The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 26, 2024 16:12:28 GMT
I would follow doctor's advice on that score. I imagine you shouldn't minimise the issue though. As I said though, I don't think GD and BID are more than superficially similar so I don't think they should be treated the exact same. But I imagine with both there is a wrong way and a right way for parents to behave. nobody listens to the ones who have been through this and then realized it was a mistake and even after de-transitioning, will still never be the people they originally were or were supposed to be. People do listen to detransitioners. But what the people on those videos you posted do is to only listen to the detransitioners when they are a minority within a minority. These procedures carry a risk and shouldn't be taken lightly. There have been bad calls with devastating results. However for every case like that, there are many more cases of people being happy with their transition and cases of people who didn't get to transition at all and live a lifetime of regret. This is the problem with the 'wait and see' approach - denying a trans person surgery or forcing a trans teenager to undergo puberty have their own costs to their happiness - every bit as real as the regret of a detransitioner and more common. It's not a zero harm approach. The lesson to take from the case of detransitioners isn't wholesale bans. It's to engage more with the person to make sure this is really what they want and they accept the consequences. This won't completely get rid of bad calls, but it will at least reduce them without throwing genuine transpeople under the bus.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 26, 2024 16:27:37 GMT
nobody listens to the ones who have been through this and then realized it was a mistake and even after de-transitioning, will still never be the people they originally were or were supposed to be. People do listen to detransitioners. But what the people on those videos you posted do is to only listen to the detransitioners when they are a minority within a minority. These procedures carry a risk and shouldn't be taken lightly. There have been bad calls with devastating results. However for every case like that, there are many more cases of people being happy with their transition and cases of people who didn't get to transition at all and live a lifetime of regret. This is the problem with the 'wait and see' approach - denying a trans person surgery or forcing a trans teenager to undergo puberty have their own costs to their happiness - every bit as real as the regret of a detransitioner and more common. It's not a zero harm approach. The lesson to take from the case of detransitioners isn't wholesale bans. It's to engage more with the person to make sure this is really what they want and they accept the consequences. This won't completely get rid of bad calls, but it will at least reduce them without throwing genuine transpeople under the bus. We hear that MOST trans people are happy with the way they are, but we're not given a timeline on that happiness, we're not given numbers to show 10, 20, 30 years later they still feel that getting surgery was the best thing they ever did, especially since the ones who DID do it 30, 40, 50 years ago went through a very different process than the ones today where it's being pushed in schools like a fashion statement and we're also told if you KEEP the gender you're born with, you're evil, 'white cis men are to blame for all the world's problems, etc'. And we don't get to hear from the ones who killed themselves after getting their 'lifesaving' 'affirming care'. We're basically just told ignore anybody who doesn't fit the narrative that being trans and changing your gender is the key to happiness.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 26, 2024 17:09:25 GMT
]We hear that MOST trans people are happy with the way they are, but we're not given a timeline on that happiness, we're not given numbers to show 10, 20, 30 years later they still feel that getting surgery was the best thing they ever did, especially since the ones who DID do it 30, 40, 50 years ago went through a very different process than the ones today where it's being pushed in schools like a fashion statement [...]And we don't get to hear from the ones who killed themselves after getting their 'lifesaving' 'affirming care'. Or the ones who killed themselves when they didn't get it... But yeah, our data is limited but we can only use the data we have, not the data you assume will turn up to vindicate your position. Maybe it will and then medical advice can change accordingly. But quite possibly it won't and you need to accept that. I don't think there's any serious politician or academic who would say something like that though their views may be oversimplified to such by those trying to demonise them.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 26, 2024 20:36:07 GMT
]We hear that MOST trans people are happy with the way they are, but we're not given a timeline on that happiness, we're not given numbers to show 10, 20, 30 years later they still feel that getting surgery was the best thing they ever did, especially since the ones who DID do it 30, 40, 50 years ago went through a very different process than the ones today where it's being pushed in schools like a fashion statement [...]And we don't get to hear from the ones who killed themselves after getting their 'lifesaving' 'affirming care'. Or the ones who killed themselves when they didn't get it... But yeah, our data is limited but we can only use the data we have, not the data you assume will turn up to vindicate your position. Maybe it will and then medical advice can change accordingly. But quite possibly it won't and you need to accept that. I don't think there's any serious politician or academic who would say something like that though their views may be oversimplified to such by those trying to demonise them.
