Matrim Fox Cauthon

The mean age of youths receiving PBs as per the study in the Cass Review was 15.8, which would certainly not be prior to the onset of puberty for most youths, which is listed in the report as being on average age 11 for [birth-assigned] girls and age 12 for [birth-assigned] boys. I would be curious what is meant by "some period" after the onset of puberty here. ----------------------------- It's pretty notable, IMHO, that the tone of the Cass Review is not so much about whether the NHS should provide gender-affirming care. The Cass Review repeatedly affirms gender-affirming care for GNC youths. On this matter, it's more about whether PBs effectively solve the issue(s) they are commonly being prescribed for in regards to GNC youths. This is to say, are PBs effective for youths experiencing gender dysphoria? Or is it that PBs have more of a psychosomatic placebo effect on their dysphoria? Are there more effective ways to help GNC youths with resolving their dysphoria? If the vast majority of trans youths on PBs transition,* does the rationale of "buying time to think about it" make sense? * Less than 10 of the 3306 people on PBs used in the study detransitioned. That is a 0.3 percentage. But I would also add that we do not necessarily know if these <10 individuals will transition later in life. I have been told that this is actually a point where statistics on detransitioning can be misleading, because a number of people who detransition will transition later in life and that detransitioning does not necessarily reflect "regret" or a sign of not being "trans" or GNC. Sometimes it's monetary reasons. Sometimes there are social and family pressures to detransition.

As you say here, I think that the opposition to Puberty Blockers in this regard seems to be incredibly selective, if not suspiciously so, when it comes to this issue but overlooked (perhaps through ignorance) when it comes to wide variety of other commonplace and novel medical treatments used for adults and children alike. Comparing puberty blockers to lobotomies seems grossly inappropriate. If you lack no examples of your point, then maybe don't keeping using that one. There are indeed many examples treatments that medical professions used to prescribe or perform that we would nowadays regard as barbaric, scientifically insufficient, or pure quackery. My partner, who is a doctor, talks a great deal about these things everytime medical issues pop up in film or television. There are likewise ones now that will be regarded the same in less than ten years time. That is the nature of scientific development in the medical profession. I do agree that there should be more data collection and clinical testing, but, as @mormont repeatedly points out to little avail, the Cass Review does not suggest that puberty blockers are harmful. The Cass Review is primarily about implementing better medical practices and healthcare services regarding puberty blockers. In many respects, the Cass Review is about how better to support trans and/or gender non-conforming youths as well as those involved in that process (e.g., parents, doctors, psychologists, etc.). If there were evidence of little to no harm, would you change your mind? What is meant by "harm" has to be approached with some care when it comes to medical treatment. There are a wide variety of fairly commonly acceptable forms of medical treatment that cause "harm," often in the form of adverse side-effects, but are nevertheless considered worth the treatment by medical practitioners and patients (or their legal guardians). This is why I say "little to no" harm rather than just presuming a complete lack of harm. Chemotherapy, for example, can cause long-term "harm" to the body through a variety of potentially adverse side-effects. Nevertheless, we use chemotherapy on children as well. There are likely far more children undergoing chemotherapy treatment in the US or UK than there are minors even requesting puberty blockers in these respective countries. ETA: I would also add that puberty blockers are not something developed for trans youths nor are they new. They have also prescribed PBs to a variety of cis-kids who may have hormone imbalances that may cause them to experience puberty as early as age 7. They have been used in this way since the 1980s. They were developed primarily to help these aforementioned cis kids experiercing puberty too early. If puberty blockers do indeed cause harm, then the evidence of harm committed against these kids has been pretty absent, if not silent.

Or just also being many of the same people who have generally voiced suspicion and skepticism towards of a variety of other trans-related issues, which is surely just a total coincidence.

Remember when this war was supposed to be over in a week? With some of the first Russian troops in Ukraine around Kyiv packing their parade gear?

He always voted for his party's call and he never thought of thinking for himself at all. So time to make him the ruler of the King's navy!

When a person claims that their primary concern about puberty blockers is the well-being of children, they kind of undermine their own argument there when they then proceed to defend parents physically assaulting their kids. The concern for the health and well-being of kids kind of goes out the window at that point. But defending the well-being of children is certainly more socially acceptable than being more out and openly a bigot against people with gender non-conforming identities.

