It's also completely moronic to be in favour of banning or greatly restricting access to gender affirming care for minors to "protect kids", because doing so will harm waaaay more kids.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
Halftrack from redcafe says "completely moronic" yet legitimate experts, who have studied all the available data, seem to think differently. Who to believe...
In mammalian physiology, there are only 2 sexes (barring any genetic or in utero abnormalities, which are an exception). Citing all other species as an example of gay or gender fluid behaviours is disingenuous in this type of discussion as we're not discussing amoeba, bacterium or what have you. Although, I feel like we've had this conversation before.
There are studies and reports I am going to believe not having read them, and studies and reports I am not going to believe not having read them.
The post truth reality of the internet world.
The post truth reality of the internet world.
There's lots of bad studies out there though who don't adhere to best practices for research and statistical calculations. I mean that in general, not necessarily on this subject.
It's hard for a layman to know what to believe. But there seems to be evidence that right-wingers are making it out to be worse than it is. However, then the question is: why are multiple countries changing their policy on this? Are they all wrong?
Absolutely. And a big part of the work around writing a review like this Cass report is systematically weeding out the bad research from the good. That and identifying gaps in the evidence base where there just isn’t any good research at all. Which seems to have been one of the main criticisms coming out of this report, interventions made in the absence of good evidence to support them.
I suppose you would have to have experts who have the background a qualifications, get them to look into the matter and make recommendation's and go through what has happened and why. That would settle it right...
There are two conflicting ideologies, which ever one you personally believe, ask yourself, would you question this report if it supported your side of the argument. ( question not specifically directed at the quoted poster).
Mammalian biology? Why so specific? We are mammals but so what?
In any case many/most non-mammalian species are biologically male or female. Again so what?
In some fish species (gobies and anemome fish) actual physiological sex reversal routinely occurs.
Again so what? Only humans, often routed in religion, stress about such things.
Because they were correct and not pandering to any non-scientific agenda.
Trans stuff brings the loons out to play.
Ironically, in the Bible there are three. Those who are born so, made so (by the cruelty of man), and are so (for the love of God).
Try a post-colonial reading of that. I don't think the right would buy it. What is a Eunuch born from their mother's womb if not precisely, if we modernize it, the conundrum or problem of Queer theory in academia? Sexual/gender ambiguity.
Not a religious point, as such, just think it's interesting.
You've admitted to not having read the report.
You can't say with any confidence that this report is "pandering" to any agenda and is not simply the objective look at the facts it presents itself as, while offering absolutely no explanation to why you feel that way.
I've not read more than the overview yet, but I've already noticed a real lack of discussion about what I feel are some pertinent issues with the current/old system, as people focus on more inflammatory and sensationalised elements.
For example, there has been very little discussion of the lack of follow-up checks and the lack of screening for autism, other nuerodeveloomental conditions, and mental health checks, and lots of discussion about the same two or three 'headline' sections that have ended up all over twitter.
True. But reports on what are inexplicably politically contentious subjects akways seem to include right wing biases for "balance".
I can't say anything directly about this report until I read it. And I didn't. But when I have time to read it I will.
No, but on multiple occasions you have indirectly presented it as "pandering" to "right wing biases".
Which reports on trans related issues almost always are. If this turns out to be different I'll say so.
But this isn't a tabloid report on trans issues.
It's a review of a paediatric service offered by the NHS, carried out by a qualified medical professional, with the stated aim being to improve the care offered to the children and young people who need to use such a service.
All of the methodology and citations are there for everybody to see, so I'm confused at this idea that this is somehow part of some right-wing, anti-trans conspiracy.
Also, how exactly are you, personally, going to determine whether this report panders to right-wing biases? It's a near 400 page report with a number of detailed citations. Forgive me for not believing that you're actually going to sit down and read through it all (I know it's highly unlikely that I will).
Maybe.
Eh?
They were only "correct" in as much as they were recommendations pulled together by highly qualified experts, which people like you and I weren't qualified to question. As for "non-scientific agenda", you'd be hard pushed to find any public health measure that would be vulnerable to non-scientific agendas than lockdowns during a pandemic.
And covid stuff didn't?
But no need to tell the loons that.
It did but not with any justification that required any consideration by the adults in the room.
Funny, that’s exactly how I feel now dr Hillary cass has entered the room…
Random trans people online getting angry at a report and right wingers thinking a global vaccine conspiracy is going to kill millions are not the same thing.
