The not-so-bygone days of the state taking children from their parents because government knows better

[alhoon]

The NHS reviewed studies whose methodology match that of the ones you cited and determined they are unreliable and their conclusions are likely the result of poor methodology, bias or chance. This was discussed before. That’s why they’re seeking to restrict gender affirming care for minors.

Lol

I’m not the one using debunked research to back up conclusions I supposedly don’t agree with.

I am not using debunked research. What the heck are you talking about? The NHS never debunked the research I posted.

The studies referenced by the NHS are several years older ones and much much smaller ones. Furthermore, ASIDE of the small sample, the methodologies in the NHS report have other issues, like not very good sampling and absence of concrete base lines. And yet, with all those, the evidence is considered inconclusive in those studies. Not thrown out as trash (to be honest, one of the studies there is trash. The Swedish one that takes 70 people from the Entire of Sweden and compares them to the Swedish population of 7 million. So a slight variation in the suicides of the Swedes would impact the results. That one should have been thrown out. The others are not as bad though.)

2 to 10 years after those studies a big, BIG one came out with 12000 people, 6000 of which in the control group.
THIS is the one study you are bundling with tiny studies of 70 and 140 people.

Is that 2022 study perfect? No, because it has to do with teens. But is it much better and yes it clearly and scientifically points out to the conclusion that puberty blockers reduce the chance for transexual teens to commit suicide.
So, yes, you are the one that denies something that is well documented by now.

As for the NHS seeking to restrict gender-care for minors... they are under a conservative government and they are not going as far as Florida, nor as fast. And nowhere in those guidelines there is any word that giving puberty blockers to kids is abuse or that it is a reason to take kids from their parents. All in all, what the NHS is doing is much more careful and cautious than what Florida does and they don't suggest to the government to take kids out of houses that maaay give them hormones.

...said a bunch more crap you have not supported.

Saying what Conversion Therapy is and why most of the world rightfully considers it abuse and putting links for what it is not unsupported crap, infidel.

Your mere assertion is worthless.

So is yours too, though. Your own assertions are also unsupported. You have never showed us the kind and shiny conversion therapy of Florida that doesn't emotionally abuse teens.
And since you like statistics and supports for things that should be obvious with common sense: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...py-experience/
As you can see 28% of CT teens have tried to commit suicide in the past year compared to 11% that didn't.

I don't know why you want me to prove the obvious, Infidel. Conversion Therapy is abuse.

**********************

To all, this is a depressing thread for me.
I have time and again said how abhor the SJW efforts to push such medicine and procedures on everyone with very little oversight and why I consider such things dangerous. And now, I get a reminder in this thread that there are people waaaay more strict about such things, eager to support what I consider very authoritarian measures just because they promote agenda they agree with (and yes LT, I am still convinced that these are authoritarian powergrabs and I strongly disagree with your assessment that it is business as usual and that ALL gender care is abuse strong enough to take kids from their families).

[Lord Thesaurian]

I am not using debunked research. What the heck are you talking about? The NHS never debunked the research I posted.

The studies referenced by the NHS are several years older ones and much much smaller ones. Furthermore, ASIDE of the small sample, the methodologies in the NHS report have other issues, like not very good sampling and absence of concrete base lines. And yet, with all those, the evidence is considered inconclusive in those studies.

2 to 10 years after those studies a big, BIG one came out with 12000 people, 6000 of which in the control group.
THIS is the one study you are bundling with tiny studies of 70 and 140 people.

Is that 2022 study perfect? No, because it has to do with teens. But is it much better and yes it clearly and scientifically points out to the conclusion that puberty blockers reduce the chance for transexual teens to commit suicide.
So, yes, you are the one that denies something that is well documented by now.

