4 ms·

The goal should obviously be to end any violence at all and give people free choice. But AFAIK no decision they make fundamentally changes anything. Hormones, s

by noxer 5y ago

The goal should obviously be to end any violence at all and give people free choice. But AFAIK no decision they make fundamentally changes anything. Hormones, surgery etc. don't seem to solve anything statistically speaking. For example you frequently head that hormone therapy should be stated as early as possible to get the best desired result but if you look at suicide data, earlier hormone treatment does not reduce suicides. Neither does surgery. Should the people sill have their free will to chose? Yes, absolutely but as early as possible? Probably not. Young people make stupid decisions that's why they are not allowed to do certain things and decide certain things. If a kid isn't allowed to get a tattoo why is it controversial that it isn't allowed to take hormones that permanently alter their body and make them infertile. Also lets just assume that from all teenager going trough puberty that would be eligible for hormone therapy on the basis of their own decision, a fraction would eventually have a "normal life" if no hormone treatment is done. Lets say its 10%. So by giving 100% of eligible teenagers hormone treatment this wound mean 10% are permanently harmed versus giving no teenager hormone treatment where 90% would eventually get it anyway when they are older. Which doesn't seem to have a measurable negative effect on their overall mental health and well-being. Then this would mean no early treatment for anyone safes 10% or the other way around early treatment causes 10% collateral damage. Obviously there has to be a middle ground somewhere but I would say there is good evidence that pushing/motivating people/kids/teenagers is overall likely doing more harm than good. And pushing/motivating based on some personal ideology is not in the interest of the people/kids/teens anyway. They may truly believe what they do helps and have no intention to harm anyone but so do the Scientology people. It just not what a school should do.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
You're ignoring that, as I pointed out, all of the choices are bad, and all of the choices are permanent. You want to make the choice for others, which is clearly worse. You're also confused into thinking that the school is encouraging one option when the article doesn't even suggest that is happening. Instead, it says teachers encourage students who show interest into joining Gay Straight Alliances to help prevent violence against LGBT people regardless of their personal medical choices.
- DanBC 5y ago
  Puberty blockers are not permanent.
  - noxer 5y ago
    The blockers aren't but the damage they can cause can be very permanent.
    - DanBC 5y ago
      No, this untrue. There is no long term harm associated with puberty blockers. I wish the anti-trans crowd would be more honest. Just come out and say that you hate trans people, that you wish to roll-back the hard-won rights they have at the moment; that you disagree with the international scientific and medical community about best treatment; that you're happy to lie about the evidence to try to sound more reasonable and less hate-driven.
      - noxer 5y ago
        This is totally absurd. Of cause it has long therm effects whether these effects are declared as "harm" or not is subjective and whether they can be "legally" associated to puberty blockers is p much irrelevant. It obviously has long term side effects and some are potentially unwanted and permanent. And declaring everyone who disagrees with you as anti-trans who want to take people rights away and what not, make you the intolerant, hate-drive person you seem to see in others.
- noxer 5y ago
  >You want to make the choice for others, which is clearly worse. No I don't. But there is a consensus that certain people can not make such a decision i.e. kids and I think that is correct. I dont want to decide for them at all. I just pointed out who should not make the decision, a non-mature person who has a very limited view on the magnitude of the decision, has zero medical expertise on the topic and is possible in a very complicated mental and emotional state. I also pointed out that statistically speaking some strategies cause "collateral damage" and other don't. While each case has to be looked at individually one should not ignore the fact that contrarily to people wishes, no swift medical treatments are probably favorable. >You're also confused into thinking that the school is encouraging one option when the article doesn't even suggest that is happening. No. I'm not confused and that's not what I'm thinking or said. Beside that, separating people by letting them joining different alliances is an absurd way to prevent violence.
kelseyfrog 5y ago
I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible, but filling in the blanks with assumptions and then arriving at this conclusion is not the right approach. The right approach would be to talk to real life young people and young adults in this position and come to an understanding based on their experiences. The nuances of medical gatekeeping are at least a book-length treatise, probably multi-volume. Please, talk to some trans people in your life and parents of trans people with an open mind. Middle ground positions sound ok, but this this a squishy topic with infinite dimensions and designing systems that try to take a balanced approach do harm in unobvious and subtle ways.
- noxer 5y ago
  I'm not filling in anything with assumption. The data we have is just rather minimal and incomplete. The 10% "assumption" was made for the sake of the example. Since we dont know the real percentage but we know its statistically there and its positive. Could it be just 5%? Maybe, but 5% is still more than 0%. The numbers don't change the overall moral/ethical problem of creating more harm by tying to help people. Does it really matter how much more harm it causes? >The right approach would be to talk to real life young people and young adults in this position and come to an understanding based on their experiences. Why would you assume I have not? And understanding their experience is fine but their experiences don't change numbers, studies, statistics etc. You can argue the numbers are weak and that is true (we need better data to make informed decisions) but that still does not give "their experience" any kind of value as a counterargument. If there is evidence that shows that lives can be saved by not doing certain medical treatments, especially early treatments and instead postponing them with minimal negative side effects, how would the "understanding the experience" of individuals affect this? They might disagree but that doesn't make it not true and in their best interest. We generally dont ask people with comparable problems what they think is best for them and then just do that. We may ask them to study the problem and even as part of the decision making process how to treat them. All of this is fine if done on an individual level. But if we make an overall statement it certainly should not be to "understanding their experience" by listening to the affected people and then do as they wish. There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. >Middle ground positions sound ok, but this this a squishy topic with infinite dimensions and designing systems that try to take a balanced approach do harm in unobvious and subtle ways. Well we are expressing opinions here and sometimes you cant get them across in a "middle ground" way. But looking at each case individually seems kinda middle ground to me.

