Pronouns and References

[PointOfViewGun]

Allow me to explain.

How does that relate to different suicide rates for people in different stages of gender transition?

[Dave Strider]

Lol yeah. Happened to my buddy Eric one time.

You're really not subtle with how you telegraph your contempt for trans people, especially with how you used "lol" three times in this message responding to me. Point being that I'm correct and you're not willing to acknowledge it, so you fall back to mocking me, as all rightist trolls are wont to do.

Lol. A variable cannot both prevent an outcome according to your claim, and also not prevent or even worsen it based on actual data. These are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Did I say that transitioning is 100% preventative of suicide? I said that it saves lives. It doesn't make the problem go away, it makes it less severe. No medical process is 100% effective at solving problems, especially when people harass you for having it done.

Transitioning improves the lives of trans people and makes it less likely for them to commit suicide based on their dysphoria. Trans people who have transitioned can and do still commit suicide from being harassed by transphobes who now can visibly see that they have transitioned. These are two statements which factually coexist. Just because you don't care about the community enough to do the 10 minutes of research to learn that doesn't mean the information is false. It just means you're willfully ignorant.

Lol “we need more research until it confirms what my ideology demands.”

"The research is inconclusive, which means we need to enforce my ideology and strip millions of people of their autonomy and right to self-expression and living as they truly are."

You can push back against this if you want, but you're arguing that being trans in and of itself is dangerous. Your arguments are showing that you want trans people to go back in the closet and suffer for your peace of mind.

Even if that were the case, the above is a concession that your premise asserting the necessity of drugs/hormones/surgery to prevent those outcomes isn’t true.

Again, my premise was never that transitioning solved 100% of trans people's problems. My premise was that it makes life easier for them, less painful, allows them to be happier. The words I used were life-saving, and I stand by that description, because there are trans people who have killed themselves for not being able to access gender affirming care. If you interpreted that as me saying that transitioning will make all trans people 100% happy forever for the rest of their lives, then that's a you problem.

That was provided up top. You dismissed it as “well of course, that’s because people are mean.”

You didn't provide that, you provided the suicide rate compared to the general population. And yes, in that situation, the trans suicide rate will be much higher, because trans people are treated far worse on average than the general population are treated.

More self-reported survey data. Selection bias, etc.

Ah, so you're cherry-picking information to suit your narrative and plainly ignoring it if it goes against your preconceived notions, gotcha.

And anyway, this is entirely consistent with what I’ve been saying. If a man insists he is the Queen of England, he will obviously be in a better mood if people indulge his delusion vs not. He might even want drugs/surgery to look and feel more like old Lizzy herself. But a look at independently documented health outcomes in the years following said drugs and surgery shows they didn’t actually improve his health and may have even worsened it, because they didn’t treat the issues causing him to believe he’s the Queen, and thus he’s still much worse off than the average person. And that’s more or less what the data coming out is showing about transgenderism. The emperor has no clothes.

And here we come to the heart of the matter. You're not arguing in good faith. Your comparison betrays that, underlying all this supposed academic rigor that we're engaging in, you simply view the idea of being trans as laughable and a mental delusion. You compare it to something as nonsensical as someone claiming to be an incest-bred aristocrat. Nothing will ever convince you, because you are not open to being convinced. You are simply adopting pseudo-intellectual talking points to reinforce your pre-existing contempt for one of the most vulnerable demographics of people on the planet.

To drive this point through your stubborn ignorance: there is thousands of years worth of proof, from across the world, that being transgender is a legitimate phenomena. You can acknowledge that or you can continue living in your simple bubble, but that is a fact of the world we live in, acknowledged in cultures across the world. There is also scientific data that supports the existence of transgender people. You can say that you don't trust the science or that you think it's some kind of woke agenda to emasculate men or some other nonsense if it helps you sleep at night, but the fact of the matter is that trans people exist, always have existed, and we are finally acknowledging them and beginning to come round to supporting them. The treatment for gender dysphoria is not "curing delusions". The treatment for gender dysphoria is realizing you are transgender and transitioning.

