Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[Samson]

Nobody would lie on the internet, that's for sure.

Jeez, even for the standards of anti-trans people relying on anecdotes, "my reddit hate board is somewhat popular" is especially thin.

Two happy f to m transitioned discuss

https://youtu.be/jW5eJiMSPTE

Minute 44 specifies.
They are labelled transphobes because they understand most transitioners are bycatch. (My construct you are welcome).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

(My construct you are welcome).

Don't pat yourself on the back, your post is unintelligible to me.

If you actually want a response from me, know that I'm not watching a youtube video, much less a 44 minute one. Feel free to summarize whatever points you think are relevant.

 

[Samson]

According to every plaintiff's lawsuit in history they have been done dirty and deserve compensation.

I can't find Kaiser's response anywhere, not sure if it's even been filed yet. Presumably they will claim that they followed every standard of care, thoroughly advised their patient, and only proceeded with informed consent. Far, far too soon to make any conclusions about the claims made.

If Chloe Cole, there is a thorough interview with Jordan Peterson, which should be a cue for a withering diatribe about him.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If Chloe Cole, there is a thorough interview with Jordan Peterson, which should be a cue for a withering diatribe about him.

Does he cry in it?

 

[Ziggurat]

According to every plaintiff's lawsuit in history they have been done dirty and deserve compensation.

Sometimes lawsuits fail as a matter of law, meaning that even if the facts are as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant still isn't liable. You might think this would almost never happen but it does, and not that rarely. That's how you get dismissals before trial, since the trial is where facts are tested.

As a matter of law, I think Cole's suit will stand, that it will go to trial to be tested as a matter of facts.

I can't find Kaiser's response anywhere, not sure if it's even been filed yet. Presumably they will claim that they followed every standard of care, thoroughly advised their patient, and only proceeded with informed consent. Far, far too soon to make any conclusions about the claims made.

"It's not a long shot" isn't really that much of a conclusion. I'm not suggesting it's a sure thing. But I find the alleged facts easily could be true. Not are true, but easily could be. Sometimes the facts alleged by plaintiffs seem extremely unlikely. This isn't one of those cases.

 

[Samson]

Don't pat yourself on the back, your post is unintelligible to me.

If you actually want a response from me, know that I'm not watching a youtube video, much less a 44 minute one. Feel free to summarize whatever points you think are relevant.

Just start at minute 44, forget the rest.
There are a few more or less valid transitioners, but the majority have just ruined their lives. Bycatch in trawling for legal fishes.
Follow the money.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sometimes lawsuits fail as a matter of law, meaning that even if the facts are as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant still isn't liable. You might think this would almost never happen but it does, and not that rarely. That's how you get dismissals before trial, since the trial is where facts are tested.

As a matter of law, I think Cole's suit will stand, that it will go to trial to be tested as a matter of facts.



"It's not a long shot" isn't really that much of a conclusion. I'm not suggesting it's a sure thing. But I find the alleged facts easily could be true. Not are true, but easily could be. Sometimes the facts alleged by plaintiffs seem extremely unlikely. This isn't one of those cases.

Sure. Maybe they can prove their claims, maybe not. Not exactly a great example right now because at this early point of a lawsuit, no facts have been established.

Generally speaking filed lawsuits are worth basically nothing until they reach the adversarial phase of litigation. Not really much point in speculating at this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure. Maybe they she can prove their her claims, maybe not.

FTFY.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

FTFY.

"They" was in reference to her legal team. She has lawyers, it's not a one-woman show. I'm not trying to prove any petty points by misgendering Cole.

 

[TomB]

Seems like a long shot unless she can demonstrate that the doctors engaged in medical malpractice, that is, that their care diverged from standards of care or other professional breach.



What is the regret rate for those that transition, and what rate do you think reaches an unacceptable level where individuals and their doctors should no longer be able to pursue this treatment?

You do understand that there is a rational position that lies somewhere between moving quickly towards medical transition and taking medical transition completely off the table, right? (Yes, I'm aware that this is a criticism that can be made of both sides of the debate.)

There have been quite a few anecdotal accounts of misapplied transition treatment. anecdotal evidence, though weak, is still evidence and should not be dismissed. Rather, it is an indication that something should be investigated on a more formal basis.