Well again, the NHS is “denying” what you consider to be well documented. And yes, your 73% figure is based on a methodology the NHS rejected as a basis for determining the efficacy of gender affirming care. Both studies you cited acknowledged similar limitations:

Additionally, we used symptom-based measures of depression, anxiety, and suicidality; further studies should include diagnostic evaluations by mental health practitioners to track depression, anxiety, gender dysphoria, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts during gender care.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2789423

Given existing research, it is unlikely that randomized controlled trials of GAHT for youth would be ethically appropriate. To better understand directionality, prospective longitudinal designs are needed. Additionally, our self-reported nonprobability sample may limit the generalizability of findings and suggest the need for the inclusion of gender identity-specific measures in larger probability samples

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1...568-1/fulltext

Self reported survey data isn’t the kind of medically rigorous study new treatments normally go through. This was also a concern expressed in the NHS research. When the studies you cited both admit they lack the kinds of controls necessary to make that kind of determination, I don’t know why you would insist otherwise, unless you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning) in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.

Studies that found differences in outcomes could represent changes that are either of questionable clinical value, or the studies themselves are not reliable and changes could be due to confounding, bias or chance.

This evidence review found limited evidence for the effectiveness and safety of gender- affirming hormones in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, with all studies being uncontrolled, observational studies, and all outcomes of very low certainty. Any potential benefits of treatment must be weighed against the largely unknown long-term safety profile of these treatments.

As for the NHS seeking to restrict gender-care for minors... they are under a conservative government and they are not going as far as Florida, nor as fast. And nowhere in those guidelines there is any word that giving puberty blockers to kids is abuse or that it is a reason to take kids from their parents. All in all, what the NHS is doing is much more careful and cautious than what Florida does.

The fact the emerging international medical consensus is recognizing the dangers and lack of benefits of sex reassignment for minors means there is ample basis to consider these treatments harmful and potentially abusive. It’s silly to dismiss this with unfounded accusations of political bias when Swedish and Finnish medical authorities have come to similar conclusions.

[Infidel144]

Saying what Conversion Therapy is and why most of the world rightfully considers it abuse and putting links for what it is not unsupported crap, infidel.

You claimed beatings and electroshock.
When challenged, you then admitted to not being able to support your assertion, and linked to a wiki article that noted things that had been done in the past.
Not what is being done and not what was being done now in Florida. And then you continued to assert beatings, while tacitly acknowledging your error with electroshock.

So is yours too, though. Your own assertions are also unsupported. You have never showed us the kind and shiny conversion therapy of Florida that doesn't emotionally abuse teens.

I did not make any assertions about 'kind and shiny conversion therapy' (and I used your term).
I showed you what the court case, that you were ignorant of, was about, who was suing and what they were doing (counseling, you know, talking, not beatings and
what even the dissent agreed were "long-abandoned practices.").
I also noted that your phrases and words such as 'may consider' and 'possible', 'future' do not seem to appear in the Florida bill:
The word 'consider' seems to appear only three times, which don't seem to have anything to do with parents, but rather are directives to the Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine.
Have you even read the bill?

I don’t know why you would insist otherwise, unless you don’t know what you’re talking about.

That has been repeatedly demonstrated.

[alhoon]

Self reported survey data isn’t the kind of medically rigorous study new treatments normally go through.

On that, we agree. But the sample is huge and the study long and rigorous. And we are not looking at it to see if such hormones are safe for consumption we are looking to see if these treatments lower suicidal tendencies and yes, it is well documented they do. Even with all of the faults of such studies and the bias of self-reported data, it is clear that such treatments (with all the dangers that come with them) lower the suicide risk.

The fact the emerging international medical consensus is recognizing the dangers and lack of benefits of sex reassignment for minors means there is ample basis to consider these treatments harmful and potentially abusive. It’s silly to dismiss this with unfounded accusations of political bias when Swedish and Finnish medical authorities have come to similar conclusions.

But there is no such consensus. NHS is not saying "These don't work", they say "We have issues with the methodology so far" and they refer to much smaller ones. This is not the same as rejecting that such treatments lower suicidal thoughts. Cass review is a small group of doctors.

