California AB 957 authorizes courts to take transgender kids away from parents.

[Guitar's Cry]

No worries about butting in

Of course I agree, but sadly the whole trans world has become heavily politicized on both the left and the right.

More than we'd like to acknowledge, our healthcare systems are heavily influenced by advocacy groups Your typical family doctor is probably not a specialized endocrinologist, so she relies on the specialists, but the specialists are influenced by for-profit lobbyists and political advocacy groups.

So to hope that families of trans kids are getting unbiased, state of the art healthcare is probably unwise. We should all be aware of how fragile and flawed the system is.

And it does not help when advocates (usually on the left), spout things like "gender affirming drugs are safe and reversible".

I agree that there are trust issues with the medical system. That includes pharmaceutical companies and their relationships with doctors. However, that just cannot change the fact that a doctor (a person trained in medical care) that knows the person as an individual is better equipped to make a medical decision with them than a politician without medical training that doesn't know them and is looking at the issue from a general sense.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Whenever possible, society tends to prefer non-zero-sum solutions. That's a good thing. But sometimes situations are totally or somewhat zero-sum. I believe that many aspects of integrating trans people into society are somewhat or largely zero-sum. It's important to remember that as a society we've had to deal with zero-sum situations before. We come up with solutions, and we largely agree with them. Some examples would be: Very tall or large people have to live in a world not ideally designed for them, to a lessor degree, it's the same for left handed people (of which I am one ), young people have various restrictions placed on them, as do the elderly, and so on.

So the idea that we need to warp all of society to accommodate trans people is dubious at best. So, for example, I'm afraid that trans women should not pursue careers in women's health care.

I don't believe it is zero sum. Especially since treating trans people with respect doesn't cost anyone anything. No loss what so ever for anyone except their bigotry.

I recognize the differences between race and gender and how they are not directly comparable. But you do realize that these are the exact same arguments made by segregationists too? I'm in no way accusing you of racism or any of the sort but do you at least see the similarity between the situations and why I would fine both equally nonsensical?

Do you also feel men should be barred from pursing jobs in women's healthcare? Or do you think they are currently barred? Because they aren't.

I said that that's a different question than the suicide question, you disagreed, I think?

I believe these are high stakes options. As I'll expand on in a minute, using transitioning drugs on kids is NOT safe and NOT reversible and NOT without long term negatives. We also do not have much long term data available. So short term mental health improvements must not be extrapolated to being long term benefits. We must weigh al of that when we consider using these drugs.

So certainly, reducing suicides is the highest stakes of all. But given all the life long downsides of these drugs the claims of "suicide prevention" need to be rock solid, and they're not. And short term mental health improvements ARE a different beast.

If you conflate the transitional drugs with the hormone blockers I can see how you come to that conclusion. But we aren't talking about those. Estrogen and ESPECIALLY testosterone have permanent effects. But not the hormone blockers. You have yet to make the case that hormone blockers are neither safe nor reversible.

We do have long term studies on trans individuals.
Compilation of 51 different studies. (not all are long term but they are of varying lengths. I will let you pick and choose at your leisure)
Edit. (Just wanted to add more specific ones if you didn't want to comb through them because I honestly didn't comb through all of them either and some of them were blocked)
Sweden 5 year Study. Though its about rates for surgeries
An article b/c the study I can't see directly. 78% say their lives are better. The others say its not better but that is because of external factors such as assault.
And this is the big one that I spent forever looking for b/c I remember it. If you read only one read this one.

Zooming out for a minute, I've had this conversation many times in the last few months, and my perspective is never addressed. So I wonder whether you'd be willing to take a whack at steelmanning my position here. You DO NOT have to agree with it, but I'm interested to know if you understand it?

If you would like to more specifically address what you'd like to steelman I can read it.

I think you're conclusions are a bit too black and white. For example, earlier you said:



As I'll show in a minute, that's simply not true. I think it's much closer to the truth that social pressure is acknowledged to be a factor, but we do not yet know the varying degrees to which it is a factor. It seems to me that the effects of social pressure will range from none to extremely high, on a case by case basis.

"Social contagion" as a theory is debunk. I am not saying there is zero percent social interactive impact (though social pressure is likely wrong. I guarantee you there are far more people beating the trans out of trans kids than beating the trans into non-trans kids). By social impact usually what it would be is someone who is dealing with depression or other emotional issues and wondering if gender is part of those issues. Talk therapy would be good for them. As talk therapy should be good for trans kids as well though it doesn't resolve their issues.

I don't know if you know this but anti-depressants are given first. The first drug isn't trans drugs. Those that improve with those alone are not considered for transitioning early. I can't guarantee that this is universal in every case but in general it requires being resistant to standard mental health medication while still presenting specific GD complaints.

