Jump to content

karaddin

Members
  • Posts

    10,531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Mailed fist of feminist entitlement
  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Sydney, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

10,770 profile views

karaddin's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. Yeah I don't think I worded that the best, I still don't think (or at least hope) escalation to war is inevitable, but if Israel does what you're saying here it will be because that's the course of action they chose/were softly persuaded into - I don't think Biden can force them into backing down if they're set on escalation if this is the rhetoric we're seeing.
  2. The accompanying statement from US officials sounds like they've already resigned themselves to being unable to talk Israel out of it and have switched to mitigating the damage which really isn't promising https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/15/israel-will-respond-to-iran-missile-attack-idf-chief-of-staff I feel like the only message that could actually punch through would be saying you're on your own if you start a full blown shooting war, and backing off on your messaging already really doesn't inspire confidence that you'd hold to that bluff.
  3. Seeing statements from both the Minister of Defense and the IDF Chief of Staff that they'll be retaliating so this is going to be wonderful.
  4. Yes? Much like my opinion on the review asking the wrong questions, I can simply disagree with people. My questions to HoI were an attempt to demonstrate our views are so far apart we functionally don't share a common frame of reference when reading the review.
  5. I mean, my post is right above you - I tried to keep an open mind while reading the summaries and I'm not assuming bad faith or an ideological agenda on the part of Cass. I just think the review fundamentally misunderstands the important questions around this treatment.
  6. You linked a thread which aims to summarize the study on cross sex hormone treatment of minors when we'd been talking about puberty blockers which doesn't exactly smack of good faith HoI, but I decided to click through and find the thread summarizing the PB findings from your own source for you https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1779232332508971409 I once again need to give the disclaimer that I haven't read the full report myself, my judgements are based on the summaries that I've read here and in other locations. The Cass review, from those summaries, has utilized fundamentally incorrect metrics for assessing the existing research on puberty blockers and this has been the case in every snippet of it I have seen. The purpose of puberty blockers is not to resolve the gender dysphoria, it is to prevent biological changes that will worsen it and cause undesired changes that will last for life. It's not expected to accomplish a positive outcome, its to prevent a negative one. So a review that looks as these studies and says "there's lack of a clear positive outcome here" has missed the point of them. That thread also discusses findings that indicate a risk of several negative outcomes - damage to fertility, loss of bone density and shorter height. Despite being presented like this is new information, those all strike me as risks that were known and part of undergoing the treatment is accepting the risk of them. Now its possible that the implementation of the process did not adequately inform children and their parents of this risk and that is of course a problem that needs to be fixed - being informed is a central pillar of informed consent. That said the 3rd one is pretty shaky to actually call a negative effect - being taller isn't an objectively good thing, but it obviously is a side effect when it happens. And that's basically the entirety of this thread's summary of the problems with PB treatment - it wants better quality research (which I don't opposite - I just oppose halting treatment while waiting for it) and flagged the above issues. Nothing here is a burning red flag that says treatment needs to be abruptly halted, nor does it say the entire body of research is junk. Its worth noting that some of the aspects aren't included in the studies on trans kids taking them because they're a known factor from initial research on the drug being used full stop - of course you won't expect to see that repeated. So I fail to see how this review proves definitively that I've been "spreading disinformation" and that "ideology has taken over science in medicine", I just see a whole bunch of people trying to help kids that are stuck in shitty circumstances while the doctors have inadequate resources (high quality research to inform their treatment is in a resource doctors use). Oh and from earlier HoI: When I've already conceded that some detransitioners exist, providing the one single detransitioner you know of hardly strengthens your point. I suspect that if we were balancing "trans kids not receiving treatment" vs "cis kids incorrectly receiving treatment" your honest answer would be "all trans kids should be denied treatment if we can't guarantee a single cis kid won't receive incorrect treatment".
  7. If you argue for perfect research to be done before providing treatment when that research is literally impossible to do according to modern ethics guidelines, then you're advocating against treatment.