You keep asserting this without sufficient evidence, even as you insist the reason your assertion isn’t true is because people are mean. Lolol.

Literally provided you an entire article that backed my point up, but ok. Here, I'll even post it again for you, since you seem scared to discuss it.

Not true. The 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey found 61 percent of trans and gender nonconforming respondents reported having medically transitioned. Given the recent sharp increase in people seeking and obtaining such treatment, it’s safe to say most allegedly trans people seek to medically transition.

The very same survey says that 61% had "medically transitioned" while only 33% had "surgically transitioned". They seem to use "medically transitioned" to refer to taking hormones. According to this survey only a third of trans people surveyed had undergone surgery, and seeing as this survey was conducted in 2011 before trans visibility grew in popular culture I would posit that the number of those who have undergone surgery is lower today than when this survey was done. You even confirm this, to an extent, in your quote below, where you say that the article I linked shows that only 13% of respondents underwent surgery. Now, that might be a statistical anomaly of some sort, but even if we doubled that to 26%, that's still a 7 point decrease from the 33% in this 2011 survey, and it would be an even greater one if we took the 13% at face value.

I would absolutely agree that most trans people seek to undergo surgery, but again, as I mentioned, it is cost-prohibitive, and many are willing to settle for going onto hormone therapy if they don't wish to put their wallets at the mercy of the American healthcare system.

Looking at the study linked in your article, the authors point out the findings may not be generalizable due to the lack of baseline mental health data in the self-reported results in the data set, which look at just a one year window post surgery. Just 13% of the sample actually had undergone surgery in the first place.

(Bolding the latter sentence to go along with my previous comment.)

Sounds like it's time for our favorite game on this thread: We! Need! More! Data! You distrust a one-year window post surgery? Let's absolutely keep them going longer. Make it five, make it ten even. I'm sure there are studies going currently which are covering that longer timeframe, and I encourage as many of them to be conducted as possible. I am supremely confident that they will continue to confirm exactly what this one states. Because it really is a no brainer. When you allow people to live their truth, their mental health is better. Just as one might feel better when you allow them to eat after they've been hungry for hours on end.

It makes sense that people are going to initially self-report improvement after they got what they supposedly wanted, due to sunk cost logic. Nobody wants to admit they ed up.

Or more likely, they're genuinely happy with their decision, and don't think they ed up in the first place.

The reason I would argue the study I posted is a better measure of outcomes is because it looks at a decade of independently documented health outcomes, from 2005-2015, and is a large, representative dataset taken from the Swedish Total Population Register. To your point, Sweden is probably a more welcoming environment than the US. Evidently it didn’t measurably impact the results.

Tl;dr 10 years of medical records from a whole country > a year of self-reported feels from a self-selected sample of survey respondents. Even if all things were equal, producing different results looking at similar things from large data sets means your assertions are not necessarily representative, let alone obvious.

Is this the study you are referencing? It looks broadly similar to what you're saying. If it is, then it points out that the methodology for conducting these studies is limited because of small sample sizes and high drop out rates once people have completed surgical transition. It also states that a meta-analysis found that roughly 80% of participants reported a subjective increase in mental health relating to gender dysphoria following their surgical transitions. And finally, it emphasizes that this study has no bearing on the efficacy of gender affirming surgery as a treatment for dysphoria, only that people continue to suffer from suicide and difficulties relating to social integration (in this case referencing criminal activity) following completion of their transition. Which I would say tracks with my claim: that transitioning reduces the impact of dysphoria, but that people, once they transition and are "visibly trans", then become a target for harassment and abuse, and continue to suffer mental health problems because of their treatment at the hands of others.

Overall, though, I would love to see more studies like this one conducted. If your concern is that there aren't more studies like this one, then by all means, carry out as many as you like.

Your point was very clear: pre-teens transitioning is perfectly normal and produces no harmful effects.

Meanwhile in the real world 82% of teenage trans have considered suicide and 40% have attempted it and trans teens are 7,6 time more likely to commit suicide.

