Gender Dysphoria - GREAT article.

[jerryskids 5,212]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nearly 40 pct of students at Brown University identify as lgbtq. Groomed. 

We are told that there are no fake cases, that the explosion is due to increased acceptance.  So now we know that at least 40% of mankind is on the spectrum.  Somehow our species is still here though.   

[squistion 898]

1 hour ago, Mike Hunt said:

 

But sexually they are not, nor should be the same group as gays.

Why not add midgets and put an M on the end?

And lesbians, "sexually they are not" in the same group as gays either if you want to be technical. 

[squistion 898]

37 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nearly 40 pct of students at Brown University identify as lgbtq. Groomed. 

No one believes that outside of folks like you. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

No one believes that outside of folks like you. 

Oh, I don’t. I do believe they claim they are though.  And think they are after being groomed.  

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

No one believes that outside of folks like you. 

Even funnier, they also believe that it'll be 100% in a couple more decades.   I remember them gobbling it up after Maher did a New Rules on it.   That's why they are afraid - they actually believe they can be converted. 

[dogcows 1,029]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm interested in this "medical consensus."  And don't use political/lobbying groups like the APA, they don't do research.

This doctor's point is that there is no research out there but there should be, he knows the limits of what he did scientifically, so he wants to do a larger study.  Are you saying that isn't necessary?  To look at the explosion of "diagnoses," self or otherwise, in the past 10 years, in girls in particular, and not at least want to look into possible causes, defies not only comprehension but any idea that the  medical community cares at all.

I was addressing the larger issue in which BlueSuedeHorseshoes thinks “cancel culture” might suddenly flip against most doctors in America. We have medical consensus on most things, so I don’t see his suggestion as being anywhere near close to reality. 

As for gender care, it’s a newer field, but large medical associations have already listed guidelines.

Now, I’m a bit unclear what organizations you think are too political to be trusted. The large associations such as ACOG (for ob-gyns) serve multiple purposes. They are political in the sense that they lobby for the profession, protecting doctors, etc. But they also often publish and/or sponsor medical journals, and post clinical guides on their websites.

If you’re looking for research, it’s not all done by a central organization, but at many different universities, as you’re no doubt aware. So these associations, along with medical journals and reference guides, often serve as a clearing house.

Probably the most trusted medical reference I’m aware of is the Merck Manual. Most doctors have physical copies, but it’s 2023 so it’s on the web too. Here’s what it says on the topic:

https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/gender-incongruence-and-gender-dysphoria/gender-incongruence-and-gender-dysphoria

Here’s what a medical association, ACOG has to say about it:

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2021/03/health-care-for-transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals#

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,529]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I'm interested in this "medical consensus."  And don't use political/lobbying groups like the APA, they don't do research.

This doctor's point is that there is no research out there but there should be, he knows the limits of what he did scientifically, so he wants to do a larger study.  Are you saying that isn't necessary?  To look at the explosion of "diagnoses," self or otherwise, in the past 10 years, in girls in particular, and not at least want to look into possible causes, defies not only comprehension but any idea that the  medical community cares at all.

The resistance by dogshiat for further studies says it all: They don't want it because they know what the outcome is going to be and don't want to face it.  An outcome logical people with brains, common sense and who aren't tied to the DNC Glory Hole Propaganda already know.

[Sagging Scrot 44]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:14 PM, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The resistance by dogshiat for further studies says it all: They don't want it because they know what the outcome is going to be and don't want to face it.  An outcome logical people with brains, common sense and who aren't tied to the DNC Glory Hole Propaganda already know.

The left is so stupid 

[edjr 5,569]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:14 PM, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The resistance by dogshiat for further studies says it all: They don't want it because they know what the outcome is going to be and don't want to face it.  An outcome logical people with brains, common sense and who aren't tied to the DNC Glory Hole Propaganda already know.

ed it

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[BuckSwope 654]

5 hours ago, League Champion said:

 

Ok, this one made me laugh.  

[League Champion 1,593]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

Ok, this one made me laugh.  

Thank you Buck, I didn't know Liberals had a laugh mechanism,. however I'm glad you enjoyed. 

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[League Champion 1,593]

And then there's this. WTF is wrong with Liberals???

 

 

[BuckSwope 654]

3 hours ago, League Champion said:

Thank you Buck, I didn't know Liberals had a laugh mechanism,. however I'm glad you enjoyed. 

