I don’t actually necessarily think that there’s a contradiction between the Economist article and these links (which I did take a look at, yes). This says that as a whole, giving gender-affirming care to transgender individuals is overwhelmingly good for them. I can believe that. The Economist says that when you limit it to adolescents, it’s a lot less clear. I can also believe that. Do you have sources indicating clear positive outcomes for adolescents? Like I say, I’m genuinely interested in learning.
Hey look, we’re back to concern-trolling trans people so that we can deny them care again
Gee, it’s almost like the economist isn’t a scientific publication
I’m not giving the Economist my info to read this. However, you know what’s a lot less safe than puberty blockers? Teenage suicidality. I’m not trans, but I was a very suicidal teenager, and if trans people say puberty blockers make them safer and less suicidal, I believe them, and we should do everything we can to reduce the number of teens that feel that way. Including puberty blockers. They’re reversible, safe (we’ve been giving them to kids for conventional medical reasons for a long time), and the community affected says they help. How many kids are we willing to let die while we’re waiting for more evidence?
How many kids are we willing to let die while we’re waiting for more evidence?
So - I’m actually not saying we need to ban this use of these drugs until it’s been studied more. The honest truth is, I have no idea about that side of it; my only real opinion on it is that it would be a really good thing to study them in a lot of detail and then make the recommendation based on that.
That’s what bothers me more than anything about the whole conversation. It’s like this reaction of “Well you must be the ENEMY, you really hate trans people and you’re just LYING about wanting to study the drugs, even you being allowed to say that is TERRIBLY DANGEROUS. Just approve the drugs, they’re clearly safe, because I say so, and if you disagree there’s something TERRIBLY WRONG WITH YOU.” I don’t know how else to say it: I am not the enemy, I don’t think.
As far as I can tell, the Economist article is saying that the drugs haven’t been studied in adolescents as much as would be reasonable. I took a bunch of time to look over @sphenoid’s sources in detail, because it’s important to me, and my overall conclusion was in agreement with that statement. So I took time to respond, giving a bunch of detail from my own desire to know more about it, and then the conversation ended.
It just seems weird that my whole viewpoint is “the enemy” and engenders this kind of hatred because everyone assumes that the reasons I’m saying it are borne out of some kind of hatred on my side.
Gee, maybe it’s because we’re talking about a group that’s extremely vulnerable, a group that a lot of people are determined to commit democide against. Even if you feel how you feel for completely innocent reasons, it’s reasonable for people to assume otherwise. Lots of extremists start out sounding vaguely reasonable.
Yeah I get that. The initial reasonable assumption I 100% understand. But I also think a vulnerable community that makes a habit of lashing out and accusing of crypto-democide anyone who’s showing good faith, but just not willing to 100% agree with them on everything without any discussion permitted, is going to find itself more vulnerable and demonized as a result, not less.
The thing of “you have to agree with me or else you’re the enemy” isn’t a good way to go, whether you’re in the majority or the minority. Again I get the reasons why people arrived there. I’m just saying it’s not a good place to be.
Removed by mod
I was talking about the reaction I was getting in this thread, not anything from any outside source.
Where the hell are the mods for this sub?
Is this a propaganda sub?
Scorecard: 21 downvotes, 1 call for my post to be removed, 4 people vigorously telling me I’m wrong, and 0 responses to my polite request for sources showing why this article isn’t accurate.
Guys, I am genuinely asking for information, because I don’t know. Being eager to yell at me and silent about informing me is a bad way to be.
Removed by mod
Yeah, sure. I know if there’s one thing I hear Tucker Carlson say all the time, it’s stuff like:
This all seems like a pretty cogent argument. Actually, I’d take it a step further than what you’re saying – I’d say that if a fully functioning adult wants to get a knee replacement or a gender transition, it’s nobody’s business but theirs whether or not they should do it. It’s relevant to talk about the long term outcomes and etc, but at the end of the day it’s up to them.
Also, in what sense is this verifiable bullshit? Can you point to a specific claim and why you say it’s bullshit?
Do you have sources indicating clear positive outcomes for adolescents? Like I say, I’m genuinely interested in learning.
Out of all the people who engaged with me on this, one person sent me any kind of links for that last question, which is basically the factual core of the matter that I was looking for. I’m asking that question so I can learn. I took a bunch of time to read over them and responded in detail to each one. Most of them I pretty much agreed with, and I said so.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone who’s attacking you, and someone who actually is genuinely asking for information although they don’t fully agree with you, you’re going to wind up “counterattacking” a lot of people for more or less no reason, and making enemies of them.
deleted by creator