As long as people make millions of dollars off of drugs and surgeries, and doctors get NOTHING when people are healthy and accept themselves, that's where 'quite possibly it won't'.
The facts argue that children and their families are not given all the data about what this is, what entails, what the consequences are, just like nobody's told puberty blockers can cause brain swelling, vision loss, etc., and most probably don't know the drugs were invented and approved to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis, etc., NOT to stop 10 year olds from developing.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 1, 2024 0:37:17 GMT
I hadn't heard of this case, so looked it up and unsurprisingly it's more complex than just parents not being allowed to have strict Catholic views on gender. It seems the issue was the child had developed a long-term (over 2 years) severe eating disorder and social workers had identified the parents' stance on their gender identity as a major contributing factor as the child was self-isolating without food as a response. So they recommended the child be placed in a gender-affirming household rather than risk the eating disorder getting any worse. So it was basically a desperate move to save a child's life.
Eating disorders are a mental illness, body/gender dysphoria/dysmorphia are also mental illnesses. If the child refused to eat until they could get their leg amputated because their brain is telling them their leg is ruining their life, which is a very real thing but for some reason doctors DON'T just agree to lop off perfectly healthy limbs even if it means the patient is depressed, suicidal, etc., would the court relocate them to a house that allows them to mutilate themselves to be happy?
Truth is that doctors do not chop healthy limbs. Limbs are not the center of gender, though.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 1, 2024 1:04:23 GMT
The man is asking for science references outside of general standards. On one hand, the point in asking this is objectivity. But on the other hand, should science dictate the law ? When science writes down after researches that even outside the cases of malpractice removal of foreskin is risky and without scientific benefits, what’s next ? Is the expression of general will bounded, by what ? In the very recent past, has it been bound by scientific extended research pointing at covid treatment ?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 1, 2024 1:38:50 GMT
The part of that testimony that deals with Jesus is a direct link to that board. Bottom line, I suspected the Op was reffering to smtg dealing with child abuse, outside refusal to medication. I heard that eating disorders in children are matters of child abuse in a family that won’t speak about it, not wanting to listen to the child words of protesting... Hunger strike is the only way the child can protest and ask for justice and understanding. The only way of protecting such a child is to provide the child with a safe place and environnement. There is nothing religious about it. It is social, and maybe prosecutable. There is a huge amount of uncles who should answer for what they did. And maybe the reason why they do not get prosecuted is a political issue. Before prosecution, though, what could be done, I mean factually, not just speeches ?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 6, 2024 15:04:31 GMT
The only response NS6 can apparently give is more dialed-up internet gobbledygook and National Enquirer reportorial level hysterics. Trying to seriously engage with a person whose worldview appears to be derived primarily from jerker garbage such as she posts is a waste of any rational individual's time, though I admit it can have some slight amusement value.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 7, 2024 17:53:37 GMT
Quaeblam, another one !