I find a bit of your sh1t funny, there's just way too much of it, gb so I put you on ignore and open from time to time for a laugh.   

[League Champion 1,593]

13 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I find a bit of your sh1t funny, there's just way too much of it, gb so I put you on ignore and open from time to time for a laugh.   

I understand but I think it's imperative that we expose this insanity with every chance we get. I never talk politics when in the football side, ever. 

It amazes me how the Libs defend these behaviors. 

[jerryskids 5,212]

On 7/10/2023 at 5:02 PM, dogcows said:

I was addressing the larger issue in which BlueSuedeHorseshoes thinks “cancel culture” might suddenly flip against most doctors in America. We have medical consensus on most things, so I don’t see his suggestion as being anywhere near close to reality. 

As for gender care, it’s a newer field, but large medical associations have already listed guidelines.

Now, I’m a bit unclear what organizations you think are too political to be trusted. The large associations such as ACOG (for ob-gyns) serve multiple purposes. They are political in the sense that they lobby for the profession, protecting doctors, etc. But they also often publish and/or sponsor medical journals, and post clinical guides on their websites.

If you’re looking for research, it’s not all done by a central organization, but at many different universities, as you’re no doubt aware. So these associations, along with medical journals and reference guides, often serve as a clearing house.

Probably the most trusted medical reference I’m aware of is the Merck Manual. Most doctors have physical copies, but it’s 2023 so it’s on the web too. Here’s what it says on the topic:

https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/gender-incongruence-and-gender-dysphoria/gender-incongruence-and-gender-dysphoria

Here’s what a medical association, ACOG has to say about it:

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2021/03/health-care-for-transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals#

Thanks, and sorry I missed this when you posted it.

Your first link has a good series of definitions of terms, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion of medical consensus or actual research.

Your second link is clearly politically-driven:

Quote

ABSTRACT: An estimated 150,000 youth and 1.4 million adults living in the United States identify as transgender. This Committee Opinion offers guidance on providing inclusive and affirming care as well as clinical information on hormone therapy and preventive care; it also cites existing resources for those seeking information on the care of transgender adolescents. The social and economic marginalization of transgender individuals is widespread, which leads to health care inequities and poorer health outcomes for this population. To reduce the inequities experienced by the transgender community, the provision of inclusive health care is essential. Obstetrician–gynecologists should strive to make their offices open to and inclusive for all individuals and should seek out education to address health care disparities, both in their individual practices and in the larger health care system. In order to provide the best care for patients, it is useful to know which health care professionals to include in a referral network for primary care and to have many clinician and surgeon options given the many different therapies available and the different sites at which these therapies are offered. It is important to remember that although hormone therapy is a medically necessary treatment for many transgender individuals with gender dysphoria, not all transgender patients experience gender dysphoria and not everyone desires hormone treatment.

- It's a committee opinion, not research-based.

- Second bolded talks about their opinions driving the recommendations.

- "Medically necessary", really?

Later they also say the following:

Quote

• The majority of medications used for gender transition are common and can be safely prescribed by a wide variety of health care professionals with appropriate training and education, including, but not limited to, obstetrician–gynecologists, family or internal medicine physicians, endocrinologists, advanced practice clinicians, and psychiatrists.

Aside from the fact that certain medications like whatever cocktail helps men to lactate have not been tested on the impact of the infants drinking the... output, it amazes me that they are saying any doctor with a pulse can prescribe gender-destroying medicine.  

Anyway, I strongly recommend you listen to that Free Press pod I suggested in another (I think) thread recently; if you need the link let me know.  It talks about the concerns that I share, and why Britain and other European countries are doing massive changes in the way they approach this subject.   

[Strike 3,981]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

Anyway, I strongly recommend you listen to that Free Press pod I suggested in another (I think) thread recently; if you need the link let me know.  It talks about the concerns that I share,

If you've got it handy I'd like to listen to it.

[dogcows 1,029]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks, and sorry I missed this when you posted it.

Your first link has a good series of definitions of terms, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion of medical consensus or actual research.

Your second link is clearly politically-driven:

- It's a committee opinion, not research-based.

- Second bolded talks about their opinions driving the recommendations.

- "Medically necessary", really?

Later they also say the following:

Aside from the fact that certain medications like whatever cocktail helps men to lactate have not been tested on the impact of the infants drinking the... output, it amazes me that they are saying any doctor with a pulse can prescribe gender-destroying medicine.  

