Republican officials from 21 states have accused the medical group of violating state consumer protection laws by supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. More ominously, they’re demanding that the AAP turn over extensive records about how it developed its policy.
That’s the attack, and the care is “puberty blockers and hormone treatment”.
Oh boy, I can tell you’re not here for a good faith argument. Puberty blockers are explicitly TO delay puberty until they can be sure. Nothing wrong with them
Yup, puberty blockers let trans youth prevent the onset of gender characteristics during puberty so that they can make an informed decision on what they want when they are an adult. It’s basically all upsides and, if the youth decides to go ahead with the puberty matching their birth sex it’s trivial to do so… but it keeps that door open so time doesn’t force a decision on them.
So you consider the side effects an acceptable risk?
Doctors that are specialized in that field should know that better than you or me, no?
But I’ll humor you anyway. You know what also has side effects? Going through puberty. And those side effects are permanent. If your puberty changes you in ways that don’t align with your gender identity, those side effects include higher risk of dying by suicide, as one example. So yeah, that seems like a risk that I, with my unqualified opinion, would be willing to take in order to make sure my child and their doctors have enough time to figure out who they are and what they need.
Im so glad you brought up that example because a review of the literature commissioned by the nhs found that the results where of low certainty and had no reduction in mental health gender dysphoria or psychosocial impact.
Im going to assume a review of all the peer reviewed literature should know better than docters with a financial incentive to continue providing said services.
Yeah you didn’t read all that study and you don’t understand what blockers are for. Nobody is saying they are a cure for gender dysmorphia. It’s to prevent further development and facilitate better treatment later on.
What the study is saying is patients still need psychiatric support, not that blockers are useless.
I dont really care what the practising doctors say i care what the published peer reviewed docters say i they say its ineffective at achieving its goals of reduced harm.
At what point in your childhood were you so sure that you were not the gender that matches your biological sex that suicide was not an insignificant consideration due to the lack of support?
Yes, you have already been shown by others why your meta-study, which predates the study the article I linked to discusses, is both faulty and doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.
You should be aware that when new information replaces old information in science, you should defer to the new information. You are doing the opposite.
Yeah, also why can children consent to any medical treatment? Not dying of treatable conditions is altering their body, and that’s literally bad. I’m so smart and compassionate, I’m basically literally a doctor.
They cant their parents can tho. Puberty blockers are not a life saving treatment they are physical only and thus just like plastic surgery shouldnt be given to kids. And no u cant argue they will kill themselves if they dont get treated there is plenty of peer reviewed papers proving that to be false.
People like this are so ridiculous. They really don’t understand the concept of not being comfortable in your own body to the point that you don’t even want to live because your family and society in general disapprove of you being who you really are.
Which is ridiculous because I’m cis and it’s not hard for me at all to understand that being given gender-affirming care would be pretty fucking helpful for kids who feel that way.
Or rather either they don’t understand it or they don’t care because it’s “wrong.”
I’m not arguing with you. Your opinion is just wrong and irrelevant. Not understanding a medical treatment and wanting it banned because it makes you uncomfortable makes you a small minded, bad person. I hope you take the time to either reevaluate your life or go away.
How was this banned for rule 1 and the comment i was replying to not. I called the guy a lier cos he said he didnt want an argumwnt while callibg me a small minded bad person. Can someone please explain how this not unequal application of rules.
No, a bad faith argument would be using one study and a handful of doctors that aren’t specialists in the area that agrees with you versus the hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that specialize in the area that don’t.
As it stands im the only one who has provided any peer reviewed papers to back my point. Said study alsi happens to be a meta review so it reviews all the other papers and assesses them.
That’s the attack, and the care is “puberty blockers and hormone treatment”.
Removed by mod
Oh boy, I can tell you’re not here for a good faith argument. Puberty blockers are explicitly TO delay puberty until they can be sure. Nothing wrong with them
“But why can they consent to-”
Nah ah, already stated the difference
Yup, puberty blockers let trans youth prevent the onset of gender characteristics during puberty so that they can make an informed decision on what they want when they are an adult. It’s basically all upsides and, if the youth decides to go ahead with the puberty matching their birth sex it’s trivial to do so… but it keeps that door open so time doesn’t force a decision on them.
“I dont agree with you your argument must be bad faith” is one hell of a bad faith argument.