I can't wait to see how you blame it on society, mean people and internal anti-trans feelings. I mean it's not like trans groups have more support infrastructure and funding that some forms of cancer. Oh wait, they do.

Last I checked people aren't discriminated against, fearmongered, or sexually assaulted for having cancer.

This is factually false and if you bother to do an ounce of research on the topic and/or simply ask a psychologist worth his salt you will see why. Your teenage years is the period when your identity is taking shape, you can't definitely know something that does not exist. Few people definitely know they are even in their early 20s. For some it takes until their mid 20s. But I do appreciate the mental gymnastics.

Bolding your point for emphasis. Your teenage years are when your identity is taking shape. And what's one of the most core aspects of your identity? If you're a man or a woman or neither. As another form of identity, I knew I was bisexual when I was 13-14 years old.

Also, do note we are talking about pre-pubescent children here.

I am talking about teenagers, because while pre-pubescent children may experience gender dysphoria they usually do not recognize it as such and vocalize a desire to transition until they are teenagers. When they are children they usually feel that something is vaguely "wrong" with them but are unable to describe what it is.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're really not subtle with how you telegraph your contempt for trans people, especially with how you used "lol" three times in this message responding to me. Point being that I'm correct and you're not willing to acknowledge it, so you fall back to mocking me, as all rightist trolls are wont to do.

I’m laughing at the nonsense you’ve posted, because it exposes the vacuous and purely ideological basis for your claims. Demanding agreement with your ideology as a precondition for moral or intellectual legitimacy is not evidence for the veracity of your claims, and disagreement is not an indication of anyone’s views about humanity.

Did I say that transitioning is 100% preventative of suicide? I said that it saves lives. It doesn't make the problem go away, it makes it less severe. No medical process is 100% effective at solving problems, especially when people harass you for having it done.

Transitioning improves the lives of trans people and makes it less likely for them to commit suicide based on their dysphoria. Trans people who have transitioned can and do still commit suicide from being harassed by transphobes who now can visibly see that they have transitioned. These are two statements which factually coexist. Just because you don't care about the community enough to do the 10 minutes of research to learn that doesn't mean the information is false. It just means you're willfully ignorant.

If that’s the case, you should be able to present evidence establishing your belief that trans drugs/surgery/hormones do not cause negative health outcomes or suicidal behavior, because that would be the bare minimum standard to justify your assertions about their necessity in preventing those outcomes.

"The research is inconclusive, which means we need to enforce my ideology and strip millions of people of their autonomy and right to self-expression and living as they truly are."

You can push back against this if you want, but you're arguing that being trans in and of itself is dangerous. Your arguments are showing that you want trans people to go back in the closet and suffer for your peace of mind.

Given trans identity does not require any kind of medical diagnosis, your assertion that medical procedures like trans drugs/hormones/surgery for minors is utterly necessary to prevent their suicide requires conclusive evidence. Admitting you don’t have it doesn’t mean the practices in question should continue until you do, it means they should stop until you do. I’m sure some kids will self-report better mental health if they are allowed to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. That’s not a reason to permit it, let alone demand it.

You didn't provide that, you provided the suicide rate compared to the general population. And yes, in that situation, the trans suicide rate will be much higher, because trans people are treated far worse on average than the general population are treated.

I did. In the first place, you haven’t provided conclusive evidence to establish the dichotomy on which your position depends, so I’m not actually obligated to exclude comparisons to the general population or only look at trans people, even though the latter was also provided, and from a transgender advocacy group no less.

Ah, so you're cherry-picking information to suit your narrative and plainly ignoring it if it goes against your preconceived notions, gotcha.

No, I pointed out why self-reported survey data isn’t as conclusive as independently collected medical records.

And here we come to the heart of the matter. You're not arguing in good faith. Your comparison betrays that, underlying all this supposed academic rigor that we're engaging in, you simply view the idea of being trans as laughable and a mental delusion. You compare it to something as nonsensical as someone claiming to be an incest-bred aristocrat. Nothing will ever convince you, because you are not open to being convinced. You are simply adopting pseudo-intellectual talking points to reinforce your pre-existing contempt for one of the most vulnerable demographics of people on the planet.