Specifically, the detransition cases should be examined (case study) to determine what went wrong in the diagnostic process so that misdiagnosis (and the resulting inappropriate treatments) can be prevented, or at least minimized.

For reference, the regret rate for total knee replacement surgery is about 20%.

Comparisons with knee replacements are not an appropriate comparison, by the way. Regret of knee replacement comes from the perception that the treatment was worse than the condition it was treating or that the results were not worth the pain. Detransition "regret" comes from a different place: incorrect diagnosis.

There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You do understand that there is a rational position that lies somewhere between moving quickly towards medical transition and taking medical transition completely off the table, right? (Yes, I'm aware that this is a criticism that can be made of both sides of the debate.)

At least in the example of Chloe Cole, she is using her profile as an outspoken detransitioner to advocate for total bans on this kind of care. She is taking an extremist position and is being a useful tool for extremists. I'm guessing her right wing allies would be less interested in her perspective if this were not the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_Cole

There have been quite a few anecdotal accounts of misapplied transition treatment. anecdotal evidence, though weak, is still evidence and should not be dismissed. Rather, it is an indication that something should be investigated on a more formal basis.

Specifically, the detransition cases should be examined (case study) to determine what went wrong in the diagnostic process so that misdiagnosis (and the resulting inappropriate treatments) can be prevented, or at least minimized.

What makes you think this isn't being done? The bulk of evidence is that the regret rate is quite low and totally acceptable compared to the downsides of not allowing trans affirming care. Perhaps you're buying into the unsupported assumption by anti-trans activists that trans affirming care is being administered recklessly and without much safeguarding or care.

Take Chloe Cole's own example of taking years of slowly escalating trans affirming care, by no means rushed. Diagnosed with gender dysphoria at 9, socially transitions at 12, begins puberty blockers and hormone treatment at 13, and surgery at 15. hardly a gallop.

 

[Ziggurat]

The bulk of evidence is that the regret rate is quite low and totally acceptable compared to the downsides of not allowing trans affirming care.

The bulk of the evidence? We have no clue what the regret rate is for children who have medically transitioned. Results from studies of adult transition cannot be transferred to children. And short term studies don't tell us what long term results may be.

Perhaps you're buying into the anti-trans unsupported assumption that trans affirming care is being administered recklessly and without much safeguarding or care.

Oh, there's lots of support for that. What's unsupported is the claim that medical transition for children actually improves outcomes more than alternative treatments.

 

[theprestige]

It gets weirder when you consider that goth & emo boys were actively queering gender expression: eyeliner, lipstick, nail polish, skirts, etc.

Source: Firsthand experience from 90s goth clubs and basements and basement clubs.

I gothed up a bit in my youth. Lipstick, skirts, etc. Found out later my parents assumed I thought I might be gay, and was experimenting along those lines. Truth was, I was doing that too, but that's not what the goth presentation was about.

 

[theprestige]

You do understand that there is a rational position that lies somewhere between moving quickly towards medical transition and taking medical transition completely off the table, right? (Yes, I'm aware that this is a criticism that can be made of both sides of the debate.)

Since it's been brought up, here's my position. I wonder how many here have a similar position:

This is all based on current information. If new information comes out, my position is subject to change.

I would take medical transition completely off the table for prepubescent children. No hormones, no surgery, full stop.

And I would take medical transition on the basis of fiat self-ID* off the table for everyone.

However, I would leave medical transition very much on the table for people who have been responsibly diagnosed with a condition, for which medical transition is the generally and ethically accepted best known treatment.

I might be willing to consider leaving medical transition on the table as a drastic elective procedure, as long as there's no talk of attaching transsexual rights or accommodations to the result.

---
*By "fiat self-ID I mean the entire gamut of "I said it, that settles it, you have to believe it" to "I formally file an affidavit with the state, which takes me at my word and updates my official documents to indicate my alleged sex".

 

[d4m10n]

I would take medical transition completely off the table for prepubescent children. No hormones, no surgery, full stop.

If we did this, then we'd never know whether the endocrine/surgery treatment pathway (GnRHa → CSH → SRS) actually outperforms any other treatment modality, such as watchful waiting with cognitive behavioral aversion therapy. Since I'm in favor of finding out the truth on this matter, I'm in favor of allowing patients and providers to opt in to treatment assuming they are part of a carefully controlled trial.