So you consider the side effects an acceptable risk?
And you think you know more than the kid’s doctor to predecide for millions of kids in your country?
Doctors that are specialized in that field should know that better than you or me, no?
But I’ll humor you anyway. You know what also has side effects? Going through puberty. And those side effects are permanent. If your puberty changes you in ways that don’t align with your gender identity, those side effects include higher risk of dying by suicide, as one example. So yeah, that seems like a risk that I, with my unqualified opinion, would be willing to take in order to make sure my child and their doctors have enough time to figure out who they are and what they need.
Im so glad you brought up that example because a review of the literature commissioned by the nhs found that the results where of low certainty and had no reduction in mental health gender dysphoria or psychosocial impact.
Im going to assume a review of all the peer reviewed literature should know better than docters with a financial incentive to continue providing said services.
Could you link that review, please?
https://segm.org/sites/default/files/20210323_Evidence%2Breview_GnRH%2Banalogues_For%2Bupload_Final_download.pdf
Yeah you didn’t read all that study and you don’t understand what blockers are for. Nobody is saying they are a cure for gender dysmorphia. It’s to prevent further development and facilitate better treatment later on.
What the study is saying is patients still need psychiatric support, not that blockers are useless.
It’s not our risk to accept. It’s between the person and their doctor.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I dont really care what the practising doctors say i care what the published peer reviewed docters say i they say its ineffective at achieving its goals of reduced harm.
deleted by creator
You think you’re more qualified than a doctor to assess whether a kid is capable of making bodily decisions? You can only speak for yourself.
I can read a peer reviewed journal and fron that provide an informed opinion.
At what point in your childhood were you so sure that you were not the gender that matches your biological sex that suicide was not an insignificant consideration due to the lack of support?
https://www.hcplive.com/view/suicide-risk-reduces-73-transgender-nonbinary-youths-gender-affirming-care
Removed by mod
Yes, you have already been shown by others why your meta-study, which predates the study the article I linked to discusses, is both faulty and doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.
You should be aware that when new information replaces old information in science, you should defer to the new information. You are doing the opposite.
deleted by creator
I dont support that either i find it extraordinarily offensive you are trying to apply a racist steriotype to me.
Say hi to Herzi for me
Yeah, also why can children consent to any medical treatment? Not dying of treatable conditions is altering their body, and that’s literally bad. I’m so smart and compassionate, I’m basically literally a doctor.
They cant their parents can tho. Puberty blockers are not a life saving treatment they are physical only and thus just like plastic surgery shouldnt be given to kids. And no u cant argue they will kill themselves if they dont get treated there is plenty of peer reviewed papers proving that to be false.
deleted by creator
People like this are so ridiculous. They really don’t understand the concept of not being comfortable in your own body to the point that you don’t even want to live because your family and society in general disapprove of you being who you really are.
Which is ridiculous because I’m cis and it’s not hard for me at all to understand that being given gender-affirming care would be pretty fucking helpful for kids who feel that way.
Or rather either they don’t understand it or they don’t care because it’s “wrong.”
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Now thats a bad faith argument. I usually get banned for calling people an idiot or is that only cos my opinions are controversial?
I’m not arguing with you. Your opinion is just wrong and irrelevant. Not understanding a medical treatment and wanting it banned because it makes you uncomfortable makes you a small minded, bad person. I hope you take the time to either reevaluate your life or go away.
Removed by mod
How was this banned for rule 1 and the comment i was replying to not. I called the guy a lier cos he said he didnt want an argumwnt while callibg me a small minded bad person. Can someone please explain how this not unequal application of rules.
No, a bad faith argument would be using one study and a handful of doctors that aren’t specialists in the area that agrees with you versus the hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that specialize in the area that don’t.
His paper doesn’t even say what he wants it to say. It’s a super narrow finding that psychological care is still required along with blockers.
As it stands im the only one who has provided any peer reviewed papers to back my point. Said study alsi happens to be a meta review so it reviews all the other papers and assesses them.
Also, no, it looked at 9 specific studies, not “all” studies. It’s conclusions are basically “We need more studies.”
I looked at your study, but all it showed was that there were no statistically significant side effects for puberty blockers, so what’s the problem?
You think minors are getting top and bottom surgery all the time, don’t you?
deleted by creator