NHS England Prohibits Access to Puberty Blockers at Gender-Identity Clinics, Limits Them to Research Settings

[ADigitalArtist]

So yes you're a woman.

It doesnt really matter to me what you think people who call mutilation, mutilation or what you think about circumcision. Dealing with intersex disorders is not mutilation. Mutilation consists of taking a healthy big or girl and mutilating their bodies based on how they "feel" at an we wouldn't let them sign contracts because they are too young. The way people twist things is what makes me care less about them.

Cool. It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to you, and I'll keep supporting trans and cis kids access to gender affirming care, and speaking out against actual unnecessary surgeries done due to social conformity pressures like circumcision and gonadal 'normalization' surgeries on intersex kids.

Good talk.

 

[icehorse]

Nowhere in it did I see anything dismissing gender-affirming care wholesale. Which part of it do you think stated that gender-affirming care (as opposed to certain procedures) had no evidence for its usage?

To make sure we're on the same page here, earlier I said:

"The Cass report was done by experts, it found NO HIGH QUALITY EVIDENCE that GAC improves mental health outcomes when compared to talk therapy alone."

The report does not dismiss GAC wholesale. But it calls into serious question the drug and surgical aspects of GAC.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You recall from the article that this doctor was in contact with other leading doctors across the world who were all coming to the same conclusion?

So were many of the doctors and medical organizations whose positions don't dismiss gender-affirming care. Should people just take one expert's views as expressed in one article as the final or grand authority on a highly complicated and consequential subject?

So what this article is showing is leading experts from around the world, performing GAC as prescribed by WPATH and finding that it doesn't work.

See above.

This doctor also performed her own meta-studies. I think it's inaccurate to cast her as "an individual expert" as she clearly worked with her peers throughout her long career helping these hundreds of kids.

Then it should be possible to link to peer-reviewed studies, shouldn't it?

Also, see above, again. Many of her peers clearly disagree with her, so where does that leave a reader who is trying to work out which position is more supported by current evidence?

 

[icehorse]

It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to you, and I'll keep supporting trans and cis kids access to gender affirming care

Will you support GAC if it's modified to bans drugs and surgeries for minors?

 

[Ignatius A]

Cool. It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't matter to you, and I'll keep supporting trans and cis kids access to gender affirming care, and speaking out against actual unnecessary surgeries done due to social conformity pressures like circumcision and gonadal 'normalization' surgeries on intersex kids.

Good talk.

So there are more than two genders right? So if I am non binary what does "gender affirming" care look like for me. I want my outside to reflect my inside. What's the first step?

 

[icehorse]

So were many of the doctors and medical organizations whose positions don't dismiss gender-affirming care. Should people just take one expert's views as expressed in one article as the final or grand authority on a highly complicated and consequential subject?

Circling back to my first post in this thread. Most of those doctors were relying on WPATH.

It is quite common in medicine that rank and file doctors rely on specialists. It makes sense, because the field of medicine is so broad, with so many specializations.

 

[Ignatius A]

Not even close. Any process undertaken and overseen by humans is bound to have flaws, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It has still yielded many immensely useful results.



The content of that article details one person's story and experience. It provides no rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence of larger trends or percentages concerning detransitioning.

Yeah so "rigorous" boghossian was able to get completely bogus papers published. I'm surprised some people know when to go to the bathroom without consulting a urologist.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To make sure we're on the same page here, earlier I said:

"The Cass report was done by experts, it found NO HIGH QUALITY EVIDENCE that GAC improves mental health outcomes when compared to talk therapy alone."

The report does not dismiss GAC wholesale. But it calls into serious question the drug and surgical aspects of GAC.

Yes, and I think that's a crucial distinction, because it is becoming increasingly common in political discourse to talk about "gender-affirming care" as if it only consisted of the drugs and surgical aspects.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Circling back to my first post in this thread. Most of those doctors were relying on WPATH.

Most? What is the evidence for that assertion? We're talking about medical bodies in multiple different countries, so you would need to show definite evidence that most of those relied on WPATH.

It is quite common in medicine that rank and file doctors rely on specialists. It makes sense, because the field of medicine is so broad, with so many specializations.

Many specialists disagree with the views expressed in that article too, as I think you already know.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yeah so "rigorous" boghossian was able to get completely bogus papers published.

Sure, in one field and about one subject. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed studies have contributed to the development of vaccines, medications, chemical products, inventions in automotive engineering, inventions in computer science, and various other fields and products that make our lives much easier.

I'm surprised some people know when to go to the bathroom without consulting a urologist.