This point is something of a truism that, IMHO, attempts to depict both sides as being equivalent by simple virtue of being motivated by their political beliefs. Like, for example, Christian fundamentalists opposing gay marriage were politically motivated but it seems a bit disingenuous to then point out that gays were also politically motivated in obtaining legal marriage rights. Likewise, pointing out that both those opposing and supporting the Cass Review are motivated by their political beliefs doesn't really give us a sense of what those political beliefs are or the validity thereof. As others in this thread have pointed out, some of that political motivation by those weaponizing its findings involves an anti-trans ideology, ranging from those suspicious of trans-identities to those who are downright hostile to it.

Considering the various health and medical issues involved for people who identify as trans or gender non-conforming, I'm not sure why there is need to view it with such heavy level of suspicions that you seemingly do.

Because they are totally equivalent positions, am I right?

Frank Herbert's The Trolley Problem

Finland and Sweden abandoning over half a century of neutrality and formally joining NATO? That sounds like a clear strategic victory for Vladimir Putin.

It doesn't matter. There will be people who will absolve Israel of their actions by blaming Hamas for Israel's own choices in how they are choosing to engage in this military conflict.

You know what's canard? Making an appeal to a forced expulsions of jews from Judea in the 1st century CE during the reign of Emperor Titus. But keep in mind, that the majority of Jewish people were not even living in Judea during that time. From what I recall, about sixty to seventy percent of Jews were living outside of Judea during this time, particularly in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Rome. The Jewish Diaspora began before this point. But it wasn't even a complete expulsion, as Jews continued to live in Palestine afterwards to varying degrees. Here we go again with the veiled accusations of Anti-Semitism, sigh.

If you put the word "voluntary" in the description of the forced resettlement plan, then it gives you a free dodge out of ethnic cleansing accusations.

A "grand bargain" that involves mass deportation from their native lands at gunpoint after Israel destroys their lands, infrastructure, and homes in the Gaza Strip is not as voluntary or magnanimous as either you or Tywin may think it sounds nor is it any less ethnic cleansing, especially since the destruction of territory to make it less desirable often accompanies ethnic cleansing efforts. But Tywin's "solution" comes with the admission that Israel is destroying Gaza to kingdome come and that Palestinians are likely left disadvantaged in any efforts in rebuilding Gaza, unlike Israel would have. These are giant red flags of ethnic cleansing.

At least you are honest in that regard. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip is certainly a solution with little regard to virtue or human rights. One that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing for starters. If your solution involves ethnic cleansing, then that's probably a bad idea, since that violates human rights. It seems like if there is any nation in the world that should be sympathetic and sensitive to matters of ethnic cleansing, it should be Israel. If you are going to accuse me of "virtue signaling" for wanting a solution that does not involve ethnic cleansing, then I think that you have lost a fundamental sense of perspective as a result of digging yourself into a hole while trying to defend indefensible, inhumane actions.

Maybe, but if 1900 years of history is within the statute of limitations, then it's possible that even native peoples will find themselves reshuffled greatly from any of their land claims from 1492 and onwards.

I don't see how that is relevant if the argument pertains to how conquest and forced expulsion from 1900 years ago somehow legitimizes modern day land claims.

If we can base claims to land on the forced ethnic cleansing by conquering and imperial powers to as far back as 1900 years ago, we will need a lot more markers to redraw the national borders of the world map, and I can't even imagine what that would look like. Edit: Can the Hellenes have Constantinople back? Asking for a friend.

It still would have come across as incredibly patronizing and dismissive of younger people.

This is the part of the song and dance routine where people dismiss these numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry as Hamas-run propaganda.

Ironic. This is precisely the problematic tone and rhetoric of people who seem unperturbed and dismissive by the mass political violence that the IDF is committing against Palestinian civilians. There are a people here who regard the disproportionately high civilian death toll as a justifiable means to their ends of defeating Hamas. Palestinian civilians are treated as sub-humans whose expendable lives are not worth preserving in the interest of achieving "greater ends."

The small figures in the far right U.S. were being openly enabled by many public figures. It would be foolish, IMHO, to ignore how the right wing Israeli coalition government, which includes far right parties, is likewise enabling this sort of rhetoric and behavior.

When the current government of the Israeli government seems to be enabling the Settlers and the far right movement of Israel, then what these people are saying is a pretty good indication of what direction the country may be heading towards. Much like with how Trump's rhetoric and policies seemed oriented around enabling the far right party. Why should we be shocked by their actions when they then do what they said that they would do?

What if I distracted you from the atrocities of the IDF with a tu quoque fallacy that drew their actions into comparison with a terrorist organization?