Anyway, I strongly recommend you listen to that Free Press pod I suggested in another (I think) thread recently; if you need the link let me know.  It talks about the concerns that I share, and why Britain and other European countries are doing massive changes in the way they approach this subject.   

The first link is a summary of best practices for dealing with the condition. It reflects the latest research, and is heavily footnoted with said research. If you want to know what the medical consensus is on something, the Merck guide is the best resource I know of.

ACOG’s guidance on gender care is not political; it’s pretty standard. Look at other industry association websites and you will see many similarities. It’s just that the right has decided to politicize this issue. Therefore, any organization that doesn’t agree with them is suddenly political.

If the right-wing wasn’t playing anti-trans songs all day every day, none of what’s on the ACOG site would even be controversial. Nobody uses the term “gender destroying medicine” unless they’ve got a pretty strongly biased opinion on the topic, for example.

I listened to about 20 minutes of the podcast. So far, I learned that the Tavistock clinic was almost criminally mismanaged. I’m waiting to see how they get from one bad clinic to questioning all gender care in the world.

I will say that “we should follow the UK’s example” is not a very convincing argument on its own. So hopefully by the conclusion of the podcast they will have put some better points forward.

[seafoam1 1,879]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The first link is a summary of best practices for dealing with the condition. It reflects the latest research, and is heavily footnoted with said research. If you want to know what the medical consensus is on something, the Merck guide is the best resource I know of.

ACOG’s guidance on gender care is not political; it’s pretty standard. Look at other industry association websites and you will see many similarities. It’s just that the right has decided to politicize this issue. Therefore, any organization that doesn’t agree with them is suddenly political.

If the right-wing wasn’t playing anti-trans songs all day every day, none of what’s on the ACOG site would even be controversial. Nobody uses the term “gender destroying medicine” unless they’ve got a pretty strongly biased opinion on the topic, for example.

I listened to about 20 minutes of the podcast. So far, I learned that the Tavistock clinic was almost criminally mismanaged. I’m waiting to see how they get from one bad clinic to questioning all gender care in the world.

I will say that “we should follow the UK’s example” is not a very convincing argument on its own. So hopefully by the conclusion of the podcast they will have put some better points forward.

Why does does anyone have to deal with that sickness? Just stop pushing it on kids you idiot.

[jerryskids 5,212]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

If you've got it handy I'd like to listen to it.

https://www.thefp.com/p/when-gender-ideology-corrupts-medicine-tavistock

I see it has a transcript now, if you'd rather read instead of listen. 

[Strike 3,981]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

https://www.thefp.com/p/when-gender-ideology-corrupts-medicine-tavistock

I see it has a transcript now, if you'd rather read instead of listen. 

Thanks.  Listening now.

[jerryskids 5,212]

9 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The first link is a summary of best practices for dealing with the condition. It reflects the latest research, and is heavily footnoted with said research. If you want to know what the medical consensus is on something, the Merck guide is the best resource I know of.

ACOG’s guidance on gender care is not political; it’s pretty standard. Look at other industry association websites and you will see many similarities. It’s just that the right has decided to politicize this issue. Therefore, any organization that doesn’t agree with them is suddenly political.

If the right-wing wasn’t playing anti-trans songs all day every day, none of what’s on the ACOG site would even be controversial. Nobody uses the term “gender destroying medicine” unless they’ve got a pretty strongly biased opinion on the topic, for example.

I listened to about 20 minutes of the podcast. So far, I learned that the Tavistock clinic was almost criminally mismanaged. I’m waiting to see how they get from one bad clinic to questioning all gender care in the world.

I will say that “we should follow the UK’s example” is not a very convincing argument on its own. So hopefully by the conclusion of the podcast they will have put some better points forward.

Yes, there are references, and some of those are scientific.  Those references, however, do not exactly support what you think they do.  For instance:

Quote

The gender trajectory for gender-incongruent prepubescent children cannot be reliably predicted in advance. Some studies have found that a majority of study participants with childhood gender incongruence remained stable in this gender identity as adolescents (4). In other studies, among study participants diagnosed with gender dysphoria as children, a minority continued to meet diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria as adults (5, 6), and also a minority of those who expressed nonclinically significant levels of gender incongruence (did not meet diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria) continued to express gender incongruity as adults.