More projection. Even if what you were saying were true, it’s not a counterargument to the evidence I’ve presented.

To drive this point through your stubborn ignorance: there is thousands of years worth of proof, from across the world, that being transgender is a legitimate phenomena. You can acknowledge that or you can continue living in your simple bubble, but that is a fact of the world we live in, acknowledged in cultures across the world. There is also scientific data that supports the existence of transgender people. You can say that you don't trust the science or that you think it's some kind of woke agenda to emasculate men or some other nonsense if it helps you sleep at night, but the fact of the matter is that trans people exist, always have existed, and we are finally acknowledging them and beginning to come round to supporting them. The treatment for gender dysphoria is not "curing delusions". The treatment for gender dysphoria is realizing you are transgender and transitioning.

Historical histrionics is not a basis for your claims about medical procedures. Trans identity doesn’t require any medical diagnosis or natural scientific verification, and therefore cannot be justified by it either. As I said when you first brought this up:

We can all speculate that gazillions of people are “born in the wrong body” all the time and were repressed because reasons, but there’s as much empirical basis for asserting trans identity without any medical diagnosis as there is for transracialism, for example. Absurdity breeds absurdity. I guess that’s the point of the OP.

You responded with a bunch of copium about how transracialism doesn’t count for reasons that would invalidate your assertions about transgenderism. Cognitive dissonance is common to religious/ ideological belief, and you’re certainly entitled to it, but that’s not a basis for your assertions about medical procedures.

Literally provided you an entire article that backed my point up, but ok. Here, I'll even post it again for you, since you seem scared to discuss it.

Huh? You went on to respond to my discussion of your article in the same post. Deep breaths.

The very same survey says that 61% had "medically transitioned" while only 33% had "surgically transitioned". They seem to use "medically transitioned" to refer to taking hormones. According to this survey only a third of trans people surveyed had undergone surgery, and seeing as this survey was conducted in 2011 before trans visibility grew in popular culture I would posit that the number of those who have undergone surgery is lower today than when this survey was done. You even confirm this, to an extent, in your quote below, where you say that the article I linked shows that only 13% of respondents underwent surgery. Now, that might be a statistical anomaly of some sort, but even if we doubled that to 26%, that's still a 7 point decrease from the 33% in this 2011 survey, and it would be an even greater one if we took the 13% at face value.

I would absolutely agree that most trans people seek to undergo surgery, but again, as I mentioned, it is cost-prohibitive, and many are willing to settle for going onto hormone therapy if they don't wish to put their wallets at the mercy of the American healthcare system.

If you agree, then what’s with all the irrelevant copium you posted in an attempt to back up your assertion that it isn’t relevant to the discussion? “This is totally fine and even though it isn’t we should keep doing it because most people can’t afford it anyway whether they want to or not” is a concession, not counter.

(Bolding the latter sentence to go along with my previous comment.)

Sounds like it's time for our favorite game on this thread: We! Need! More! Data! You distrust a one-year window post surgery? Let's absolutely keep them going longer. Make it five, make it ten even. I'm sure there are studies going currently which are covering that longer timeframe, and I encourage as many of them to be conducted as possible. I am supremely confident that they will continue to confirm exactly what this one states. Because it really is a no brainer. When you allow people to live their truth, their mental health is better. Just as one might feel better when you allow them to eat after they've been hungry for hours on end.

Good thing I posted a decade of independently documented health outcomes, from 2005-2015, on patients who have undergone sex-reassignment procedures, revealing these procedures do not bring mental health benefits. The other study I posted showing high suicide rates/psychiatric morbidity post-transition was based on 10-15 year follow ups with patients, also in Sweden, a country that tops global rankings for support of trans rights. So no, these longer term follow ups are not supportive of your ideology so far.

Or more likely, they're genuinely happy with their decision, and don't think they

ed up in the first place.