So we already do this on a case by case basis. I don't know what else you are asking for other than just barring everyone at the gate no matter how legitimate their issues seem to be. The hoops you mention are already in place. The only difference is that once you get through them you are allowed to transition. Because the health and safety for the children are at the heart of this.

 

[We Never Know]

That would be for experts to address, not either of us. Do you want members of RF deciding your medical status and needs?

Studies show there is a higher percent(58%) of mental disorders in transgenders compared to the general population(13.6%). What we don't know is which causes which. Is being transgender behind the mental problems or are the mental problems behind being transgender.

Here's one study..

Of 10,270 transgender patients identified, 58% (n=5940) had at least one psychiatric diagnosis compared with 13.6% (n=7,311,780) in the control patient population (p<0.0005).
Transgender patients had a statistically significant increase in prevalence for all psychiatric diagnoses queried, with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder being the most common diagnoses (31% and 12%, respectively).

Mental Health Diagnoses Among Transgender Patients in the Clinical Setting: An All-Payer Electronic Health Record Study

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses among transgender patients in clinical care using an all-payer electronic health record database. Of 10,270 transgender patients identified, 58% (n=5940) had at least one ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The summary read: "The California legislature has passed AB 957 and sent it to the Governor. It revises the state's Family Code to authorize courts to remove children from the custody of their parents for failure to affirm the child's "gender identity"." Two straight forward sentences. No characterization nor opinion in either one. Both statements are simple statements of fact. There is no misleading in them whatsoever.

The actual text (from the link) says:

3011.​

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:
(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.


Which clearly makes affirmation of the child's gender identity a factor in determining the best interests of the child. That is different from "authorizing courts to remove children from the custody of their parents for failure to affirm the child's gender identity."

 

[F1fan]

Lmao. My post said nothing about diagnosing or deciding medical anything.

"Do you think any of those transgender kids might suffer from DID(dissociative identity disorder)...." @We Never Know

 

[We Never Know]

"Do you think any of those transgender kids might suffer from DID(dissociative identity disorder)...." @We Never Know

Yep. Its a simple question. Not a diagnoses or saying what treatment they should or shouldn't get.

Do you have a cold or do you need medical professionals to be able to speak about that too?

 

[F1fan]

Studies show there is a higher percent(58%) of mental disorders in transgenders compared to the general population(13.6%). What we don't know is which causes which. Is being transgender behind the mental problems or are the mental problems behind being transgender.

Here's one study..

Of 10,270 transgender patients identified, 58% (n=5940) had at least one psychiatric diagnosis compared with 13.6% (n=7,311,780) in the control patient population (p<0.0005).
Transgender patients had a statistically significant increase in prevalence for all psychiatric diagnoses queried, with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder being the most common diagnoses (31% and 12%, respectively).

Mental Health Diagnoses Among Transgender Patients in the Clinical Setting: An All-Payer Electronic Health Record Study

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses among transgender patients in clinical care using an all-payer electronic health record database. Of 10,270 transgender patients identified, 58% (n=5940) had at least one ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Makes me wonder how much of this is related to conservatives out to deny they exist. Depression and anxiety are the two most common issues.

 

[We Never Know]

Makes me wonder how much of this is related to conservatives out to deny they exist. Depression and anxiety are the two most common issues.

"Makes me wonder how much of this is related to conservatives out to deny they exist."

Are you insinuating that The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is controlled by conservatives?

 

[Shaul]

Nor is allowing parental abuse by the ignorant and disinformed. Children have rights too, and the rights aren’t built on right wing ignorance. Trans children have the right to be who they are, not what a narrow minded society says, or insensitive parents. Look at the suicide rate of trans people being pressured to repress who they are.

The laws already allowed for legitimate prosecution of parents that practiced genuine abuse such as physical and mental abuse. This new change doesn't enhance any legitimate abuse but just criminalizes non-abuse in case of not "affirming gender identity". The suicide rates of trans people are higher for those that have transitioned as youth than putative "repressed" cases.

So let children be abused even if signs of abuse is being witnessed? I guess children have less value to conservatives than their political rhetoric. So much for family values.

Not "affirming gender identity" is not evidence of abuse. That's the point. The parents know their child better than anyone else. They could certainly know better than others if their child's putative expression of "gender identity" is true. Criminally disallowing a child's parents from voicing doubts takes away from that child an immensely valuable resource. Criminalizing that advice from the parents is actually an abuse of the child by taking away a valuable, if not the most valuable, source of advice and guidance from the child. Yes, keeping families together actually is a family value.