Now, are the benefits more than the dangers? We don't know nor the NHS nor an emerging consensus has answered that. But there are benefits. There are obviously downsides too, as playing around with the body in such fundamental level with hormones is not going to be safe and it is too early to tell HOW MUCH such treatments will increase cancer risks for example, or affect the Thyroid and other hormone producing organs.
And for fairness, I would actually repeat what I have said many times to the progressives: studies that hint that such treatments may significally increase the risks of cancer or liver failure or whatever are going to face a LOT of scrutiny from the progressives and in many cases, downright censoring.
The conservatives are now doing THE SAME THING. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, the short version is: No, there's not an emerging consensus that there are no benefits. You interpret what you read in the NHS and cass review wrong. While the 73% is bogus, it is the best estimation we have. Not a good one, but certainly showing that despite aaaall the other bad effects, gender care reduces the risk of kids making a suicide. In the end, if these kids feel supported, they are less likely to kill themselves. One way to do it is to send them to psychologists that will help them accept the body they are given by nature. Another way to support them is ... gender change. I certainly think the best is to help them learn to live as they were born BUT it is not abuse if a parent goes for the other. It is a difficult decision and every case is different.

[Lord Thesaurian]

On that, we agree. But the sample is huge and the study long and rigorous. And we are not looking at it to see if such hormones are safe for consumption we are looking to see if these treatments lower suicidal tendencies and yes, it is well documented they do. Even with all of the faults of such studies and the bias of self-reported data, it is clear that such treatments (with all the dangers that come with them) lower the suicide risk.

Safety is a basic prerequisite for marketing these treatments to the public, so it’s inherently relevant whether you’d prefer to dismiss it or not. The sample size doesn’t help you if the data doesn’t prove what you say it does. If you admit the studies you cited are biased or even “bogus,” I don’t know how you can double down on the same unsubstantiated assertion, but safe to say this “documentation” you keep referring to has not been presented, by your own admission. If we have evidence puberty blockers are linked to suicidal thoughts and depression, but we don’t have evidence they reduce suicide risk, then yes, that means the balance of evidence does not support their use for reducing suicide risk.

But there is no such consensus. NHS is not saying "These don't work", they say "We have issues with the methodology so far" and they refer to much smaller ones. This is not the same as rejecting that such treatments lower suicidal thoughts. Cass review is a small group of doctors.

I already quoted the proposed NHS guidelines based on the Cass review findings. Those findings represent a growing consensus in multiple first world countries restricting child sex reassignment. Your assertions are false.

Anyway, the short version is: No, there's not an emerging consensus that there are no benefits. You interpret what you read in the NHS and cass review wrong. While the 73% is bogus, it is the best estimation we have. Not a good one, but certainly showing that despite aaaall the other bad effects, gender care reduces the risk of kids making a suicide.

You’re making up nonsense here. I’m not misinterpreting the Cass report, which concluded the “well documented proof” you keep referring to doesn’t exist. The studies you cited certainly don’t take into account “aaaall the other bad effects.” That’s part of the problem, as stated in the Cass review. If I were misrepresenting those findings, the NHS wouldn’t have cited them to justify proposed new guidelines, restricting gender affirming care outside controlled research settings.

In the end, if these kids feel supported, they are less likely to kill themselves. One way to do it is to send them to psychologists that will help them accept the body they are given by nature. Another way to support them is ... gender change. I certainly think the best is to help them learn to live as they were born BUT it is not abuse if a parent goes for the other. It is a difficult decision and every case is different.

What does making kids feel supported by helping them accept the body they are born with have to do with child sex reassignment? You still don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of what the legislation you started a thread about actually does, nor have you justified this equivalence between treating depression and undergoing sex change treatments that tend to cause depression.

[alhoon]

Yes, you do misinterpret it. Again: The Cass report says "it is not well documented and there are issues with the methodology" not "it is wrong". The NHS then says "we don't think these studies provide enough evidence" not "we have evidence things are the opposite of what the studies say".