Given evidence based on the world’s largest dataset on patients who have undergone sex-reassignment procedures reveals that these procedures do not bring mental health benefits, we’re back to you insisting that health should be secondary to people’s feelings when determining the safety and efficacy - or necessity, as you put it - of medical procedures.

Is this the study you are referencing? It looks broadly similar to what you're saying. If it is, then it points out that the methodology for conducting these studies is limited because of small sample sizes and high drop out rates once people have completed surgical transition. It also states that a meta-analysis found that roughly 80% of participants reported a subjective increase in mental health relating to gender dysphoria following their surgical transitions. And finally, it emphasizes that this study has no bearing on the efficacy of gender affirming surgery as a treatment for dysphoria, only that people continue to suffer from suicide and difficulties relating to social integration (in this case referencing criminal activity) following completion of their transition. Which I would say tracks with my claim: that transitioning reduces the impact of dysphoria, but that people, once they transition and are "visibly trans", then become a target for harassment and abuse, and continue to suffer mental health problems because of their treatment at the hands of others.

That was one of them, yes, though I was referring to another Swedish study I’d posted. Anyway, you seem to be mischaracterizing the conclusion that transitioned patients have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity. You even misconstrued the 80% figure: “A recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that approximately 80% reported subjective improvement in terms of gender dysphoria, quality of life, and psychological symptoms, but also that there are studies reporting high psychiatric morbidity and suicide rates after sex reassignment.” Subjectively improved mood and objectively high risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity post transition supports my narrative, not yours, obviously.

It’s frankly bizarre that you would point to increased criminality post-transition, something I didn’t even bring up, as evidence supporting your narrative by editorializing it with your own assertions. The authors didn’t ascribe this to people being mean either, lmao, but to male-female patients retaining violent criminal tendencies and female-male patients potentially developing them. There’s not much of anything in that study you can try to cherry pick to support your assertions about transition having nothing to do with objectively negative health outcomes and everything to do with subjectively positive ones.

[basics]

So he does believe in evolution!

Akar,

Long time no hear. Evolution as I see it is adaptation but not over billions of years as you well know and just as is written in the Bible, God's Word. Good to know that you are still around.

[Sir Adrian]

Is this the study you are referencing? It looks broadly similar to what you're saying. If it is, then it points out that the methodology for conducting these studies is limited because of small sample sizes and high drop out rates once people have completed surgical transition. It also states that a meta-analysis found that roughly 80% of participants reported a subjective increase in mental health relating to gender dysphoria following their surgical transitions. And finally, it emphasizes that this study has no bearing on the efficacy of gender affirming surgery as a treatment for dysphoria, only that people continue to suffer from suicide and difficulties relating to social integration (in this case referencing criminal activity) following completion of their transition. Which I would say tracks with my claim: that transitioning reduces the impact of dysphoria, but that people, once they transition and are "visibly trans", then become a target for harassment and abuse, and continue to suffer mental health problems because of their treatment at the hands of others.

Overall, though, I would love to see more studies like this one conducted. If your concern is that there aren't more studies like this one, then by all means, carry out as many as you like.



Last I checked people aren't discriminated against, fearmongered, or sexually assaulted for having cancer.



Bolding your point for emphasis. Your teenage years are when your identity is taking shape. And what's one of the most core aspects of your identity? If you're a man or a woman or neither. As another form of identity, I knew I was bisexual when I was 13-14 years old.



I am talking about teenagers, because while pre-pubescent children may experience gender dysphoria they usually do not recognize it as such and vocalize a desire to transition until they are teenagers. When they are children they usually feel that something is vaguely "wrong" with them but are unable to describe what it is.

You are directly contradicting your previous comments.

[Pontifex Maximus]

How does that relate to different suicide rates for people in different stages of gender transition?

People suffering from delusion or mental illness are more prone to suicidal ideation. Do you disagree that "trans" people are less prone to self harm and suicide?

[PointOfViewGun]

People suffering from delusion or mental illness are more prone to suicidal ideation. Do you disagree that "trans" people are less prone to self harm and suicide?

