TrackerNeil

That's one possibility, sure, but not the only one. For myself, if the number of people self-reporting as gay suddenly skyrocketed, I'd probably ask questions, too.

I'm sorry; I thought you meant a cooling-off period before taking PBs. I'll go back and edit that post accordingly, and leave this note here to document that I did so.

I'm not at all sure ths is the case in terms of receiving PBs, not at least from what I am reading. But that's not an issue related to the Cass report and I don't want to start thread drift. [CORRECTION: By "cooling off" I incorrectly assumed a period of time before taking PBs.] I'm not sure anyone really knows just how many detransitioners exist, because these data just aren't collected, most of the time. Detransitioners often report that, when they decide to stop taking PBs or hormones, they don't notify the clinic; they just never go back. The clinic, naturally, isn't going to count that person as a detransitioner. You can look at some of the studies on the topic and see a good rate of loss-to-follow up; I recall one in which 72 patients were studied, thirty of whom simply dropped out of the study. Maybe none of those people were detransitioners, maybe all of them were--we just don't know. These studies also often don't span much time; regret, when it happens, might not occur until 5-10 years after treatment, and we'd never know. And, really, that's the thrust of the Cass Review. Cass herself writes: That makes me uncomfortable. I think it should make everyone uncomfortable. In any case, I'm not here to argue about medical care for trans people in general; I'm interested in the Cass Review, which is available to all. I think folks have to read it and decide for themselves if this is something of concern.

I don't know that I am ignoring the most straightforward explanation; I'm saying I don't agree with yours. And I am in good company; the Cass Review states unequivocally: The report goes on: I think my concerns are in line with this report. Now, perhaps you think Hilary Cass picked her conclusion before she started and is trying to manufacture that conclusion, but I'd point out that she knows a heck of a lot more about what was going on at GIDS than you--and more than me, too. I imagine this report will be critiqued and evaluated, as it should be, but for now I feel pretty good that my concerns were shared by the expert who prepared this document.

The very reason the Cass Review was commissioned is that clinicians inside the GIDS center were saying that they did not know which kids needed PBs, and which didn't. They said that the clinic was handling too much demand, and that there was pressure to move these cases through. Jamie Reed said much the same about the clinic she worked for in Missouri. My understanding is that north of 95% of the patients given PBs by GIDS eventually went on to hormones. Now, it could be that the GIDS clinicians were doing an incredible job of determining who really needed them, although Hilary Cass herself doesn't seem to think so. It's equally possible--and Hannah Barnes has certainly suggested--that something about being on PBs makes it more likely a person will want to go on to hormones. We really don't know.

The suggestion Hannah Barnes makes is that PBs are justified on the assertion that they buy time to think, but if nearly everyone who takes them winds up making the same decision in the end, are they really thinking? Is there something about PBs that makes one more inclined to proceed to hormones? I don't know of a definitive answer to that question.

I think the question should not be "Whom do we believe?" but "How do we handle accusations?" Advocating for those we believe to be victims is fine, but when it comes to institutional responses, we have to make sure we're not replacing adjudication with advocacy. Specifically, I am thinking of college tribunals, which often run according to rules that bear little resemblance to due process. Respondents are often denied counsel, are not informed of the specific charges until the day of the hearing, are not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, and may not present refuting evidence. These sorts of hearings are clearly intended to produce claimant-friendly outcomes, which sounds good, but can have unintended consequences. Here's one of those consequences. Yale might have figured it was doing claimants a solid by tilting the playing field in their favor, but it didn't work out that way for this clamaint. So we have to keep in mind that what sounds good may not actually do good.

I take a different approach. In my view, context always matters, so I take accusations in context. That means I consider the accusation, the accuser, the accused, and everything I can find out that relates. Also, it's rarely wrong to wait for evidence. Really.

This does not surprise me; there are always folks who mean harm, and they will always try to do harm. That's just a sad fact of life. I'm curious, though, if you think the report has any merit.