All in all, neither the NHS nor the Cass report say "we have solid evidence gender care does not reduce the risk of suicide." They say "we consider the evidence provided inconclusive."

" nor have you justified this equivalence between treating depression and undergoing sex change treatments that tend to cause depression."
I have, you just disagree with the studies I present while I disagree with your (wrong) assessment of what the Cass review says. I will not repeat the same things again. Let's agree to disagree on that.

[Coughdrop addict]

I feel this thread has gotten away from an important point; that kids can be taken away from their parents at the mere assertion that they are 'at risk' of gender care.

It's not like using the presence of bruises and burns to prove physical abuse. Or being dirty and malnourished to prove neglect. How do you prove they are 'at risk' for gender care? Because their parents are registered Democrats? Criticized Desantis? Were seen buying Bud Light?

[alhoon]

I feel this thread has gotten away from an important point; that kids can be taken away from their parents at the mere assertion that they are 'at risk' of gender care.

Tell that to Infidel, that is making a case of the bill not saying "consider" but "at risk", splitting hairs.

[Lord Thesaurian]

All in all, neither the NHS nor the Cass report say "we have solid evidence gender care does not reduce the risk of suicide." They say "we consider the evidence provided inconclusive."

Sig worthy.

I have, you just disagree with the studies I present while I disagree with your (wrong) assessment of what the Cass review says. I will not repeat the same things again. Let's agree to disagree on that.

Well again, if your accusation was true the NHS wouldn’t be restricting gender affirming care for minors. I’ve no interest in respecting the blatant dishonesty of your claims. You’ve simply retreated to a self refuting position that evidence these treatments are linked to depression and suicide, coupled with a lack of evidence they improve those conditions, doesn’t mean anything in particular. You’ve managed to devolve your own thread from allegedly conservative concerns about government overreach to a generic left wing endorsement of child sex changes based on data you admit is “bogus.” Rofl.

[Infidel144]

Tell that to Infidel, that is making a case of the bill not saying "consider" but "at risk", splitting hairs.

I don't think I have used the phrase "at risk" (unless in the context of quoting someone else). I might be mistaken.

I'm having some difficulty finding the phrase "at risk" in the bill.
I can find the word 'risks'*. In the context of informing a patient of the "risks of the prescription or procedure".


*I also previously quoted the NHS using the word "risks".

[alhoon]

You’ve managed to devolve your own thread from allegedly conservative concerns about government overreach to a generic left wing endorsement of child sex changes based on data you admit is “bogus.” Rofl.

I did not manage to do that, YOU turned the discussion to the viability of such things and I do not endorse such treatment! I am not leftwing. I am just saying that it is not child abuse and that the state has no right to take kids away from parents because they decided that THIS is child abuse, when it is not.
I do not condone nor support such treatment but I accept it is not my choice to make for other parents! What is so hard to understand about that?

The NHS and Cass report and stuff was things you brought up. What I said was that there is some evidence these things prevent suicides. Since such evidence is simply bogus and not downright rejected the government has no right to take kids from parents. And I brought examples of the government not taking kids from militant vegan parents that feed them raw vegetables and fruit.

Honestly, accusing me of holding progressive views on transgender issues because I don't go as far as say parents should lose their kids (same as 1 out 3 conservatives!) is insulting to me. That's because I am a snowflake probably, I doubt many people are offended by being called progressives, but still. You should know better than claim I support progressives just because I don't think we should take troubled teens out of their families if the parents decide on treatment we disagree with.
Where are all those progressives that call me names when you need them? @Morticia! @Mongrel! @Mishkin! @Spartan! I am being called progressive. Someone bags me up with you guys.


And I will ask you something else (the answer of which I don't know): Does the government take teens away from parents that refuse to vaccinate them against polio, measles etc? Or that refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds?
Those are demonstrably dangerous for the kid belief. And the anti-vaxers for dangerous diseases like Polio and Measles are putting EVERYONE at risk.

