UK politics, Truss me, I really am that mental.

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

How is this an argument? You are basically saying nobody can ever been concerned about anything unless they are equally concerned about everything else and loudly talk about it. Did you even think before you typed that?

Did you think about all of the above before typing it? Because it doesn't seem that you did. 

If one is concerned about children, or claims to be concerned about children and their welfare, then surely they must be concerned or at least have a deep interest in all issues involving the wellbeing and safety of children. 

Unless of course some of these issues are being used disingenuously. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

How is this an argument? You are basically saying nobody can ever been concerned about anything unless they are equally concerned about everything else and loudly talk about it. Did you even think before you typed that?

Did you even think before you typed that?? 
A tiny minority of kids cone out as trans. I believe something like 7 kids a year in Scotland are prescribed puberty blockers. But this is somehow a bigger childcare issue than all of the stuff I mentioned??

Of course it isn’t. It’s an excuse for people to voice their transphobia while pretending to be motivated by child welfare.

Edited April 21 by Derfel Cadarn

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So if someone is going to use that term they need to be damn specific about who they mean. Is it JK Rowling? Is it Helen Joyce? Maya Forrester? Then you need to back up those claims

Most people just dont care that much. Heck, IRL the trans people I know don't talk about these issues, they're just too busy with their lives.

Edited April 21 by Rippounet

[Heartofice]

27 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Did you even think before you typed that?? 
A tiny minority of kids cone out as trans. I believe something like 7 kids a year in Scotland are prescribed puberty blockers. But this is somehow a bigger childcare issue than all of the stuff I mentioned??

Of course it isn’t. It’s an excuse for people to voice their transphobia while pretending to be motivated by child welfare.

I think the difference between the things you mentioned and this issue is that there is a universal acceptance that child poverty, mouldy homes etc are all bad. With this issue, there are a bunch of people who were defending the whole practice and are still playing the 'nothing to see here' game. 

Personally I have kids, I would much rather when they get older they receive appropriate medical care that isn't based on some ideological magical thinking. So yes that's a reason I care. 

The whole 'why aren't you more vocal about xxx' argument is just dishonest. Just because you don't actually care about children being medically mistreated, doesn't mean that people who do care have some ulterior motive.

[TrackerNeil]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

I think it's important also to note that the Cass Review does not conclude that puberty blockers are an unsafe treatment.

We know this because they have said so, explicitly.

https://thekitetrust.org.uk/our-statement-in-response-to-the-cass-review-report/

Agreed. However, it's important to note that Cass contends, many times, that the evidence in support of these treatments is "weak"--she says it over and over. That, to me, is a strong basis for approaching this topic with a great deal of intellectual humility. 

5 hours ago, Ran said:

So, yes, a bunch of nations could indeed very easily have found themselves in a position of recommending care with a very low evidence base. That's I think the main point of the review's findings.

Again, agreed. It's happened before, with lobomoties**, which at one time were an accepted and common medical practice (at least in the United States) in the treatment of mental illness. And let's not forget when "recovered memories" were the big thing. The McMartin trial--at the time the most expensive criminal trial in US history--was predicated on the notion that children had memories that could be revealed only through therapy. Then those kids starting telling tales about secret tunnels, helicopter rides to Palm Beach and being assaulted by Chuck Norris. It is quite easy for fiction to look like fact, if you want it badly enough.

**Before anyone starts, no, I am not saying puberty blockers = lobotomies.

Edited April 21 by TrackerNeil

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The whole 'why aren't you more vocal about xxx' argument is just dishonest. Just because you don't actually care about children being medically mistreated, doesn't mean that people who do care have some ulterior motive.

No, what's dishonest is making a giant fuss about something that affects a tiny number of kids while not really caring about issues that affect massive amounts of kids then claiming you care about kids. And doing so because you think stoking anger will help you politically (when fyi, the politicians probably don't actually care that much about trans kids). That's where the real bullshit is. Open your fucking eyes man. 

[Week]

58 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

No, what's dishonest is making a giant fuss about something that affects a tiny number of kids while not really caring about issues that affect massive amounts of kids then claiming you care about kids. And doing so because you think stoking anger will help you politically (when fyi, the politicians probably don't actually care that much about trans kids). That's where the real bullshit is. Open your fucking eyes man. 

They're open -- it's just very, very dark in there. 

 

eta-- It's the same argument to the faux-pro-life movement. Conservatives seeking control of others on their terms. Any non-heteronormative  cis white male should justify and ask permission to do anything outside of basic norms (which change arbitrarily -- vaccines use to be a part of the norm).

Edited April 21 by Week

[DMC]

13 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

It is, however, an advisory that intellectual humility is vital; in fact, I think it's the very basis of critical thinking. Those who can't think they might be wrong aren't thinking very well at all.

Certainly agree it’s important to acknowledge one can be wrong - particularly when it comes to an issue as unsettled and unclear as this one.  Indeed, that’s the main thrust of the Cass review - that there’s not enough evidence to draw much of any conclusions.

However, it’s strikingly odd to base this assertion on having the temerity to disagree with current trends in public policy across countries.  I can think of a lot of trends in public policy that should plainly be combatted, as well as of course many that themselves are resolvedly unscientific.

[mormont]

[mod] OK. folks. Let's be clear. One may legitimately argue about whether a particular person, or post, or opinion is or is not 'anti-trans'. But to argue that there is not a substantial anti-trans movement in the world today is straight up gaslighting a group who are currently being oppressed worldwide. It's needlessly offensive to most users and that is why I have my mod hat on. It isn't going to be tolerated as a statement. Simple as that. We would not tolerate that sort of statement about prejudice faced by any other group, and we're not tolerating it about trans folks.

