Your only defense of the charge that it’s deceptive is that we haven’t produced a trans patient who was deceived. We have already gone over why that’s a bad standard. Not once have you offered an argument for why it’s not deceptive. You can’t even settle on a coherent argument for your own position.
As a skeptic, you could use your brain and consider the implications of the words being used and what they end up conveying.
That was not my reasoning at all, but there is no point in revisiting it now.
I'm playing catch up here, but has anyone here cited to any studies showing this claim to be (probably) true in ways which should cause us concern as citizens or as medical professionals? I've relatively little doubt that testosterone-based cross-sex puberty increases impulses towards aggression and sociosexuality in patients who would otherwise have scored lower on those traits, but that is just what you'd expect if you'd read Carole Hooven's book on testosterone (or even just listened to TAL 220) and it's not as if people taking high doses of T were not expecting to become more psychologically mannish in addition to the usual physical changes.
You are imputing dishonesty whenever people on the other side use the phrases which they learned from activist groups and (oftentimes) from major medical associations, and you somehow don't see that as putting a major kibosh on the possibility of substantive debate across the aisle?
The person making the claim has the burden of proof here. You claim people are being deceived, I ask which people are being deceived.
Nor did I say we should. What I did say was that we should allow posters to use the phrases from the Cass Review (and its various commissioned subject area studies) in the thread created specifically for discussing that review and the subject matter thereof, without constantly harping on about how those phrases make implicit claims which you personally find distasteful or deceptive.
I believe so, though I don't have time to track down the posts in question right now.
If all they've learned is dishonest talking points, then even if they personally believe them, does that create substance to their contributions which would be lacking if they intended deception themselves? I don't see how it would.
Actually, I didn't. I claim that the phrase is deceptive. That claim can be tested by examining the phrase itself. You are claiming that the people who parrot these phrases are being deceived rather than themselves trying to deceive. I am willing to accept that possibility, but my position doesn't depend on it.
Have we seen any evidence that induction of puberty fails to induce the desired rewiring?
We are simply going to have to disagree on this. I believe phrases can be taken in many different senses and that we have to test out how they are being understood in the relevant clinical context.
As I explained before and which you are once again ignoring, clinical contexts are not the only relevant contexts. Our discussion here, for example, is not actually a clinical context. I do not understand your persistent efforts to artificially limit the scope of the conversation.
Why would cross-sex hormones be expected to have the same effect on brain development as natural puberty which occurs in stages and in interaction with non-steroid dependent rewiring processes that occur during a critical period? It's up to those who claim it does to provide the evidence.
No, I am claiming that if we ever get a two-sided discussion going here we can reasonably expect posters from the gender affirmative side to use the usual phrases from the activist groups and from the medical associations and (here's the ask) that we should look past that for the most part to focus on testable claims rather than arguing about whether we need to use gendercritically correct phrasing rather than the phrasing used in medical journals and pop-sci mags.
Does this mean that you acknowledge that cognitive development is part of puberty, and that "induced puberty" impairs this development?
Does anyone here in this thread appear to have been deceived by gender affirmative phrasing?
Induced puberty may well impair this development, or it may impair some things and accelerate other things. It is entirely possible that females who take high doses of testosterone to induce male characteristics end up far more interested in solving the sort of problems commonly seen in STEM fields, for example. This is an empirical question, not something we can simply assume to be true.
No, I'm not going to look past the language. The abuse of language has been a central tactic used by TRAs to advance a harmful agenda. Pushing back on that abuse of language isn't simply a preference, it's not simply a matter of signaling what side I'm on. It's part of not surrendering before the fight is even decided. You can choose to surrender language to the TRAs if you want, but your entreaties to just play nice aren't going to make me join in that self-defeating approach.
I didn't assume it to be true. That's where the evidence is already pointing. You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. And now you're ignoring that evidence.
Letting people use the language they prefer is nothing like "surrender" but demanding that they use your own preferred phrases does seem like you want them to do so.
I already conceded your point about blockers at #571.