There is considerable controversy over whether or at which age to support the social and/or medical gender transition of young prepubertal children with gender dysphoria. There is no conclusive research to guide this decision (7, 8 ); however long-term, prospective studies are underway (4).

Also, I said "gender destroying" because I find the phrase "gender affirming" to be equally biased and I avoid it whenever possible.  The process of using hormones, chemicals, and/or surgery to mutilate one's sexual organs is not exactly "affirming;" rather, it is the opposite.  I'm still trying to think of a good word, because "destroying" is admittedly going to rankle some snowflakes.  If you have any ideas I'd be open to them.   

[dogcows 1,029]

14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Yes, there are references, and some of those are scientific.  Those references, however, do not exactly support what you think they do.  For instance:

Also, I said "gender destroying" because I find the phrase "gender affirming" to be equally biased and I avoid it whenever possible.  The process of using hormones, chemicals, and/or surgery to mutilate one's sexual organs is not exactly "affirming;" rather, it is the opposite.  I'm still trying to think of a good word, because "destroying" is admittedly going to rankle some snowflakes.  If you have any ideas I'd be open to them.   

Regarding the Merck guide, I posted it because I think it is likely to be the most conservative (medically, not politically) of any guide. If they say some areas need more research? They are going to say so, and I think that’s a good approach for such a general medical publication.

As for terminology, gender-modifying seems like it would be more accurate. I am sure there is a transgender person who might be able to explain why “affirming” is better than “modifying” but doesn’t seem like it should be too polarizing to me.

[jerryskids 5,212]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Regarding the Merck guide, I posted it because I think it is likely to be the most conservative (medically, not politically) of any guide. If they say some areas need more research? They are going to say so, and I think that’s a good approach for such a general medical publication.

As for terminology, gender-modifying seems like it would be more accurate. I am sure there is a transgender person who might be able to explain why “affirming” is better than “modifying” but doesn’t seem like it should be too polarizing to me.

They did say there is no conclusive research guiding the decisions in the part I quoted, which is one of the main points of the podcast: how can we be doing these things, particularly to children, without such research?  In no other medical field would this be allowed.

I thought about "modifying" but didn't like it for some reason that I can't think of now, and it does seem better (certainly less provocative) as I read it in your post, so I'll go with that unless I can remember my original objection. 

 

[dogcows 1,029]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

They did say there is no conclusive research guiding the decisions in the part I quoted, which is one of the main points of the podcast: how can we be doing these things, particularly to children, without such research?  In no other medical field would this be allowed.

I thought about "modifying" but didn't like it for some reason that I can't think of now, and it does seem better (certainly less provocative) as I read it in your post, so I'll go with that unless I can remember my original objection. 

 

The thing is, I think the Merck guide is representative of what is happening 99% of the time. Doctors are very cautious prescribing gender care for prepubescent kids.

Most things in medicine don’t have conclusive research. Did you know we have an FDA for Drugs and medical devices… but no such controls for surgery? There is no literally no formal approval process for surgical procedures. Even the FDA process is more about safety than effectiveness. A drug only needs to be marginally more effective than a placebo to be considered “effecfive.” And then there’s off-label use which is essentially unregulated.

Interesting article here about how less than half our medical treatments are truly evidence-based:

https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-10-16/patashnik

Thing is, we probably can’t prove the effectiveness of every medical treatment. We educate our doctors as well as possible, give them all the resources we can muster, and trust them to behave ethically. I don’t like it when politicians come in and try to dictate otherwise. Because although doctors aren’t perfect, they are much more knowledgeable than lawmakers, especially ones playing games for votes. I think a better solution is to disseminate as much information about transgender youth care as possible - good and bad. So that parents and doctors can make informed decisions.

On a more general medical level, I think it would make sense to set up an agency, staffed by medical professionals and scientists, to study and approve surgeries, much like the FDA for drugs and devices.

[League Champion 1,593]

17 minutes ago, dogcows said:

On a more general medical level, I think it would make sense to set up an agency, staffed by medical professionals and scientists, to study and approve surgeries, much like the FDA for drugs and devices.

That makes zero sense. How about you're all F'd up and NO SURGERY FOR YOU!!! I will offer them a shrink to help them figure out what's between their legs

[Strike 3,981]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

https://www.thefp.com/p/when-gender-ideology-corrupts-medicine-tavistock

I see it has a transcript now, if you'd rather read instead of listen. 