 

[theprestige]

If we did this, then we'd never know whether the endocrine/surgery treatment pathway (GnRHa → CSH → SRS) actually outperforms any other treatment modality, such as watchful waiting with cognitive behavioral aversion therapy. Since I'm in favor of finding out the truth on this matter, I'm in favor of allowing patients and providers to opt in to treatment assuming they are part of a carefully controlled trial.

This begs the question that gender is sufficiently cognizeable in children for questions of dysphoria and medical treatment to even arise in the first place.

What, exactly are you proposing to trial? That a six year old boy who wants to wear a dress might be so profoundly distressed about his penis that he would in fact be happier if we cut it off before he hits puberty?

Show me the pathology, before you start talking about experimental treatments.

ETA: Like I said, my position is subject to change with new information. I would very much like to find out if there's actually a horse involved, before we start talking about the best kind of cart to hitch to it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Since it's been brought up, here's my position. I wonder how many here have a similar position:

This is all based on current information. If new information comes out, my position is subject to change.

I would take medical transition completely off the table for prepubescent children. No hormones, no surgery, full stop.

And I would take medical transition on the basis of fiat self-ID* off the table for everyone.

However, I would leave medical transition very much on the table for people who have been responsibly diagnosed with a condition, for which medical transition is the generally and ethically accepted best known treatment.

I might be willing to consider leaving medical transition on the table as a drastic elective procedure, as long as there's no talk of attaching transsexual rights or accommodations to the result.

This puts you to the left of Chloe Cole's position, where she is upset that she received post-pubescent transition care after receiving a diagnosis of dysphoria and supports policies totally banning anyone in a similar position from getting similar treatment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nobody would lie on the internet, that's for sure.

Jeez, even for the standards of anti-trans people relying on anecdotes, "my reddit hate board is somewhat popular" is especially thin.

What an incredibly cruel statement. Have you bothered to interact with and listen to what these detransitioners have to say?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What an incredibly cruel statement. Have you bothered to interact with and listen to what these detransitioners have to say?

So many anecdotes, so little time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What makes you think this isn't being done? The bulk of evidence is that the regret rate is quite low and totally acceptable compared to the downsides of not allowing trans affirming care.

Evidence?

Perhaps you're buying into the unsupported assumption by anti-trans activists that trans affirming care is being administered recklessly and without much safeguarding or care.

And you're buying into the unsupported assumption by pro-trans activists that hormonal and medical intervention is the perfect solution to any and all mental health issues, and that questioning whether that makes sense is bigotry that shouldn't be allowed.

Seriously though. You seem to have swallowed two misrepresentations. First, the claim that "affirming care" is being administered in a reasonable, well considered, well informed, and thorough fashion.

That one is not true. It's not true by way of personal experience, and by way of the policies in place at Planned Parenthood in many locations - where they will provide a prescription for cross sex hormones on the first visit unless there's a medical condition that would prohibit it (eg, they won't prescribe estrogen to a male with epilepsy, it's counter indicated as it lowers seizure thresholds).

Secondly, you also seem to have swallowed the claim that "regret" is extremely low. Right now, regret is growing. One of the problems with many of the surveys cited that say regret is very low and that detransition is driven by social pressure is that they're only asking people who still identify as trans. By the very design of the surveys themselves, they exclude the very people who detranstion - those who were misdiagnosed as transgender, and who no longer see themselves as trans at all. It excludes exactly the group of people who are the biggest concern when it comes to the enthusiastic administration of "affirming" medical care.

Take Chloe Cole's own example of taking years of slowly escalating trans affirming care, by no means rushed. Diagnosed with gender dysphoria at 9, socially transitions at 12, begins puberty blockers and hormone treatment at 13, and surgery at 15. hardly a gallop.

Not a gallop, but also entirely irresponsible! Doctors shouldn't be taking the word of a 9 year old when it comes to this sort of thing. And they should NEVER be ******* up a developing person's body at the onset of puberty. They sure as hell shouldn't be performing surgeries that aren't medically necessary on bodies that aren't even fully grown!