I do, given the circumstances that they live in. How does that or suicide rates for people in different stages of gender transition relate to solipsism?

[swabian]

Oh ... so this plague did arrive here after all. How naïve of me to think otherwise.

Well, let's dance then

"Gender identity" is a pathological modern myth and there are only 2 biological sexes that matter.

[swabian]

Suppose I'm a nihilist/pessimist. Suppose I'm also profoundly doubtful about the axiomatic nature of existence. By this I don't mean I doubt the existence of some particular thing, but rather I doubt the validity of the concept of existence itself. Since the coherence of the existence property is generally assumed as part of the axioms of modeling the world, this doubt might corrupt my reception of existence arguments. That is to say, at a fundamental level I doubt whether identity or existence are anything more than conventional fictions we use to facilitate communication.

Not unlike pronouns.

There is plenty more to say on this but let me keep it brief: Suppose after some number of negative interactions, I decide that if I'm going to get got I may as well get some of my own. I declare that references to my supposed existence are in violation of my dearly held belief that I don't exist. Any attempt to refer to what others might believe is "me" are therefore unforgivable acts of violence and should be condemned.

So, you know, where that little footer that says "he/him/her/she/they/them" goes just put "null/don't even go there" for me.

But, one might say, isn't this a self-refuting statement? If you don't exist, who is making the argument?

To which I say, logic no longer matters. Haven't you heard? The only thing that matters is my independent right to decide what my identity is, including my right not to have one.

But, another might say, isn't this terribly inconvenient for anyone who simply has to interact which you?

To which I say, how dare you place your convenience before my right not to exist?

Etc.

Yes it's petulant and quite possibly the product of some near-geriatric irritation, but on the other hand I think there is some genuine discussion that can happen here.

Thoughts?

Well, no. It is pseudoscientific nonsense, period. There are only two sexes and very, very rare biological conditions that are now known as "intersex phenomena" and known since much longer time as "hermaphrodism", but these do not allow for introducing a third sex. Like the human species can possibly be the only species to have more then two biological sexes constituting it.

This is not even a debate led scientifically where it matters. But this... garbage has grown so quickly out of a stupid idea into a quasi-religious movement, that it gets a lot of people dangerously confused on the mere paranoia of oppression, as well as now posing a threat to science theory and scientific thinking itself.

Regardless of how homosexual and non-stereotypical individuals can be, be they male or female, these are naturally occuring varieties within one respective sex that do not in any scientific way shape or form demonstrate or prove how there can be real and actual "transitions" between male and female. They are naturally occuring variations within the biological sexes and in no way a natural "trans state".

Transsexuals only exist psychologically and culturally, nobody can ever turn into something that their biological reality simply does not allow for. Even the very rare cases of actual hermaphrodism are only genetic aberrations that have both, female and male biological characteristica. They do not constitute a third or forth (aso) sex.

That does not mean, I'm against calling people by whatever ridiculous pronoun they want. PSYCHOLOGICALLY, people may feel like whatever and they should have a right to be called as whatever they want by officials and on the ID card. I have no problems with delivering that feat of courtesy to my fellow human being. But I will never be forced to deny the reality that is my perception and knowledge about the near 100% sexual binarity of the human species. I will not be asked, even politely, to pretend that reality wasn't as it is.

If somebody wants or needs to have their genitals surgically mutilated, so they feel better about themselves pretending something they aren't, I will give them the politeness they so crave for. But I cannot be asked to consequentially pretend that they are anything but what they are. That would be demanding of me to lie by default. There is little more insulting and little more asocial than to ask someone to deny immediate, perceivable reality.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I do, given the circumstances that they live in. How does that or suicide rates for people in different stages of gender transition relate to solipsism?

Yet you have failed to provide any source whatsoever linking causation of this suicidal ideation to, well, any external factor. Your argument is just gainsaying, as usual. No sources. Also gotta ask, on what authority do you comment on anything "they" live in. Do you speak for the trans? Are you their pope?