The transcript is just a few chosen snippets.  I'd recommend anyone who wants to be knowledgeable on this issue listen to the whole thing.  I wait for our liberal friends who support "gender affirming" care to come back after having listened to it to tell us what points in that discussion are wrong.

[Strike 3,981]

And in contrast to the GREAT points made in that FP podcast, here is Rachel Levine on "gender affirming" care:

[jerryskids 5,212]

52 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The thing is, I think the Merck guide is representative of what is happening 99% of the time. Doctors are very cautious prescribing gender care for prepubescent kids.

Most things in medicine don’t have conclusive research. Did you know we have an FDA for Drugs and medical devices… but no such controls for surgery? There is no literally no formal approval process for surgical procedures. Even the FDA process is more about safety than effectiveness. A drug only needs to be marginally more effective than a placebo to be considered “effecfive.” And then there’s off-label use which is essentially unregulated.

Interesting article here about how less than half our medical treatments are truly evidence-based:

https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-10-16/patashnik

Thing is, we probably can’t prove the effectiveness of every medical treatment. We educate our doctors as well as possible, give them all the resources we can muster, and trust them to behave ethically. I don’t like it when politicians come in and try to dictate otherwise. Because although doctors aren’t perfect, they are much more knowledgeable than lawmakers, especially ones playing games for votes. I think a better solution is to disseminate as much information about transgender youth care as possible - good and bad. So that parents and doctors can make informed decisions.

On a more general medical level, I think it would make sense to set up an agency, staffed by medical professionals and scientists, to study and approve surgeries, much like the FDA for drugs and devices.

I think you are off by a significant amount with your 99%, which is the crux of why we have this debate.  If you listen to the pod, kids (in the UK) were being fast tracked to invasive procedures after a handful of counseling sessions.  You can call that "mismanagement," but I've mentioned here that we've gone from 0 to 100+ (I forget the number) of gender clinics in the US, whose very existence depends on positive assessments.

Also you specifically call out "prepubescent" kids.  I presume (hope) there is more care in that area, but the ROGD (or whatever you want to call it that avoids that triggering name) happens in puberty, primarily girls who are suddenly uncomfortably in their flowering womanhood and the attention it gets from boys.

Anyway, back on topic, I am indeed surprised that there is no surgical equivalent of the FDA for surgery.  There are of course SOPs for surgeries in general to make them safe, and I'm sure all surgeries follow those procedures.  Your link makes a case that the lack of oversight is a bad thing, so if your defense is that we should continue doing a bad thing for gender surgeries, congrats I guess.  Similarly for off-label drugs, using them poorly may be legal but it doesn't make it right.

I agree with your assertion that we should disseminate as much info as possible, good and bad.  Unfortunately your side controls the info, and any attempts to provide the bad are attacked.

Finally, I'd have to think on the agency for surgeries.  To add another FDA-level bloat to our medical system is concerning.   

[League Champion 1,593]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Finally, I'd have to think on the agency for surgeries.  To add another FDA-level bloat to our medical system is concerning. 

More Government 

[Strike 3,981]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Finally, I'd have to think on the agency for surgeries.  To add another FDA-level bloat to our medical system is concerning.   

No.  I'd need to see more about all these unnecessary surgeries, but the lefties have been telling me for decades that we need universal healthcare because the evil insurance companies deny any healthcare they can, even if it's needed.  I find it hard to believe these same evil entities are repeatedly approving useless surgeries.

[edjr 5,569]

skids with a resounding victory in this thread. Well spoken/written.

Enjoy the trophy. We named it after drobeski

[Strike 3,981]

Just now, edjr said:

skids with a resounding victory in this thread. Well spoken/written.

Enjoy the trophy. We named it after drobeski

Pretty sure Drobeski named it after Drobeski.  Not saying he didn't deserve it, but he didn't even give us the chance to name it after him.  He claimed it.

[dogcows 1,029]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Also you specifically call out "prepubescent" kids.

I was referencing the quote you posted from the Merck guide, which specifically referred to prepubescent kids. 

[Sagging Scrot 44]

Science say 2 genders.

[League Champion 1,593]

Just now, Sagging Scrot said:

Science say 2 genders.

Science, what's that? For Liberals it only applies to weather anymore, apparently. 

[Sagging Scrot 44]

1 minute ago, League Champion said:

Science, what's that? For Liberals it only applies to weather anymore, apparently. 

And 76 boosters a day