Some people also know to consult a urologist rather than a politician when they have a bladder infection.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So there are more than two genders right? So if I am non binary what does "gender affirming" care look like for me. I want my outside to reflect my inside. What's the first step?

I'll treat this like it were a good faith question even though I know **** well it isn't.

Nonbinary people aren't a monolith. Some have gender dismorphia, some don't. Some just need social changes, some need hormones, some need surgeries.

You should start, as all gender affirming care where hormones and surgeries including for cis people starts, with counseling.

The counseling should be affordable and accessible, so that you can take all the time you need to explore where you're at and your options. So you don't feel rushed by cost or heavily spaced appointments. So you can address other comorbidities if present like depression or anxiety.

If you (and your guardian if applicable) and your doctor determines the cost benefit is in favor of hormones and surgery (as it was for me), you should be able to pursue those options.

 

[icehorse]

Most? What is the evidence for that assertion? We're talking about medical bodies in multiple different countries, so you would need to show definite evidence that most of those relied on WPATH.

In my first post on this thread, I provided a list of medical associations that rely on WPATH. And that list is documented in the link I provided.

Many specialists disagree with the views expressed in that article too, as I think you already know.

You would think that they could point to high quality data then, wouldn't you?

And if they can't, it calls into question how they arrived at their opinions, no?

 

[icehorse]

I'll treat this like it were a good faith question even though I know **** well it isn't.

Nonbinary people aren't a monolith. Some have gender dismorphia, some don't. Some just need social changes, some need hormones, some need surgeries.

You should start, as all gender affirming care where hormones and surgeries including for cis people starts, with counseling.

The counseling should be affordable and accessible, so that you can take all the time you need to explore where you're at and your options. So you don't feel rushed by cost or heavily spaced appointments. So you can address other comorbidities if present like depression or anxiety.

If you (and your guardian if applicable) and your doctor determines the cost benefit is in favor of hormones and surgery (as it was for me), you should be able to pursue those options.

As I said in my first post in this thread, that would all be great, but it's frequently not happening.

- there is often no informed consent
- the process is often rushed
- the medical "team" for a patient is often quite disjointed.

Things would be far less dire if your vision of how it should go was reality

 

[Debater Slayer]

In my first post on this thread, I provided a list of medical associations that rely on WPATH. And that list is documented in the link I provided.

I would ask two questions:

• Whose interpretation of the "reliance" is the list based on? Without knowing the nature and extent of the supposed connection between WPATH and those other organizations, I don't think it's reasonable to form a conclusion that one could then attribute the positions of entire medical organizations to "reliance on WPATH."

• To what degree does the reliance supposedly exist?

Additionally, there are still many medical bodies that don't "rely on" WPATH and still disagree with views like those in the article you linked. What about them? Should a layperson give consideration to their positions or not?

You would think that they could point to high quality data then, wouldn't you?

And if they can't, it calls into question how they arrived at their opinions, no?

As I said earlier, neither of us is qualified to conclude whether they have high-quality evidence, nor whether they can or can't point to it. As things stand, the picture is that there is considerable disagreement among experts.

 

[icehorse]

would ask two questions:

• Whose interpretation of the "reliance" is the list based on? Without knowing the nature and extent of the supposed connection between WPATH and those other organizations, I don't think it's reasonable to form a conclusion that one could then attribute the positions of entire medical organizations to "reliance on WPATH."

• To what degree does the reliance supposedly exist?

Additionally, there are still many medical bodies that don't "rely on" WPATH and still disagree with views like those in the article you linked. What about them? Should a layperson give consideration to their positions or not?

The first link I provided includes links to many files. I think many of your questions would be answered by the document that's focused on how widely other medical organizations having to putting their faith on WPATH.

As I said earlier, neither of us is qualified to conclude whether they have high-quality evidence, nor whether they can or can't point to it. As things stand, the picture is that there is considerable disagreement among experts.

I think we're both capable of broadly understanding research evidence papers.

I think if pro-GAC experts had high quality evidence it would be easy to find. I think the pro-GAC crowd tends to fall back on WPATH.

I have many adversaries on RF when it comes to GAC. I have been asking for months for links to high quality studies that compare the use of GAC drugs and/or surgeries to talk therapy only, and no links have been forthcoming. This is what the Cass report doctors concluded and what Finland and other countries have concluded. There is no strong evidence.

Do you think the NHS is somehow transphobic? I do not. Do you think the Finnish doctor is transphobic? I do not.

I think that pro-GAC "experts" have relied on WPATH, and that appears to have been a monumental mistake.