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 7, 2024 21:29:58 GMT
Gobledygook is all well but the question may be worthy of interest. Should science dictates the law ? When it does, doctors in Europe and some patients say circumcision is cutting healthy tissue without benefit outside hypothetical life after death. If some church were to rule that in order to be saved in the hereafter the legs of à baby born viable must be cut and find some scientists who concurr, how to give voice to other scientists who would see things in a better way ? Who decides ? Scientists are not elected.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 7, 2024 23:33:15 GMT
Gobledygook is all well but the question may be worthy of interest. Should science dictates the law ? When it does, doctors in Europe and some patients say circumcision is cutting healthy tissue without benefit outside hypothetical life after death. If some church were to rule that in order to be saved in the hereafter the legs of à baby born viable must be cut and find some scientists who concurr, how to give voice to other scientists who would see things in a better way ? Who decides ? Scientists are not elected. I think one needs to differentiate between science fact and the opinion of scientists.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 8, 2024 16:00:27 GMT
Gobledygook is all well but the question may be worthy of interest. Should science dictates the law ? When it does, doctors in Europe and some patients say circumcision is cutting healthy tissue without benefit outside hypothetical life after death. If some church were to rule that in order to be saved in the hereafter the legs of à baby born viable must be cut and find some scientists who concurr, how to give voice to other scientists who would see things in a better way ? Who decides ? Scientists are not elected. I think one needs to differentiate between science fact and the opinion of scientists. No lo contendere. But how ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2024 18:18:31 GMT
I think one needs to differentiate between science fact and the opinion of scientists. No lo contendere. But how ? A fact is not a matter of opinion, that's the difference. (Although one recalls the use of "alternative facts" by some Trump supporters a few years back!)(
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 8, 2024 21:11:45 GMT
Some very good points made in this thread. I hope that my original point was not lost, that religious freedom should not be an excuse for child abuse. Definitely. And my point is : child abuse, in real life, prosecution put aside (because it belongs to the abused ) what can be done about it, not speeches or writs.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 8, 2024 21:19:04 GMT
No lo contendere. But how ? A fact is not a matter of opinion, that's the difference. (Although one recalls the use of "alternative facts" by some Trump supporters a few years back!)( You know this, I know it too. But that’s two people on a social média. Outside social media, practically, how does one separate the scientist’s science from the scientist’s opinion ? Einstein wrote different books, but bottom line, the science book was written by the same man than the other book. And he was not right about everything in the other books, according to scientists.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2024 21:28:26 GMT
. Outside social media, practically, how does one separate the scientist’s science from the scientist’s opinion ? Because one would be a fact and the other a view about it. That the distance from Earth to the Sun is 93 million miles is fact. That it is a very long way is an opinion. Science is always updating itself, if that is what you mean. Scientific ideas change over time as our evidence improves. The more experiments we do and the more data we collect, the better our scientific ideas become. What there are are always opinions over theories; scientific theories, such as that for Relativity, differ from scientific facts because facts never change and cannot be disputed. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge and yet are still revised or overthrown when seen to be inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 8, 2024 21:39:12 GMT
. Outside social media, practically, how does one separate the scientist’s science from the scientist’s opinion ? Because one would be a fact and the other a view about it. The distance from Earth to the Sun is 93 million miles is fact. That it is a very long way is an opinion. Science is always updating itself, if that is what you mean. Scientific ideas change over time as our evidence improves. The more experiments we do and the more data we collect, the better our scientific ideas become. What there are are always opinions over theories; Scientific theories, such as that for Relativity, differ from scientific facts because facts never change and cannot be disputed. Well, let’s hope that science is on the go. But, scientists have rights, opinion is one of them. Now, if their beliefs take precedence over their scientific knowlege, and they advocate baby legs must get cut, and it’s heresy to cut baby healthy limbs, what can be do about it when science dictates law?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2024 21:51:40 GMT
But, scientists have rights, opinion is one of them. Now, if their beliefs take precedence over their scientific knowlege, and they advocate baby legs must get cut, and it’s heresy to cut baby healthy limbs, what can be do about it when science dictates law? There is a difference between belief and law, as well. And your example is a little forced.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 8, 2024 23:19:32 GMT
But, scientists have rights, opinion is one of them. Now, if their beliefs take precedence over their scientific knowlege, and they advocate baby legs must get cut, and it’s heresy to cut baby healthy limbs, what can be do about it when science dictates law? There is a difference between belief and law, as well. And your example is a little forced. Hum, question correctly typed should read what can be done about it. My example is extreem. Let’s hope so. Again, when science dictates law and some unhinged church is backed by scientists what can other scientists do about it ? When I recall right Einstein wrote à letter to the potus not to use the atom bomb...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2024 11:23:47 GMT
Again, when science dictates law and some unhinged church is backed by scientists what can other scientists do about it ? You will need to decide here whether the views of that unhinged church are backed by scientific fact or just the opinion of rogue scientists. For instance some Creationist groups claim 'scientific proof' for intelligent design when it is none of the sort, more the opinions of those who wish it to be so. In the case of Creationist 'science' other researchers often debunk it. Einstein's disapproval of the way his discoveries were built on by his successor(s) is shown in a scene in Oppenheimer.
|
|