I've been following this from across the pond, and I am eager to read this report. (I haven't yet.) What I have heard in the commentary was that Cass was pretty direct in her opinion that the GIDS clinicians were moving way too fast and on too little evidence. Hannah Barnes, a BBC reporter, wrote Time to Think on this very topic, and she's a good source for news on these issues. I am keeping my ears open for her take.

This from Arizona is hilarious. Even assuming that some of these folks are serious, I don't think there's anything the Arizon GOP can do. I'll bet half the legislative caucus thinks the 1864 law is good, and they're unlikely to go along with anything that rolls it back. I suppose legislative leaders could try to force a bill through with Democratic votes, but splitting your party in an election year is never a good thing. Half the caucus will be denouncing the other half, while Democrats run hard against the both of them. Remember when conservatives said that throwing the issue of abortion back to the states would lower the temperature? Sure, Jan.

I am sure this won't damage him on the right. One of the lessons I took from 2016 is that the God Squad has a lot less influence over the GOP than I previously thought. They will line up enthusiastically behind whomever wins the nomination, whether that person is Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin or Yolo Minneapolis. I do think, however, we've seen signficant evidence that abortions drives turnout among voters who often favor Democrats. I confess I didn't expect to see that, but the past few elections have changed my mind. Americans care about abortion, and the majority of them seem to care about keeping it mostly legal. Trump may come to regret bragging that he's the guy who ruined Roe.

I'm not sure that direct popular vote would make that more likely than the Electoral College; in fact, the only Trump-like demagogue I can think of who actually got to the White House was put there by the Electoral College.

The atheism-is-a-religion insistence is to me nearly as vacuous as "The US is a republic, not a democracy!" In any case, I no longer care what people believe, or say they believe--action is all.

Heh...some Mormons were stalking the neighborhood last summer, and one day I was home early and opened the door at their knock. Me: "Sorry boys, but you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm a gay atheist." Them: "All right." (pause) "Do you have any neighbors who aren't gay atheists?" They were very polite, though, and one of them was cute, so all in all it was a pleasant interaction.

The courts aren't going to save us from Donald Trump. Not Jack Smith nor Tanya Chutkan nor Leititia James, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not the House of Representatives, and not the Senate. They'll stop the most egregious attempts to seize power, maybe, but for anything short of that, it's up to the voters to write an end. It's a sad but clarifying truth.

There's something very American about that admiration, though, isn't there? I remember well the defenders of Walter White from "Breaking Bad", who seemed to really groove on the character's descent into thuggery. When White would do something even they felt was indefensible, they'd blame "bad writing", or else say that the character's wife was a harridan who was undermining him. Actress Anna Gunn even wrote an editorial about it! Superhero stories, which are often just power fantasies, touch the same fondness. I mean, Bruce Wayne would do better to spend his vast fortune on reform instead of putting on tights and punching muggers, but of course the former is dull while the latter makes the reader feel vicariously strong. All this is to say that Donald Trump's appeal to a subset of Americans makes perfect sense to me.

I think doomcrying about politics makes people feel wise, like if the worst happens, well, they've already put a down-payment on disappointment. Disappointment doesn't work that way. When you start mourning early, you just mourn longer.

I think Trump's weaknesses have been downplayed by media coverage and by 2016 trauma. And the latter is understandable--it was a terrible shock--but let's not go nuts. Trump is a terrible, terrible candidate with a bunch of weaknesses, and all of these judgments are part of that.

Don't forget "wooder" and "liberry", which Philadelphians still say to this day. Not me; when I got to college I realized how awful I sounded and mostly trained that shit away.

I'd been a member of the ACLU since the 80s, but no longer, and this is one reason why. There are others as well; suffice to say that the American Civil Liberties Union is not what it once was.

And of course the Trumpanzees are celebrating this as a victory, but really what they won was the right for an insurrectionist to be on the ballot unless Congress removes him. That's like saying that since Woody Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi Previn isn't technically criminal it can't still be weird as hell.

Like any other goddamn defendant in a criminal matter, Trump's trial should be held as soon as possible, and not according to his convenience. If we have to try that asshole November 1, fine.

And neither one excludes humility!

I've never before heard humility compared to "dithering", so that's new.