 

[Ignatius A]

I'll treat this like it were a good faith question even though I know **** well it isn't.

Nonbinary people aren't a monolith. Some have gender dismorphia, some don't. Some just need social changes, some need hormones, some need surgeries.

You should start, as all gender affirming care where hormones and surgeries including for cis people starts, with counseling.

The counseling should be affordable and accessible, so that you can take all the time you need to explore where you're at and your options. So you don't feel rushed by cost or heavily spaced appointments. So you can address other comorbidities if present like depression or anxiety.

If you (and your guardian if applicable) and your doctor determines the cost benefit is in favor of hormones and surgery (as it was for me), you should be able to pursue those options.

You don't think it's a question asked in good faith because you know you're e running on BS.

I am VERY much in favor of helping people who are male or female but feel like another gender get that sorted out. I hope they get the help they need. But to demand that all of society adjust to this dogma is bull****. You either produce sperm or you produce ova. There a very tiny number of people for whom that isnt clear but that's not a new gender and that doesnt mean gender in on a spectrum.

Beyond that when I see how so many people behave when they are "misgendered" it leads to conclude that those people are completely out of the freaking minds and I stop paying attention. We have men playing pretend that they made women and they go bonkers when they are called "he". Sorry but I don't respond well to insanity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hilarious. Let me ask you a question, how many genders are there?

What was hilarious about it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't think it's a question asked in good faith because you know you're e running on BS.

I am VERY much in favor of helping people who are male or female but feel like another gender get that sorted out. I hope they get the help they need. But to demand that all of society adjust to this dogma is bull****. You either produce sperm or you produce ova. There a very tiny number of people for whom that isnt clear but that's not a new gender and that doesnt mean gender in on a spectrum.

Sounds like you need a crash course to clear up your misconceptions.

If there are exceptions to the "rule" then there is no "rule."

Here you go:

By the way, my body doesn't produce ova. I'm a woman.
My grandmother had her uterus removed. Was she still a woman afterward?

Of course gender falls on a spectrum. Look at say, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Then look at Timothy Chalomet. Big difference between those two dudes, but I bet you still consider both of them men, right? And that's without even inspecting their genitals.

Beyond that when I see how so many people behave when they are "misgendered" it leads to conclude that those people are completely out of the freaking minds and I stop paying attention. We have men playing pretend that they made women and they go bonkers when they are called "he". Sorry but I don't respond well to insanity.

When you meet new people, do you inspect their genitals to make sure their gender matches their biology, or do you take their word for it and treat them with respect and dignity and address them as they'd like to be addressed? What's the problem?

You've been sharing the world with transgender people your whole life.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You don't think it's a question asked in good faith because you know you're e running on BS.

I am VERY much in favor of helping people who are male or female but feel like another gender get that sorted out. I hope they get the help they need. But to demand that all of society adjust to this dogma is bull****. You either produce sperm or you produce ova. There a very tiny number of people for whom that isnt clear but that's not a new gender and that doesnt mean gender in on a spectrum.

Beyond that when I see how so many people behave when they are "misgendered" it leads to conclude that those people are completely out of the freaking minds and I stop paying attention. We have men playing pretend that they made women and they go bonkers when they are called "he". Sorry but I don't respond well to insanity.

No, I called it a bad faith question because I knew it wasn't asked out of genuine interest in my answer, a place of curiosity and wanting to learn my perspective, but that you were approaching from a place of judgement and asking to respond.

And you're mad when people don't engage with you because all you'll do is ignore everything but your own very myopic perspective.

Anyway, I'm just going to go ahead and keep advocating for trans people no matter how insane Southern American Christians think it is. Which didn't stop me when they were being all judgy about gay people either.

Bye now.

 

[Ignatius A]

Sounds like you need a crash course to clear up your misconceptions.

If there are exceptions to the "rule" then there is no "rule."

Here you go:

By the way, my body doesn't produce ova. I'm a woman.
My grandmother had her uterus removed. Was she still a woman afterward?

Of course gender falls on a spectrum. Look at say, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Then look at Timothy Chalomet. Big difference between those two dudes, but I bet you still consider both of them men, right? And that's without even inspecting their genitals.

When you meet new people, do you inspect their genitals to make sure their gender matches their biology, or do you take their word for it and treat them with respect and dignity and address them as they'd like to be addressed? What's the problem?

You've been sharing the world with transgender people your whole life.

No a rules is a rule. An exception by definition isn't a rule. It doesnt negate the rule.

Ink me I've shared the world with them. So what? They don't decide biology.