What is exactly the same thing, however, is certain members of redcafe being adamant we should listen to experts and ignore “loons” who criticise those expert opinions throughout the pandemic, only to adopt those exact same loon tactics when it comes to an expert report they don’t want to believe in.
No. Covid loons, who are by-and-large people who tend to ignore all experts and instead believe memes on Facebook, are not the same as people not automatically accepting this as the authorative be-all, end-all report with regards to trans healthcare for minors.
Seriously? You missed the whole rent a quote fringe scientists whose lockdown/vaccine sceptic opinions were vastly inflated by covid loons throughout the pandemic. It’s a piece of piss to find an expert whose opinion aligns with your own on any issue which is even slightly contentious. The thing is, those experts don’t tend to be asked to contribute to a thorough, well researched report like this one.
The loons were finding and quoting no-end of "experts" to support their no lockdown, no masks, no vaccine stances.
There were tons of studies being referenced and championed as evidence for not following the guidance. Some were "scientific" and claimed things like prolonged mask-wearing was actually incredibly detrimental to respiratory health, others were sociological and essentially claimed lockdowns would lead to the collapse of civilisation.
It's always funny reading folks who have an obvious bias acting like they're the beacon of impartiality.
there's no need to be so vague about the "bad reports" and "gaps" that cass weeded out since the reasons are given in the report: lack of controls and blindedness.
i remember that we - including specifically the two of us - were looking at peer-reviewed covid studies and finding fault with them in the covid thread.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...lliness-please.452816/page-1643#post-28441866
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...lliness-please.452816/page-1455#post-27403877
the post of yours that i linked to even takes issue with an analysis for ignoring a lot of research! there's no particular reason a one-person govt-comissioned report is free of carelessness or bias, like many of those studies and analyses were.
there's no need to be so vague about the "bad reports" and "gaps" that cass weeded out since the reasons are given in the report: lack of controls and blindedness.
i remember that we - including specifically the two of us - were looking at peer-reviewed covid studies and finding fault with them in the covid thread.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...lliness-please.452816/page-1643#post-28441866
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...lliness-please.452816/page-1455#post-27403877
the post of yours that i linked to even takes issue with an analysis for ignoring a lot of research! there's no particular reason a one-person govt-comissioned report is free of carelessness or bias, like many of those studies and analyses were.
I’m certainly not arguing that peer review should make a piece of research free from scrutiny. And there’s ignoring a lot of research and ignoring a lot of research. The post of mine you quoted refers to a meta-analysis of 18590 studies, that only considered 24 of them as worthy of consideration! I would say lack of blinding and (certainly) lack of control is a very good reason to ignore the results of a clinical trial, providing similar studies that are controlled (and/or blinded) are available.
Now feel free to read and critically appraise the Cass report if you want. I don’t have the time or inclination. My personal inclination is defer to authority when I’m as far out of my wheelhouse as I am here. And I’ll admit that I probably should have done at times during the pandemic. I was extremely critical of the British/Swedish approach at the time but hindsight has proven that the outcomes between the different approaches was nowhere near as different as we thought it would be at the time. Although, I guess, we were dealing with so many unknowns back then. with a brand new and rapidly evolving health crisis. Which is not what the Cass report is dealing with here.
Last edited:
I see they cite Steensma, 2013 on the persistence of gender dysphoria. The study looked at 127 kids over time, and found that only 37% of them persisted over a 4-5 year period. The problem with the study is that a) it included 38 children who were subtreshold for gender dysphoria, and b) it counted the 28 they never heard from again as desisters. So out of the 80 total desisters, up to 66 of them (there's likely some overlap between the subtreshold and non-responders) might not have suffered from gender incongruence to begin with, or their actual outcomes are unknown. The report doesn't mention this, it just cites the numbers, and scores it second highest of the included studies on their modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Seems strange for a review that tossed out numerous studies for not being of sufficient quality to include one where there are obvious problems with its data, and serious questions can be raised about the validity of its findings.
Seems strange for a review that tossed out numerous studies for not being of sufficient quality to include one where there are obvious problems with its data, and serious questions can be raised about the validity of its findings.
Point is, few of these loons needed these "experts" to convince them of anything.
Last edited:
there's no need to be so vague about the "bad reports" and "gaps" that cass weeded out since the reasons are given in the report: lack of controls and blindedness.
These criteria would probably throw out more than 90 % of all medical research.
I picked out a study at random from the list, Achille et al (2020). It's a longitudal study following patients over several years, looking at their mental health as they receive puberty suppressants and/or hormone treatment. Doing blinding here would be impossible, because over years the patients would of course notice that they are going through puberty or that the hormone treatment is having no physical effect. It would also be extremely unethical, even if it was possible.