[swabian]

Yes, common sense. And common sense says that giving puberty blockers to consenting teens after a psychologist suggested so, is not child abuse.

It's not outright child abuse, but just as psychologists aren't allowed to prescribe psychiatric drugs in most states in the US (not at all in Germany and most of western Europe), their judgement shouldn't be a sufficient "ok" either. Furthermore, the parents should also be talked to and evaluated by a psychiatrist as all too often these children are victims of their prarents own pathological drama and get groomed into it. The requirements should be reasonably high and a psychologists recommendation is therefore not enough.

Surgery should be out of the question for miniors. That can only be decided by these persons themselves when they are adults themselves.

Remember, it's still proactive symptom alleviation for a psychiatric delusion by means of massively invasive treatment. Hormon therapy isn't harmless either. There is no nonbiological gender and any attempt to establish pseudoscience with such far reaching consequences should feel alarming to every person with common sense and some education.

In the past, hormone therapy and eventual surgery were last resorts for really desperate people. The new liberalism in this regard is ethical hazard.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

That’s not how evidence works, but even if one adopts this standard, the concession these treatments and procedures lack supporting evidence would mean the prior claims about the latter being disinformation because these procedures are medically necessary and life saving are false.

the M/H outcomes are considered statistically "substantive"..

https://epi.washington.edu/news/gend...sgender-youth/

Why is the NHS unqualified? I don’t consider your alleged experience with receiving certain treatments or procedures to be a representative sample, never mind a requisite qualification.

It's ,more qualification than you have. The NHS is a body directly answerable to a body politic.

That’s a restriction. Proposed restrictions include not only limiting puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to controlled research settings, but also limiting social transitioning to adolescents who meet certain criteria. That constitutes an indictment of the entire approach of gender affirming care, let alone providing sex reassignment procedures and treatments to minors, which is anyone under 18 in the US.

A restriction, suggest its restricted, that there is a restriction, no-one is de jure, restricted, anymore than them already being Px.. How exactly do they propose too stop someone form wearing wat they want? Are we talking about stripping children?

Even by the UK standard of 16, the proposed restrictions based on commissioned research would render this assertion moot. Children, that is, people below the age of majority in the US or UK, receive sex reassignment procedures and treatments, including puberty blockers, with increasing frequency. The NHS is seeking to restrict this practice, as are several US states.

The UK medical standard is 13.. It's called Gillick Competence, the age of majority is not relevant. Also the NHS is not,, NHS England is, which answers to a repressive, rabid regime. NHS Scotland is doing no such thing, and I've heard nothing on wales run by labour.

You cannot claim there is a lack off benefit, when there isn't evidence you accept on the subject, and cannot cry danger when ther no ing evidence.

as you have been told Cass isn't independent, or even ing qualified,, she is not a psychologist psychotherapist, or cpn, she may as well be a ing midwife, she's a Goddamn GP for kids..

[Lord Thesaurian]

The UK medical standard is 13.. It's called Gillick Competence, the age of majority is not relevant.

The pending NHS guidelines based on the Cass Review would restrict sex change treatments for minors like puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to controlled research settings only. Acknowledging symptoms of gender confusion disappear in most kids by adulthood, even social transitioning is likely to be restricted to adolescents who meet certain criteria. Swedish and Finnish medical authorities have come to similar conclusions.

the M/H outcomes are considered statistically "substantive"…

Your source cites the same JAMA study I already addressed. Per the latter:

Additionally, we used symptom-based measures of depression, anxiety, and suicidality; further studies should include diagnostic evaluations by mental health practitioners to track depression, anxiety, gender dysphoria, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts during gender care.

Their conclusions, by their own admission, are based on self-reported survey responses, and not the result of qualified study and evaluation.