by noxer 5y ago

lern_too_spel 5y ago

You're ignoring that, as I pointed out, all of the choices are bad, and all of the choices are permanent. You want to make the choice for others, which is clearly worse. You're also confused into thinking that the school is encouraging one option when the article doesn't even suggest that is happening. Instead, it says teachers encourage students who show interest into joining Gay Straight Alliances to help prevent violence against LGBT people regardless of their personal medical choices.

DanBC 5y ago
Puberty blockers are not permanent.
- noxer 5y ago
  The blockers aren't but the damage they can cause can be very permanent.
  - DanBC 5y ago
    No, this untrue. There is no long term harm associated with puberty blockers. I wish the anti-trans crowd would be more honest. Just come out and say that you hate trans people, that you wish to roll-back the hard-won rights they have at the moment; that you disagree with the international scientific and medical community about best treatment; that you're happy to lie about the evidence to try to sound more reasonable and less hate-driven.
    - noxer 5y ago
      This is totally absurd. Of cause it has long therm effects whether these effects are declared as "harm" or not is subjective and whether they can be "legally" associated to puberty blockers is p much irrelevant. It obviously has long term side effects and some are potentially unwanted and permanent. And declaring everyone who disagrees with you as anti-trans who want to take people rights away and what not, make you the intolerant, hate-drive person you seem to see in others.
noxer 5y ago
>You want to make the choice for others, which is clearly worse. No I don't. But there is a consensus that certain people can not make such a decision i.e. kids and I think that is correct. I dont want to decide for them at all. I just pointed out who should not make the decision, a non-mature person who has a very limited view on the magnitude of the decision, has zero medical expertise on the topic and is possible in a very complicated mental and emotional state. I also pointed out that statistically speaking some strategies cause "collateral damage" and other don't. While each case has to be looked at individually one should not ignore the fact that contrarily to people wishes, no swift medical treatments are probably favorable. >You're also confused into thinking that the school is encouraging one option when the article doesn't even suggest that is happening. No. I'm not confused and that's not what I'm thinking or said. Beside that, separating people by letting them joining different alliances is an absurd way to prevent violence.

kelseyfrog 5y ago

I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible, but filling in the blanks with assumptions and then arriving at this conclusion is not the right approach. The right approach would be to talk to real life young people and young adults in this position and come to an understanding based on their experiences. The nuances of medical gatekeeping are at least a book-length treatise, probably multi-volume. Please, talk to some trans people in your life and parents of trans people with an open mind. Middle ground positions sound ok, but this this a squishy topic with infinite dimensions and designing systems that try to take a balanced approach do harm in unobvious and subtle ways.

noxer 5y ago
I'm not filling in anything with assumption. The data we have is just rather minimal and incomplete. The 10% "assumption" was made for the sake of the example. Since we dont know the real percentage but we know its statistically there and its positive. Could it be just 5%? Maybe, but 5% is still more than 0%. The numbers don't change the overall moral/ethical problem of creating more harm by tying to help people. Does it really matter how much more harm it causes? >The right approach would be to talk to real life young people and young adults in this position and come to an understanding based on their experiences. Why would you assume I have not? And understanding their experience is fine but their experiences don't change numbers, studies, statistics etc. You can argue the numbers are weak and that is true (we need better data to make informed decisions) but that still does not give "their experience" any kind of value as a counterargument. If there is evidence that shows that lives can be saved by not doing certain medical treatments, especially early treatments and instead postponing them with minimal negative side effects, how would the "understanding the experience" of individuals affect this? They might disagree but that doesn't make it not true and in their best interest. We generally dont ask people with comparable problems what they think is best for them and then just do that. We may ask them to study the problem and even as part of the decision making process how to treat them. All of this is fine if done on an individual level. But if we make an overall statement it certainly should not be to "understanding their experience" by listening to the affected people and then do as they wish. There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. >Middle ground positions sound ok, but this this a squishy topic with infinite dimensions and designing systems that try to take a balanced approach do harm in unobvious and subtle ways. Well we are expressing opinions here and sometimes you cant get them across in a "middle ground" way. But looking at each case individually seems kinda middle ground to me.