The Stoffer one is looking at physical changes due to testosterone treatment. Median treatment time in the study was 12 months: once again, that's too long for a blinded study.
Difficult to blind but not impossible. There's a huge range in terms of what is "normal" in terms of the age at which puberty occurs and no one individual could be certain that their own experience isn't part of that normal variarion. And it would obviously not be "extremely unethical" to blind and use control groups because the whole point of these studies is to find out whether these interventions do actually benefit the subjects. As that is currently uncertain, there's no ethical concern about randomly allocating them to the treatment or placebo group, so long as informed consent is obtained.
Nonsense. Blinded RCTs often last several years.
Also, to be clear, it doesn't look as though those studies were "weeded out", just deemed to be at high risk of bias. And this wasn't just due to a lack of blinding/controls alone. They also ended up with that status because of being a poor quality study overall, or a lot of participants lost to follow up.
This is so reminiscent of covid. People who have only a passing grasp of the science getting in way over their head to try and disprove stuff they don't want to believe. The only difference is they're no coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Which is kind of mad/fascinating.
Last edited:
I won't get into the science as though I have read widely around it, I find it very difficult to understand and the language used in many articles, studies, reports etc is often impenetrable and therefore my grasp on it is sketchy at best!
But speaking from experience of having a teenage child who is unsure about their gender, the support from the NHS is almost nil, waiting lists are worse than those for autism ie years and years and that's not waiting for puberty blockers or surgery or anything extreme, just the chance to talk to an expert in the field who could help unpick some of the angst and confusion.
The politicisation of this is also incredibly harmful, to the point of us having to keep the radio and TV news off in the house yesterday and today as it can quickly feel to a vulnerable child caught up in this that the world is against them and their reality is being questioned and often denied.
People wonder why parts of the trans community are so vociferous in calling people out and often seem to do more harm than good in their approach. But if a core part of what makes you you is regularly and publicly denied and even ridiculed, it is hardly surprising that the response will be aggressive.
People using this issue to promote and agenda or to win votes and lots are, have done and continue to do immeasurable harm to young people just trying to find their way in life. There is a huge lack of compassion or any attempt at understanding in this discussion at all levels, it can even be read in this thread, heard on media outputs and even in parliament. How hard is it to talk about this with an open mind and an ounce of kindness?
But speaking from experience of having a teenage child who is unsure about their gender, the support from the NHS is almost nil, waiting lists are worse than those for autism ie years and years and that's not waiting for puberty blockers or surgery or anything extreme, just the chance to talk to an expert in the field who could help unpick some of the angst and confusion.
The politicisation of this is also incredibly harmful, to the point of us having to keep the radio and TV news off in the house yesterday and today as it can quickly feel to a vulnerable child caught up in this that the world is against them and their reality is being questioned and often denied.
People wonder why parts of the trans community are so vociferous in calling people out and often seem to do more harm than good in their approach. But if a core part of what makes you you is regularly and publicly denied and even ridiculed, it is hardly surprising that the response will be aggressive.
People using this issue to promote and agenda or to win votes and lots are, have done and continue to do immeasurable harm to young people just trying to find their way in life. There is a huge lack of compassion or any attempt at understanding in this discussion at all levels, it can even be read in this thread, heard on media outputs and even in parliament. How hard is it to talk about this with an open mind and an ounce of kindness?
To be honest everyone i know personally who opposed vaccines and lockdowns here in Denmark are far left wing nuts and sometimes spiritual. Its probably meaningless in a broader context. Here at home i don't consider left or right wing more or less scientific unless we are talking about religious conservative nutjobs. In the US, Ireland and Britain i suppose there is a more pronounced difference.
In the US most of them are Trump supporters.
Well the republicans are famous for being the stupid party. So are the dems but less so.
I’m over-simplifying. I just find it interesting that the same people attacking expert medical opinion in this context were highly likely to have been defending expert medical opinion throughout covid. Be nice if we could respect medical experts equally, whether or not their opinion aligns with our side of the culture war.
Last edited:
I completely agree.
Hastily gathered medical opinion a lot of the time too, given it was all relating to a continually evolving and pretty much unprecedented global pandemic.
There was differing "expert" guidance being followed and heralded as correct within the UK alone, with the devolved powers allowing Wales and Scotland to take a different approach to England. Never mind how this differed again to other parts of the world.