ETA - and the other thing about having the mod hat on: that means if you want to discuss this, take it to PM. It's not open to discussion in thread. [/mod]

Edited April 21 by mormont

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

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. 

Why yes, as commented above, we must consider if a lot of people think they are seeing something something is there.  No smoke w/o fire!  Ha! 

But in case the above isn't clear, I am agreeing while attempting sarcasm.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Certainly agree it’s important to acknowledge one can be wrong - particularly when it comes to an issue as unsettled and unclear as this one.  Indeed, that’s the main thrust of the Cass review - that there’s not enough evidence to draw much of any conclusions.

Including the conclusion that the evidence in favor of these treatments is strong?

Edited April 21 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Including the conclusion that the evidence in favor of these treatments is strong?

Uh, yes.  That obviously would be part of not having enough evidence to draw conclusions.

[TrackerNeil]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, yes.  That obviously would be part of not having enough evidence to draw conclusions.

I am glad we agree, at least on that. However, when you look at the report, Cass says, again and again, that the evidence this area is weak, thusly:

Quote

The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage genderrelated distress.

Quote

When the Review started, the evidence base, particularly in relation to the use of puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormones, had already been shown to be weak.

Quote

The evidence is weak and clinicians have told us they are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.

Quote

The systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence.

Quote

From a research perspective, the issuing of new NHS numbers makes it more difficult to identify the long-term outcomes for a patient population for whom the evidence base is currently weak.

Quote

Given the weakness of the research in this area there remain many unknowns about the impact of social transition. In particular, it is unclear whether it alters the trajectory of gender development, and what short- and longer-term impact this may have on mental health.

Seems to me reasonable to say there is at least one conclusion Cass drew; namely, that the evidence base in this area is weak. Would you agree that is a reasonable conclusion to draw?

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not asking if you'd agree with the conclusion; I just want to know if you think it would be reasonable to draw that conclusion.

Edited April 21 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Seems to me reasonable to say there is at least one conclusion Cass drew; namely, that the evidence base in this area is weak. Would you agree that is a reasonable conclusion to draw?

This is literally just another way of saying there’s not enough evidence to draw any conclusions.  Hence her saying things like “unable to determine,” “no clear evidence…has any positive or negative mental health outcomes,” “remain many unknowns” in the quotes you provided.

[TrackerNeil]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is literally just another way of saying there’s not enough evidence to draw any conclusions.  Hence her saying things like “unable to determine,” “no clear evidence…has any positive or negative mental health outcomes,” “remain many unknowns” in the quotes you provided.

Does that mean you think it would be reasonable for a person to draw from the Cass Review the conclusion that the evidence base in this area is weak?

Edited April 21 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Does that mean you think it would be reasonable for a person to draw from the Cass Review the conclusion that the evidence base in this area is weak?

I honestly have no idea why you are splitting these hairs.  Of course she is saying the evidence is weak.  If she was arguing the evidence - any evidence - was strong, then she would be drawing conclusions from said evidence.

[TrackerNeil]

Great! So, let's imagine a person who reads the Cass Review and who says, "Hmm...given how weak the evidence here is, maybe we should rethink or even pause some of these treatments until we know more." Would that, in your view, be a reasonable position for someone to take?

(Again, not necessarily your position, or the position you'd like to prevail, but a reasonable one.)

Edited April 21 by TrackerNeil

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Week said:

They're open -- it's just very, very dark in there. 

 

eta-- It's the same argument to the faux-pro-life movement. Conservatives seeking control of others on their terms. Any non-heteronormative  cis white male should justify and ask permission to do anything outside of basic norms (which change arbitrarily -- vaccines use to be a part of the norm).

Oh the pro-life crowd, those who want to cut funding for education, health services and pensions so that they can give more money to the rich and fund war efforts against black and brown people then campaign on racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.

We live in the dumbest and cruelest timeline. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Great! So, let's imagine a person who reads the Cass Review and who says, "Hmm...given how weak the evidence here is, maybe we should rethink or even pause some of these treatments until we know more." Would that, in your view, be a reasonable position for someone to take?

I don’t think the government should be banning medical treatments and/or procedures just because there is not determinative evidence on its long term effects, no.  Absolutely not.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would disallow any experimental treatments.  Because the only way to provide the data for “strong” or “conclusive” evidence is to, ya know, conduct the treatments.  And in many cases, including this one, having to wait years or even decades to fully understand the long term effects.

Further, call me crazy, but I still think medical decisions should be between the doctor, the parents, and the child, NOT the government.  Does that mean there should be much more care before permanent physical procedures for adolescents?  Yes, absolutely.  But again, not a big fan of politicians legislating this - if only because they rarely have any idea what the fuck they’re talking about even if they don’t have a political agenda.

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don’t think the government should be banning medical treatments and/or procedures just because there is not determinative evidence on its long term effects, no.  Absolutely not.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would disallow any experimental treatments.  Because the only way to provide the data for “strong” or “conclusive” evidence is to, ya know, conduct the treatments.  And in many cases, including this one, having to wait years or even decades to fully understand the long term effects.

Further, call me crazy, but I still think medical decisions should be between the doctor, the parents, and the child, NOT the government.  Does that mean there should be much more care before permanent physical procedures for adolescents?  Yes, absolutely.  But again, not a big fan of politicians legislating this - if only because they rarely have any idea what the fuck they’re talking about even if they don’t have a political agenda.

So I take it, then, that you think that would not be a reasonable position to take? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please do let me know if I have that wrong.

Assuming I have this right, thank you for you for answering my questions. I feel a bit clearer now.