  8. Oh I dunno, maybe something to do with having lost over a decade of my life and almost killed myself due to lack of treatment that I've now had which fixed all those problems? ETA: I know many of you won't accept my first hand experience as giving me any kind of insight into the question as a whole, but to ask why I'd have this perspective is utterly baffling
  9. Because at no point in the very long history of us talking about this have you ever accepted that the status quo without treatment is grossly harmful, and tragically often deadly, to trans kids. It's a difference in perspective so fundamental that each of our arguments do not make sense to the other. So I'll spare this thread another pages long detail of us arguing past each other. Just wanted to make sure everyone reading the thread understands the context of the claims being made.
  10. I 100% accept there were terrorists in that building who were the target, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that bombing part of a countries consulate is different to engaging in a proxy war and unless you're already in a shooting war - its a massive escalation that is almost certainly going to draw a reprisal. That's more true if you view the country in question as a bad actor, which again is the case with the Iranian regime. Israel knows all of this, any decision to bomb the consulate building under those circumstances factors in an Iranian response as part of the cost/benefit analysis of the decision to bomb it - lets not treat anyone as stupid or incompetent here when there's no indication that was the case. Iran was always going to respond to this, and the way they chose to do so resulted in a single tragic casualty. Unless you do actually want a direct shooting war with Iran, the obvious course of action at this point is to decide you got a win (quote from Biden) and take the win. Iran are awful fucks, they're going to continue to be awful fucks but they're also going to behave in relatively predictable and self interestedly rational ways. I'm not sure what some of you are actually looking for in this thread? Do you think us saying that we don't want to see escalation is somehow praising Iran for being morally good and restrained? Because that sure as hell isn't how I mean it - I mean solely what I said. This action taken was within the bounds of expected state actor behaviour for a direct bombing of their diplomatic facilities in a 3rd party nation and killing of high ranking military personnel, please get off the railroad to a regional war before a whole lot more tragedies happen.
  11. Nothing I've read in your posts explicitly demonstrates confirmed harm. There has been assertions that the safeguards in place as part of the process are inadequate, but inadequate safeguards doesn't actually mean that any (let alone all) children received improper treatment as a result of that. I don't deny that some people do regret and detransition, so I'm sure there are some of them but I haven't seen any solid numbers for that. So a question that is probably illuminating on the difference in our underlying perspectives - how do you prioritize how bad these two scenarios are? Cis kid receives treatment they don't need, and shouldn't have received resulting in permanent damage to their fertility (so we're talking more than simply receiving puberty blockers - I'm giving you a more serious case) Trans kid is refused treatment that they do need, undergoing the wrong puberty and receiving permanent damage to their bodies development
  12. Bolded - yup, we've got our nice people and assholes like everyone else. By "those who don't experience gender dysphoria" do you mean people who aren't trans, or trans people who know themselves without experiencing the psychological distress of dysphoria? The former is just "cisgender" and often shortened to "cis" following the ancient Greek naming convention for "same side" / "opposite". The latter I don't think there is a name for it, or at least certainly not one I'm aware of - if I was feeling flippant I'd probably just call them lucky lol. Its a minority of people under the trans umbrella but its certainly a group that does exist and are valid. I'm guessing this is informing the prior question about name for those who don't feel dysphoria - I certainly wasn't aware I was experiencing it for most of my life before my brain decided to crack my egg, but it is hard to really describe what it felt like. The part I can articulate most clearly is what did crack through my subconscious denial. You're right that this is drifting way off topic for the UK politics thread though, I'm happy to continue the conversation in another thread - probably easiest to just necro the LGBTQ one if you want. /tangent
  13. I don't really care how Israel chooses to interpret it as long as they also see the matter as settled. If seeing Iran as embarrassed gets us there, I'll take it. Exactly the same as how I view Iran thinking things are concluded.
  14. You can recognize that bombing another countries consulate is an escalation even if you think the country in question are awful. That is in fact how I feel about it, the Iranian regime is awful and I look forward to the day the citizens overthrow it, and at the same time I understand they were going to feel they had to respond to the consulate being bombed. So I'll stay relieved Iran chose retaliation that could be shot down and hope Israel doesn't decide to really try trigger a regional war.
  15. If Iran is satisfied with waving it's dick around in response to the consulate bombing then I'll take it. Escalation is really not something anyone needs.
×
×
  • Create New...