism and caution should be treated with hostility.

Keep in mind that the studies on attitudes towards de-transitioning are mostly based on people who transitioned decades ago, before the recent explosion in the numbers of adolescents reporting dysphoria. Given that it’s increasingly common today to see improbable clusters of five or six adolescents who know one another reporting dysphoria, there’s reason to believe there are sometimes social influences at play. And recognizing that isn’t an attack on transgendered individuals - it’s science.

That’s why we can trust the science and the doctors and medical associations that base their decisions on it to decide the correct course of treatment for children dependent on the diagnosis.

I’m sure you can agree that trans activists attempting to suppress research is bad, but lawmakers relying on religious right wing puritanism making certain scientifically supported treatments illegal and calling for people to report on their fellow citizens or also face criminal punishment is a far more concerning issue with more immediately tangible consequences.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Absolutely perfect. I was hoping you would say that. There was no research into rapid onset gender dysphoria. At least none that supports it. There was a hypothesis.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-...4/fulltext#%20

Actual research done on it showed no support.

So again, I ask what research is being suppressed. You can't suppress research that was never done.

Prepare for Cliff to now disappear into the ether, only to bring these same talking points up in a future discussion regarding trans people.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The research into adolescent onset gender dysphoria.

Trans activists (and activists of all stripes) rarely have much patience for the nuances and tradeoffs revealed by science. The pressure towards gender affirmation is real. Just because it might be the best choice in 90 per cent of cases doesn’t mean skepticism and caution should be treated with hostility.

Keep in mind that the studies on attitudes towards de-transitioning are mostly based on people who transitioned decades ago, before the recent explosion in the numbers of adolescents reporting dysphoria. Given that it’s increasingly common today to see improbable clusters of five or six adolescents who know one another reporting dysphoria, there’s reason to believe there are sometimes social influences at play. And recognizing that isn’t an attack on transgendered individuals - it’s science.

well of course social influence is at play, the first kid comes out, doesnt get beaten into a bloody pulp and 3 or 4 other kids who are all also feeling that they aren't sure who they are gain the confidence to be a bit more open, its the not getting beaten to a bloody pulp part that makes all the difference, and that of course is the social influence at play

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m sure you can agree that trans activists attempting to suppress research is bad, but lawmakers relying on religious right wing puritanism making certain scientifically supported treatments illegal and calling for people to report on their fellow citizens or also face criminal punishment is a far more concerning issue with more immediately tangible consequences.

I agree. But I see one person in this thread who is maybe kinda supporting the latter (if you make some uncharitable assumptions), and a bunch who don’t seem to want to recognize that the former is even a thing (ie Fuzz: only one side is politicizing this). Anyone who thinks trans activism never runs afoul of sober expertise cares more about politics than science.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Prepare for Cliff to now disappear into the ether, only to bring these same talking points up in a future discussion regarding trans people.

Can't be bothered to look it up but he had a take on feminism and trans people that was lifted straight from Jon Ronson's podcast Thing Fell Apart without any of the historical context around it. Outdated information that he had hoped no one would question.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Prepare for Cliff to now disappear into the ether, only to bring these same talking points up in a future discussion regarding trans people.

I did kick off my participation on this subject by posting a detailed and credible article about the issue that we might talk about. What have you contributed besides a sneer?

But maybe you’re right, rube. Maybe it’s better for me to just play the same game as most people in these threads and confine my CP activity to dogpiling on those stupid enough to express unpopular opinions.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Prepare for Cliff to now disappear into the ether, only to bring these same talking points up in a future discussion regarding trans people.

To be fair he can bring up the "research" that asked parents who thought that their children's transgenderedness (that's probably a word) was because of social pressure if they thought their children's transgenderedness was part of social pressure.

Pretty much Sally from Church thought that her non-binary adolescent "caught it" from her LGBT+ friend. Or Frank the AC repairmen believed his son became transgendered because he spent too much time on that internet instead of getting his hands dirty. Then they asked these guys their children's thoughts.

But the problem is they were asking adults about their children's thoughts. Did Frank's now-daughter become transgendered after reading one-too-many Naruto fanfics on the internet, maybe posted one-too-many times to CalgaryPuck, or did she know before that and was able to keep it secret from her disapproving father? It's going to be the latter most of the time.

Which is why actual research, not a targeted questionnaire for those who support the hypothesis, did not support the hypothesis. If anything, it showed the opposite.

[afc wimbledon]

when I was a kid in middle school I made 3 close mates, we were thick as thieves, about 3 years after we started hanging out together we realised we all had single parent mums, in fact we were the only boys in school from broken homes without fathers in our lives (this is the early seventies when it was still a rarity in the UK).

Looking back on it now we found each other because we were the kids that didnt invite other kids home, we were ashamed of not having a dad, and so we natural found it easy to be friends with each other, no one asked any difficult questions like 'what does you dad do?' we all stayed away from the subject, we all hang out outside our homes, never invited each other back.

That's why trans and gay kids are finding each other now, one comes out and the 4 or 5 other kids feeling exactly the same way breathe a huge sigh of relief and come out after.

I have never bought my kid any girls clothes, he first borrowed a bra from one of his girlfriends about a year or so ago, then started borrowing hand me down girls shirts etc, nothing to do with me, he is still to embarresed to shop for girls clothes with me and I am still trying to find a way to let him know I'm fine with it without unduly influencing him either way

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree. But I see one person in this thread who is maybe kinda supporting the latter (if you make some uncharitable assumptions), and a bunch who don’t seem to want to recognize that the former is even a thing (ie Fuzz: only one side is politicizing this). Anyone who thinks trans activism never runs afoul of sober expertise cares more about politics than science.

To be fair, the topic is the latter and based off something that is actually happening. The person “for” it happens to be very loud and hyperbolic, so it’s not like the position isn’t vocally represented. The former was brought up by you as a counterweight to the discussion, and I think people have been pretty fair in addressing it. And “some people don’t want to admit it’s a thing” probably falls into the category of uncharitable assumptions, which I think you feel should be avoided. It’s more likely that people have some worthwhile questions about the one article you presented as evidence and others just aren’t aware.

Really, has anyone said trans activism never “runs afoul of sober expertise”? Certainly not here, it wasn’t even being discussed. It seems like you’re trying to turn the conversation into that, which is fine. Though I would think for anyone who holds liberal values dear, there’s plenty of meat on the bone that kicked this whole thing off to avoid casting it aside in favour of a tangentially related snack, no?