It's ,more qualification than you have. The NHS is a body directly answerable to a body politic.

Lol. 80% of the British public opposes providing sex change treatments and procedures to minors. A small but significant majority opposes providing them at all through the NHS.

[Roma_Victrix]

Arguments should always keep data in mind as part of their perspective (source: Reuters). In the USA in 2021, all children below the age of 18 who experienced gender dysphoria numbered 42,000, and that's out of 50.7 million children aged 6-17. In that same year the number of children aged 6-17 who received puberty blockers was 1,390. That's the thing that is causing the current moral panic in this thread.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Don't you dare to come with facts when this Pink Scare Wave distract so nicely from rising deaths by school shootings or by the fentanyl wave.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

...

Honestly, accusing me of holding progressive views on transgender issues because I don't go as far as say parents should lose their kids (same as 1 out 3 conservatives!) is insulting to me. That's because I am a snowflake probably, I doubt many people are offended by being called progressives, but still. You should know better than claim I support progressives just because I don't think we should take troubled teens out of their families if the parents decide on treatment we disagree with.
Where are all those progressives that call me names when you need them? @Morticia! @Mongrel! @Mishkin! @Spartan! I am being called progressive. Someone bags me up with you guys.


And I will ask you something else (the answer of which I don't know): Does the government take teens away from parents that refuse to vaccinate them against polio, measles etc? Or that refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds?
Those are demonstrably dangerous for the kid belief. And the anti-vaxers for dangerous diseases like Polio and Measles are putting EVERYONE at risk.

I would bet money, that vaccination refuse is ok for De Santis, the Donald Duck of Florida because freedom of opinion or religion or privacy.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Arguments should always keep data in mind as part of their perspective (source: Reuters). In the USA in 2021, all children below the age of 18 who experienced gender dysphoria numbered 42,000, and that's out of 50.7 million children aged 6-17. In that same year the number of children aged 6-17 who received puberty blockers was 1,390. That's the thing that is causing the current moral panic in this thread.

This is a thread about moral panic over the mass kidnappings that will surely take place by banning the treatments and procedures almost no one apparently utilizes. In the absence of an argument supporting sex changes for kids, I suppose the inevitable fallback is to simultaneously argue these treatments aren’t happening, and if they are, they’re lifesaving medical advances.

I think you’ll find the context of the article, about the “surging” rise in these treatments, to be the aspect which invites scrutiny. After all I could caution against moral panic over the few hundred fatal school shootings that have taken place over the last couple decades, but that wouldn’t be nearly as helpful as you seem to think.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Disney Movie Shown In Class By Florida Teacher Examined By State Agency - Lake County News (lakecountyfloridanews.com)

The use of the Don't say gay law in Florida will show in which direction this law will go.

A teacher is prosecuted for showing a Disney movie, in which one of the main protagonist is gay.

I guess as DeSantitler is now signing a law against DEI aka Diversity Equality and Inclusion and against gender theories and critical race theory on universities, we will sie the next witch hunt against a teacher for reading Uncle Tom's hut or showing Roots

[alhoon]

Arguments should always keep data in mind as part of their perspective (source: Reuters). In the USA in 2021, all children below the age of 18 who experienced gender dysphoria numbered 42,000, and that's out of 50.7 million children aged 6-17. In that same year the number of children aged 6-17 who received puberty blockers was 1,390. That's the thing that is causing the current moral panic in this thread.

You can't be serious... Really? Really?
And how many were in Florida?

EDIT: all together, in the five years of 2017-2021 there were ~5000 teens that started puberty blockers. ~15000 teens are on hormone therapy. I am against hormone therapy for those below 15, BTW.
The total sex-change surgeries (not mastectomies), according to the article in the years 2019, 2020, 2021 were... 56. Which seems a very low number considering there are ~120K teens with gender dysphoria. But still, even if some were undisclosed (and considering the current Florida laws I am not surprised some hide it) the number can't be more than 200 teens.