Did you see this on FOX or Newsmax?

I don't watch FOX nor Newsmax. Nor have I mentioned them so your question has no basis. I got this story from the official website of the California State Legislature itself.

It is when this advice is given my medical experts who have diagnosed their patients, unlike conservative idealists who want some Stepford Society that doesn’t care what harm it causes.

Doctors are human. Some of them make mistakes. Some of them are even bad people. A sexual transition is a life altering decision. It certainly shouldn't be rushed and certainly shouldn't be allowed to be done by minors. The ones that truly don't care are those that seek to expand these procedures without adequate safeguards for children who are developmentally incapable to fully appreciating the consequences. 'Detransitioner' sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child

 

[fantome profane]

Yep. Its a simple question. Not a diagnoses or saying what treatment they should or shouldn't get.

So you are not making a diagnosis, just asking someone else to.

This is exactly why I find threads like this so dangerous, They invite unqualified people to make medical decisions for people they don’t know anything about.

 

[We Never Know]

So you are not making a diagnosis, just asking someone else to.

This is exactly why I find threads like this so dangerous, They invite unqualified people to make medical decisions for people they don’t know anything about.

When did asking someone what they think become equivalent to asking them to give a diagnoses?

 

[icehorse]

I recognize the differences between race and gender and how they are not directly comparable. But you do realize that these are the exact same arguments made by segregationists too? I'm in no way accusing you of racism or any of the sort but do you at least see the similarity between the situations and why I would fine both equally nonsensical?

Do you also feel men should be barred from pursing jobs in women's healthcare? Or do you think they are currently barred? Because they aren't.

Again, I wonder if you're understanding me?

I believe a person should be able to choose whether their healthcare provider is a male or a female. This is the PATIENT'S RIGHT, not the healthcare provider's right. So if you insist that a trans woman is a woman (which again, is simply not true), then a female patient who does not want a male healthcare worker might get stuck with a trans woman. And if the patient complained, the patient could be found guilty of a hate crime or some such nonsense.

So if a man has a job in women's health care, and the woman requests a female provider, no harm, no foul, she gets a woman.

This is NOT at all like racism. You simply do NOT speak for all women on this point. If a woman wants privacy, who on earth are you to deny her that? You gonna call her a bigot??????

If you conflate the transitional drugs with the hormone blockers I can see how you come to that conclusion. But we aren't talking about those. Estrogen and ESPECIALLY testosterone have permanent effects. But not the hormone blockers. You have yet to make the case that hormone blockers are neither safe nor reversible.

Thank you for providing those links, I'll look at them tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's some fun reading for you

Interim report – Cass Review

cass.independent-review.uk

It would seem that in the best case there is professional disagreement as to the safety of these GD drugs.

Now, is it better to err on the side of caution (i.e. first, do no harm), or to err on the side of using drugs that might be dangerous? In general in medicine, we err on the side of caution.

"Social contagion" as a theory is debunk. I am not saying there is zero percent social interactive impact (though social pressure is likely wrong. I guarantee you there are far more people beating the trans out of trans kids than beating the trans into non-trans kids).

Again, please skim through the Cass report I linked to above. That study disagrees with your conclusion that social pressure is not a factor.

As talk therapy should be good for trans kids as well though it doesn't resolve their issues.

Never? I was under the impression that sometimes it does?? You got links for that?

You have made several very black and white claims. In general that's not how healthcare works, so I think when you make a black and white / 100% type of claim, it's extraordinary, and you ought to have some really, really good evidence

So we already do this on a case by case basis. I don't know what else you are asking for other than just barring everyone at the gate no matter how legitimate their issues seem to be. The hoops you mention are already in place. The only difference is that once you get through them you are allowed to transition. Because the health and safety for the children are at the heart of this.

I would be somewhat less concerned if I felt this was the case. I'm sure that sometimes the quality of care is good. But I think it's often no where near as good as we'd hope. Again, skim through the study.

thanks

 

[icehorse]

If you conflate the transitional drugs with the hormone blockers I can see how you come to that conclusion. But we aren't talking about those. Estrogen and ESPECIALLY testosterone have permanent effects. But not the hormone blockers. You have yet to make the case that hormone blockers are neither safe nor reversible.

Are you talking about puberty blockers here? If so, would you compare and contrast the drugs you're talking about with the drugs used to chemically castrate sex offenders?

 

[Friend of Mara]

Again, I wonder if you're understanding me?

I believe a person should be able to choose whether their healthcare provider is a male or a female. This is the PATIENT'S RIGHT, not the healthcare provider's right. So if you insist that a trans woman is a woman (which again, is simply not true), then a female patient who does not want a male healthcare worker might get stuck with a trans woman. And if the patient complained, the patient could be found guilty of a hate crime or some such nonsense.

