5 ms·

This blogpost is not fairly representing the current state of the conversation about care for transgender kids. That is dishonest behavior and as a secular huma

by ttpphd 4y ago

This blogpost is not fairly representing the current state of the conversation about care for transgender kids. That is dishonest behavior and as a secular humanist I feel obligated to call in and present a fuller picture. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022056567/188709/Sex-Assigned-at-Birth-Ratio-Among-Transgender-and https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e20220... "Our findings from a national sample of adolescents across 16 states reveal that the sex assigned at birth ratio of transgender adolescents does not favor transgender adolescents assigned female sex at birth." The claims of social contagion and so on have been examined and they just aren't true. It is also wrong to represent that level of uncertainty about puberty blockers, which have been and continue to be used by cis children for years without a peep or a poop from those currently in a panic about trans kids on puberty blockers. It is also paternalistic and authoritarian to say that weighing risks and benefits of puberty blockers should be done by culture warrior politicians rather than a conversation between a patient and a doctor. The data are in, the debate is settled: it's simply a moral panic and it harms real people to pretend there are enough open questions to merit further discussion. You're just being a bigot who refuses to acknowledge empirical reality at that point, not a secular humanist. 1 out of 4 stars.

savingsPossible 4y ago
> In Europe, some medical groups have discouraged or limited the use of puberty blockers.[17] Following the Bell v Tavistock decision by the High Court of Justice for England and Wales, in which the High Court ruled children under 16 were not competent to give informed consent to puberty blockers — overturned by the Court of Appeal in September 2021 — Sweden's Karolinska Institute, administrator of the second-largest hospital system in the country, announced in March 2021 that it would discontinue providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children under 16. Additionally, the Karolinska Institute changed its policy to cease providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to teenagers 16–18, outside of approved clinical trials.[82] On 22 February 2022, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare said that puberty blockers should only be used in "exceptional cases" and said that their use is backed by "uncertain science".[19] However, other providers in Sweden continue to provide puberty blockers and in Sweden, a clinician's professional judgment determines what treatments are recommended or not recommended. Youth are able to access gender-affirming care when doctors deem it medically necessary. The treatment is not banned in Sweden, unlike in Alabama and Arkansas, and is offered as part of its national healthcare service.[19][83][84] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker#Legal_and_political_challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker#Legal_and_poli... Puberty blockers are not a settled matter in the medical community. > It is also wrong to represent that level of uncertainty about puberty blockers, which have been and continue to be used by cis children for years without a peep or a poop from those currently in a panic about trans kids on puberty blockers. the effects of blocking early puberty might be very different that those of blocking "in time" puberty I wonder if it was me... If I was trans, would I be desperate, and pissed about people trying to dispassionately discuss issues that would greatly affect my life. Maybe... But it seems like a general rule: to get to a good decision, we always need dispassionate discussion. Usually for much a greater time than the passionate people would give us.
- ttpphd 4y ago
  Yes, the current debate rests on denying the autonomy of teenagers to make decisions about their healthcare. So here we are having a conversation about it, and politicians are whipping up hatred using the topic. According to all other normal standards of care the doctor's duty is to the patient themselves. Not the patient's parents, not the patient's mayor, not the patient's high court. The doctor's duties are to the teenage patients and excluding them from the conversation about their own bodies should strike us all as suspect.
0ct4via 4y ago
I appreciate your reply very much, it was incredibly thought-out and informative, especially for those unaware of the issues. As I continued reading the article, it seemed less "secular humanist" and more "religious Conservative pearl-clutching," with all the ignorant bigoted claims of "think of the children!" Christians decrying the existence of trans people. 4 out of 4 start for your comment.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  I have no dog in the trans debate, but I think you’re exhibiting the exact type of behavior the author is talking about. Because a self-professed secular humanist talked about an issue in a way you don’t agree, you’ve already branded her a “religious conservative” even though she’s definitely not that (I mean, she’s a director at the Richard Dawkins foundation!)..
  - 0ct4via 4y ago
    Nah, I didn't brand the author anything of the sort -- I merely raised the point that the type to spout the anti-trans rhetoric in TFA, is often done by religious conservative types. Perhaps you should read more carefully, and not be so quick to make baseless assumptions and accusations? You could also go look at the secular humanists in the comments who are decrying this as actually being secular humanism to begin with.
    - zeofig 4y ago
      Well you literally said that the article is 'less "secular humanist" and more "religious Conservative pearl-clutching,"' Perhaps that's not strictly branding the author as a religious conservative, but I might go so far as to say that your comment is less "merely raising a point" and more "making baseless assumptions and accusations" I will refrain from smugly assigning a star-based rating
      - 0ct4via 4y ago
        I said seems, not was. Reading it as appearing in a similar way to the "religious Conservative pearl-clutching" rhetoric is drawing a similarity, not making an absolute declaration. It's neither assuming nor accusing when there's empirical evidence to draw the similarity, and no formal accusation was made. Try sticking to facts, not assumptions and hypocrisy.