[mishkin]

@swabian: For reasons I will assume that your gender is male. Imagine being born with a vagina and breasts. ( I have the impression that you mix gender with sex when I'm pretty sure you know the difference).

On the other hand, thank you very much for your magnanimity with your fellow humans who have not been lucky enough to be born in the "usual" squares (heterosexuals with the socially accepted gender)

[PointOfViewGun]

Yet you have failed to provide any source whatsoever linking causation of this suicidal ideation to, well, any external factor. Your argument is just gainsaying, as usual. No sources. Also gotta ask, on what authority do you comment on anything "they" live in. Do you speak for the trans? Are you their pope?

At this point I take you responded to my earlier post with a mere link to solipsism without understanding what I was asking which was a rather simple question.

[Pontifex Maximus]

At this point I take you responded to my earlier post with a mere link to solipsism without understanding what I was asking which was a rather simple question.

I understood your silly and sophomoric argument and responded to it, citing authority. You are, predictably, once again gainsaying and refusing to confront the substance of the argument I've propounded which categorically refutes your weak argument. Absurdly, or no less interestingly, you already admitted you disagree with the statement that people with mental illness and gender dysphoria are more prone to suicidal ideation. I provided a source refuting that, but you insist you're right. If you are right, that is very interesting, because you're conceding they aren't all so very much subject to muh systemic hate crimes than you suggest.

In the legal field such statements are admissible under the theory that nobody propounding a certain position would utter statements adverse to their own position. You marched down that road yourself uninhibited. I find this truly hilarious. I have never seen such a severe case of cognitive dissonance with regards to a particular political position.

[PointOfViewGun]

I understood your silly and sophomoric argument and responded to it, citing authority. You are, predictably, once again gainsaying and refusing to confront the substance of the argument I've propounded which categorically refutes your weak argument. Absurdly, or no less interestingly, you already admitted you disagree with the statement that people with mental illness and gender dysphoria are more prone to suicidal ideation. I provided a source refuting that, but you insist you're right. If you are right, that is very interesting, because you're conceding they aren't all so very much subject to muh systemic hate crimes than you suggest.

In the legal field such statements are admissible under the theory that nobody propounding a certain position would utter statements adverse to their own position. You marched down that road yourself uninhibited. I find this truly hilarious. I have never seen such a severe case of cognitive dissonance with regards to a particular political position.

To illustrate the genius of your approach can you tell us what is my weak argument? Is it the bold part? While it is completely irrelevant to what you initially responded to which is what I've been asking about all along despite your continued deflection of it for some reason, it is not exactly accurate either as your questioned statement was not that they were more prone but that they were less prone which is what I disagreed with. Have you been chest-thumping because of a typo you didn't bother to correct? That, however, leaves us with my very basic initial question of how the link to solipsism explains my query of why it would be better to compare suicide rates of trans people to that of general populace while we were talking about the differences between rejected and accepted trans people.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The suicide rate for post-op trans people is higher than pre-op. Your position is self refuting, and has been for about 3-4 years now. Your position boils down to asserting that if we have a person suffering from a delusion that they have been abducted by aliens that we re-affirm they have been abducted by aliens. Out of curiosity, do you have any awareness, at all, of the de-transition community and the huge numbers of young adults now who have spoken out about the evils of gender-affirming surgery? Surgery and hormone treatment which is irreversible, I might add.

[PointOfViewGun]

The suicide rate for post-op trans people is higher than pre-op. Your position is self refuting, and has been for about 3-4 years now. Your position boils down to asserting that if we have a person suffering from a delusion that they have been abducted by aliens that we re-affirm they have been abducted by aliens. Out of curiosity, do you have any awareness, at all, of the de-transition community and the huge numbers of young adults now who have spoken out about the evils of gender-affirming surgery? Surgery and hormone treatment which is irreversible, I might add.

Can't see where I made that assertion. You seem to be suffering from lacking the basis to make your refutations. I understand you're doing your best to push the conversation to a place you think that is more convenient for your narrative (after a bunch of embarrassingly failed attacks) but my query remains to be about asking about substance on suicide rate comparisons and why one would compare suicide rates of transitioned people to the general populace.