So if a man has a job in women's health care, and the woman requests a female provider, no harm, no foul, she gets a woman.

This is NOT at all like racism. You simply do NOT speak for all women on this point. If a woman wants privacy, who on earth are you to deny her that? You gonna call her a bigot??????

They still haven't had the choice of choosing their doctor taken away from them though? Is the point I'm talking about. And the bigot response was specific to "trans women not going into women's healthcare" comment not to women choosing their healthcare providers.

Thank you for providing those links, I'll look at them tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's some fun reading for you

Interim report – Cass Review

cass.independent-review.uk

It would seem that in the best case there is professional disagreement as to the safety of these GD drugs.

Now, is it better to err on the side of caution (i.e. first, do no harm), or to err on the side of using drugs that might be dangerous? In general in medicine, we err on the side of caution.

I will read this in more detail since I have it pinned but just a quick read through doesn't seem to suggest we stop our current processes. If your sources still trust the current process as safe enough to not ask for it to be discontinued then why do you?

Again, please skim through the Cass report I linked to above. That study disagrees with your conclusion that social pressure is not a factor.

I did not say they were not a factor. I would rather you not misquote me.

Never? I was under the impression that sometimes it does?? You got links for that?

You have made several very black and white claims. In general that's not how healthcare works, so I think when you make a black and white / 100% type of claim, it's extraordinary, and you ought to have some really, really good evidence

If a child is trans no amount of talking makes them not trans. It may sound black and white but no amount of talking will stop a child from being gay. I don't feel the need to muddle the words in this case. Can therapy help mental health? Of course. Does it "solve" the issue of GD? If the GD comes from an intrinsic gender different than one's sex then no. Painkillers doesn't stop a bone from being broken even if it hurts less.

I would be somewhat less concerned if I felt this was the case. I'm sure that sometimes the quality of care is good. But I think it's often no where near as good as we'd hope. Again, skim through the study.

thanks

I have a feeling the quality isn't the issue. I shall read it but seeing as it is over 100 pages it will take a while.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Are you talking about puberty blockers here? If so, would you compare and contrast the drugs you're talking about with the drugs used to chemically castrate sex offenders?

I won't because that isn't permanent either. In fact its often used in cancer treatment.

 

[PureX]

The summary read: "The California legislature has passed AB 957 and sent it to the Governor. It revises the state's Family Code to authorize courts to remove children from the custody of their parents for failure to affirm the child's "gender identity"." Two straight forward sentences. No characterization nor opinion in either one. Both statements are simple statements of fact. There is no misleading in them whatsoever.

Both completely ignoring, and intended to hide the fact that there are many extenuating conditions applied to this 'authority'.

 

[icehorse]

Makes me wonder how much of this is related to conservatives out to deny they exist. Depression and anxiety are the two most common issues.

If I had a nickel for every time this illogical argument was made..

 

[icehorse]

You have yet to make the case that hormone blockers are neither safe nor reversible.

I disagree. Here is yet another paper:

https://media.spinster.xyz/c4bf3420f2f7f427293e410453d266624b47b5d5b2490bd9d24c7a2f0837e697.pdf

This paper documents an analysis of over 300 other papers focused on whether puberty blockers are safe. Here's the summary finding:

 

[metis]

I disagree. Here is yet another paper:

https://media.spinster.xyz/c4bf3420f2f7f427293e410453d266624b47b5d5b2490bd9d24c7a2f0837e697.pdf

This paper documents an analysis of over 300 other papers focused on whether puberty blockers are safe. Here's the summary finding:

View attachment 82196

The above is not from a medical source

I disagree. Here is yet another paper:

https://media.spinster.xyz/c4bf3420f2f7f427293e410453d266624b47b5d5b2490bd9d24c7a2f0837e697.pdf

This paper documents an analysis of over 300 other papers focused on whether puberty blockers are safe. Here's the summary finding:

View attachment 82196

I'm on Methotrexate, which has a lot of side effects but is important to me because of my fight with nasty bouts with psoriasis, and that and cortisone are the only items that seeming work with me. IOW, all meds have side effects, therefore all doctors need to take that into consideration and I'm confident most do.

BTW, I've noticed in some of your other posts that right-wing politics seems to be quite important to you, so I do tend to think that's likely your main real driving force on this.

 

[icehorse]

We do have long term studies on trans individuals.

It seems you're conflating safety with efficacy? Maybe I've got that wrong?

In any case, we cannot extrapolate long term efficacy from short term efficacy.