by ttpphd 4y ago

savingsPossible 4y ago

> In Europe, some medical groups have discouraged or limited the use of puberty blockers.[17] Following the Bell v Tavistock decision by the High Court of Justice for England and Wales, in which the High Court ruled children under 16 were not competent to give informed consent to puberty blockers — overturned by the Court of Appeal in September 2021 — Sweden's Karolinska Institute, administrator of the second-largest hospital system in the country, announced in March 2021 that it would discontinue providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children under 16. Additionally, the Karolinska Institute changed its policy to cease providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to teenagers 16–18, outside of approved clinical trials.[82] On 22 February 2022, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare said that puberty blockers should only be used in "exceptional cases" and said that their use is backed by "uncertain science".[19] However, other providers in Sweden continue to provide puberty blockers and in Sweden, a clinician's professional judgment determines what treatments are recommended or not recommended. Youth are able to access gender-affirming care when doctors deem it medically necessary. The treatment is not banned in Sweden, unlike in Alabama and Arkansas, and is offered as part of its national healthcare service.[19][83][84] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker#Legal_and_political_challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker#Legal_and_poli... Puberty blockers are not a settled matter in the medical community. > It is also wrong to represent that level of uncertainty about puberty blockers, which have been and continue to be used by cis children for years without a peep or a poop from those currently in a panic about trans kids on puberty blockers. the effects of blocking early puberty might be very different that those of blocking "in time" puberty I wonder if it was me... If I was trans, would I be desperate, and pissed about people trying to dispassionately discuss issues that would greatly affect my life. Maybe... But it seems like a general rule: to get to a good decision, we always need dispassionate discussion. Usually for much a greater time than the passionate people would give us.

ttpphd 4y ago
Yes, the current debate rests on denying the autonomy of teenagers to make decisions about their healthcare. So here we are having a conversation about it, and politicians are whipping up hatred using the topic. According to all other normal standards of care the doctor's duty is to the patient themselves. Not the patient's parents, not the patient's mayor, not the patient's high court. The doctor's duties are to the teenage patients and excluding them from the conversation about their own bodies should strike us all as suspect.

0ct4via 4y ago

I appreciate your reply very much, it was incredibly thought-out and informative, especially for those unaware of the issues. As I continued reading the article, it seemed less "secular humanist" and more "religious Conservative pearl-clutching," with all the ignorant bigoted claims of "think of the children!" Christians decrying the existence of trans people. 4 out of 4 start for your comment.

boeingUH60 4y ago
I have no dog in the trans debate, but I think you’re exhibiting the exact type of behavior the author is talking about. Because a self-professed secular humanist talked about an issue in a way you don’t agree, you’ve already branded her a “religious conservative” even though she’s definitely not that (I mean, she’s a director at the Richard Dawkins foundation!)..
- 0ct4via 4y ago
  Nah, I didn't brand the author anything of the sort -- I merely raised the point that the type to spout the anti-trans rhetoric in TFA, is often done by religious conservative types. Perhaps you should read more carefully, and not be so quick to make baseless assumptions and accusations? You could also go look at the secular humanists in the comments who are decrying this as actually being secular humanism to begin with.
  - zeofig 4y ago
    Well you literally said that the article is 'less "secular humanist" and more "religious Conservative pearl-clutching,"' Perhaps that's not strictly branding the author as a religious conservative, but I might go so far as to say that your comment is less "merely raising a point" and more "making baseless assumptions and accusations" I will refrain from smugly assigning a star-based rating
    - 0ct4via 4y ago
      I said seems, not was. Reading it as appearing in a similar way to the "religious Conservative pearl-clutching" rhetoric is drawing a similarity, not making an absolute declaration. It's neither assuming nor accusing when there's empirical evidence to draw the similarity, and no formal accusation was made. Try sticking to facts, not assumptions and hypocrisy.