[chriscase]

Just watched this episode of The Problem with Jon Stewart -







This seems to have reinforced a couple points raised in the thread but I think they deserve the amplification:

- So-called gender-affirming care for younger children largely consists of psychiatric and social/emotional support, not necessarily invasive or non-reversible therapies.

- Gender-affirming care has been standardized and studied by major medical organizations including the AMA. These are not organizations known for fringe medical practices.

I do think the discussion gets a bit squishy around exactly when the transitional drugs and therapies can start in earnest, but the "anti-trans" position does seem to overstate how easily - and early - those steps can be taken.

Doesn't make me much less grumpy about "they/them" but as a parent of teens who have had their own share of struggles I 100% agree with the parents on the panel. My wife was in tears listening to them. We would do anything to save our child's life. If gender-affirming care was the answer, there would be absolutely no hesitation, pronouns be damned.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Arkansas bill prohibits doctors from recommending gender affirming care like hormone treatment, puberty blockers or surgery to anyone under 18 years old. Common sense.

I guess Jon Stewart will always be the Daily Show. Contrary to his entire schtick:

It’s not true there is no medical debate over gender affirming care.

Stewart offers without evidence the familiar refrain that allegedly trans kids will kill themselves if they can’t get drugs and surgery. On the contrary, the majority of allegedly trans kids change their minds by adulthood.

It’s true expert opinion is divided on the use of puberty blockers and hormones in children, which is why the practice is largely banned in the fascist theocracies of Sweden and Finland based on the available data, requiring psychiatric treatment instead.

So-called gender-affirming care for younger children largely consists of psychiatric and social/emotional support, not necessarily invasive or non-reversible therapies.

This isn’t true. Over half of vaginoplasty surgeons have performed one on an indi- vidual under age 18. In addition to suspicions that puberty suppression may have side effects on physiological and psychological development, there’s little evidence normal puberty will resume for these patients after puberty-suppressing drugs are removed.

Gender-affirming care has been standardized and studied by major medical organizations including the AMA. These are not organizations known for fringe medical practices.

Sweden and Finland almost completely banned the use of puberty blockers in kids, citing expert and ethical backlash.

[chriscase]

It’s not true there is no medical debate over gender affirming care.

Stewart offers without evidence the familiar refrain that allegedly trans kids will kill themselves if they can’t get drugs and surgery. On the contrary, the majority of allegedly trans kids change their minds by adulthood.

It’s true expert opinion is divided on the use of puberty blockers and hormones in children, which is why the practice is largely banned in the fascist theocracies of Sweden and Finland based on the available data, requiring psychiatric treatment instead.

I won't pretend to be conversant with the details of the medical data. It does seem odd to me that the AMA and other pretty conservative organizations would have adopted gender-affirming care guidelines if it's so controversial. I mean, the AMA isn't particularly known for fringe medicine, as least in my limited exposure. Does the AMA say that there is controversy? Or do they consider this settled science?

Over half of vaginoplasty surgeons have performed one on an indi- vidual under age 18. In addition to suspicions that puberty suppression may have side effects on physiological and psychological development, there’s little evidence normal puberty will resume for these patients after puberty-suppressing drugs are removed.

Sweden and Finland almost completely banned the use of puberty blockers in kids, citing expert and ethical backlash.

So there is a pretty big difference between, say, 17 and 11. Right? This is what I mean by squishy. Opponents of this type of care want us to think of 9 - 11 year olds getting surgery, but supporters don't seem to want to get into exactly when the surgeries are supposed to start at all, though they do say it's "after puberty". So I guess that's where the puberty blockers come in.

Like I said, I'm not particularly well informed about this, so I appreciate the information.

[Heathen Hammer]

The whole point of identity is that it doesn't require constant affirmation. That being said, even if this wasn't the case, the impression I'm getting is that the problem is the feeling of entitlement to be viewed in a certain way. There is something inherently childish and irrational to demand of other people to view yourself in a specific way.