The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine

trans-rights activists like to accuse skeptics of youth gender medicine—and publications that dare to report their views—of fomenting a “moral panic.” But the movement has spent the past decade telling gender-nonconforming children that anyone who tries to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormones is, effectively, trying to kill them. This was false, as Strangio’s answer tacitly conceded. It was also irresponsible.

Just an excerpt of a hostility ridden article.

Here is a study that shows of 220 youth trans participants, 9 of them regretted it. Of those 9, 4 stopped receiving that care, and 1 planned to stop.

So instead of focusing on droning on and on about the whole “dead son or alive trans daughter” shit, let’s look at actual stats.

For everyone else, however, the choice is still open. We can support civil-rights protections for transgender people without having to endorse an experimental and unproven set of medical treatments—or having to repeat emotionally manipulative and now discredited claims about suicide.

I am not a fan of the American way of settling political disputes, by kicking them over to an escalating series of judges. But in the case of youth gender medicine, the legal system has provided clarity and disclosure that might otherwise not exist. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s oral questioning in Skrmetti and the discovery process in Alabama, we now have a clearer picture of how youth gender medicine has really been operating in the United States, and an uncomfortable insight into how advocacy groups and medical associations have tamped down their own concerns about its evidence base. Those of us who have been urging caution now know that many of our ostensible opponents had the same concerns. They just smothered them, for political reasons.

Interesting, but not backed by science it seems.

Also, this is Helen Lewis, the author of this “well written piece” writing for The Times in 2017:

What the government proposes is a radical rewriting of our understanding of identity: now it’s a question of an internal essence — a soul, if you will. Being a woman or a man is now entirely in your head. In this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a women’s changing room? That’s why feminists have raised the alarm over the move to self-identification, along with some older trans people who fear that “trendsters” will erode the goodwill they have worked hard to acquire.

It seems that this Author might be a bit biased against trans people even existing in general, no?

This shit needs to stop.

ETA: This took 15 minutes to research and write. @Davriellelouna@lemmy.world, you ought to do better. If something seems to go against the grain of what every reputable medical body suggests for treatment of something, you might want to do a bit of due diligence first.

1 comments

trans-rights activists like to accuse skeptics of youth gender medicine—and publications that dare to report their views—of fomenting a “moral panic.” But the movement has spent the past decade telling gender-nonconforming children that anyone who tries to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormones is, effectively, trying to kill them. This was false, as Strangio’s answer tacitly conceded. It was also irresponsible.
Just an excerpt of a hostility ridden article.
Here is a study that shows of 220 youth trans participants, 9 of them regretted it. Of those 9, 4 stopped receiving that care, and 1 planned to stop.
So instead of focusing on droning on and on about the whole “dead son or alive trans daughter” shit, let’s look at actual stats.
For everyone else, however, the choice is still open. We can support civil-rights protections for transgender people without having to endorse an experimental and unproven set of medical treatments—or having to repeat emotionally manipulative and now discredited claims about suicide.
I am not a fan of the American way of settling political disputes, by kicking them over to an escalating series of judges. But in the case of youth gender medicine, the legal system has provided clarity and disclosure that might otherwise not exist. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s oral questioning in Skrmetti and the discovery process in Alabama, we now have a clearer picture of how youth gender medicine has really been operating in the United States, and an uncomfortable insight into how advocacy groups and medical associations have tamped down their own concerns about its evidence base. Those of us who have been urging caution now know that many of our ostensible opponents had the same concerns. They just smothered them, for political reasons.
Interesting, but not backed by science it seems.
Also, this is Helen Lewis, the author of this “well written piece” writing for The Times in 2017:
What the government proposes is a radical rewriting of our understanding of identity: now it’s a question of an internal essence — a soul, if you will. Being a woman or a man is now entirely in your head. In this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a women’s changing room? That’s why feminists have raised the alarm over the move to self-identification, along with some older trans people who fear that “trendsters” will erode the goodwill they have worked hard to acquire.
It seems that this Author might be a bit biased against trans people even existing in general, no?
This shit needs to stop.
ETA: This took 15 minutes to research and write. @Davriellelouna@lemmy.world, you ought to do better. If something seems to go against the grain of what every reputable medical body suggests for treatment of something, you might want to do a bit of due diligence first.