I want interested people to look at ALL our links, I hope especially understanding that a majority of children "resolve" and how harmful it is, including psychologically, to block their puberty.
Virginia Catholic Bishop: 'No One' Is Transgender
31,047 Views |
707 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by ramblin_ag02
Redstone has a point, this is a morally gray area. The biggest issue is that the 'best' gender transformations happen when transformation has begun before puberty starts and makes irreversible changes. So it becomes moral questions about consent and understanding irreversible changes at a very very young age. And kids, normally, aren't prepared to make decisions like that. Counter-point is that being gender conflicted isn't also a normal issue. So maybe these kids are more prepared to make these decisions, but at the end of the day- they're still very young.
There's also a delineation between surgeries or treatments for physical health versus those related to mental health. I know its not the "same" but surgeons would refuse to amputate an arm that was in perfect health even if the person was adamant their mental health would improve wanting to be 1 one-armed. And of course, no one would ever stop a surgeon from performing a healing surgery that improved someone's health outcomes. A lot of these lines of thinking gets ported over to mental health surgeries, but I would caution against it. Heck, my back doctor who operates on spines all day is the most adamant person against me getting a back surgery. There should be a conservative approach to going under.
That's the intersection I'm at. An adult making a decision to transition is completely different than a child, and there is pressure on the child to make the jump. Descriptive studies showing 'improved' mental health, that is a huge burden to bear. PacifistAg makes a big jump here saying either these kids transition or they will kill themselves -> so its morally good to let them transition as they hold their own life hostage.
I'm more saddened than outraged. There's a lot of us here that are happy that the consequences of decisions we made when we were in high school (thought we were invincible and knew everything) don't follow us around our whole lives, much less even younger. I'm more concerned about how warped the media is going to make this out to be. I don't want to see every tomboy girl that plays in the dirt be pulled aside by a school teacher asking if they want to be a boy. I don't want every young boy that plays with dolls having to fend off pressing questions about if they want to be a girl- because the clock is ticking.
This is at best, a moral conundrum only made 'good' through consequentialism. Gonna need some cultural relativism to get you started as well.
There's also a delineation between surgeries or treatments for physical health versus those related to mental health. I know its not the "same" but surgeons would refuse to amputate an arm that was in perfect health even if the person was adamant their mental health would improve wanting to be 1 one-armed. And of course, no one would ever stop a surgeon from performing a healing surgery that improved someone's health outcomes. A lot of these lines of thinking gets ported over to mental health surgeries, but I would caution against it. Heck, my back doctor who operates on spines all day is the most adamant person against me getting a back surgery. There should be a conservative approach to going under.
That's the intersection I'm at. An adult making a decision to transition is completely different than a child, and there is pressure on the child to make the jump. Descriptive studies showing 'improved' mental health, that is a huge burden to bear. PacifistAg makes a big jump here saying either these kids transition or they will kill themselves -> so its morally good to let them transition as they hold their own life hostage.
I'm more saddened than outraged. There's a lot of us here that are happy that the consequences of decisions we made when we were in high school (thought we were invincible and knew everything) don't follow us around our whole lives, much less even younger. I'm more concerned about how warped the media is going to make this out to be. I don't want to see every tomboy girl that plays in the dirt be pulled aside by a school teacher asking if they want to be a boy. I don't want every young boy that plays with dolls having to fend off pressing questions about if they want to be a girl- because the clock is ticking.
This is at best, a moral conundrum only made 'good' through consequentialism. Gonna need some cultural relativism to get you started as well.
Joe Boudain said:
I've always maintained that the end goal of the morally relativist left is to degrade children, as they are the closest to Sinlessness, i.e Christ, that you can get as humans.
The morally relativist left think about christ a lot less than you believe. Not sure why in the world you think we want to degrade children lmao, it's somewhat bordering on so farfetched as to be funny.
PacifistAg said:You respect and want to emulate the Taliban. Don't talk to us about degrading people.Joe Boudain said:
I've always maintained that the end goal of the morally relativist left is to degrade children, as they are the closest to Sinlessness, i.e Christ, that you can get as humans.
Much as Satan worshippers will steal the Euchariat to conduct a black mass, so will his agents disfigure, maim, and abuse children.
You're torturing kids to make yourself feel better and using cover from hijacked academia to do so.
I've already addressed the problems with your desistance study. And puberty blockers are used for a variety of childhood issues, and they're done so without issue.Redstone said:
I have zero problems answering you directly.A majority resolve by young adulthood. What if little to nothing works best? What if "affirmation" contributes to suicide? I'll return to answer better, but this is better than hormones and puberty blockers.Quote:
what if it works? Isn't the point to find an effective "treatment"?Quote:
If one is found, and know that not all trans people even start hormones, then isn't that what matters here? Why be upset about an effective treatment?
I am upset, very much so, by cultural affirmation of providing children with puberty blockers and possibly hormones, and calling it "treatment." Exact same principle as snuffing out unborn life and calling it "reproductive rights."
Why? Catholic-based views about the human person.
Even the study you showed pointed to positive mental health impacts, as well as decreased suicidal ideation, for trans adults who started on puberty blockers. You may want to read the studies you share, because they're either not saying what you want, or have fundamentally flawed methodologies. But this goes to my point that you don't care if they become less suicidal. You just don't want them to be treated in a way that you disapprove, even though you don't even understand said treatment.
Again, citing studies with flawed methodologies may help charlatans peddle books (Shrier), but it does not necessarily make it a sound study.Redstone said:
I want interested people to look at ALL our links, I hope especially understanding that a majority of children "resolve" and how harmful it is, including psychologically, to block their puberty.
Facts:
- Majority resolve.
- The "treatment" often advocated to youth is sterilizing. Blockers and hormones, and blockers do have a physical and psychological impact, often to the very negative, as we have many testimonies of.
- As an interested person, I do look at and highlight studies and articles that are "against me." Especially if I want to quote it. No problem at all.
- Majority resolve.
- The "treatment" often advocated to youth is sterilizing. Blockers and hormones, and blockers do have a physical and psychological impact, often to the very negative, as we have many testimonies of.
- As an interested person, I do look at and highlight studies and articles that are "against me." Especially if I want to quote it. No problem at all.
I've only said this about myself. My discussion about suicide and transition as it relates to children has only been based on statistical improvements in mental health and a decrease in suicidal ideation.Quote:
PacifistAg makes a big jump here saying either these kids transition or they will kill themselves -> so its morally good to let them transition as they hold their own life hostage.
That's not what is happening.Quote:
I don't want to see every tomboy girl that plays in the dirt be pulled aside by a school teacher asking if they want to be a boy. I don't want every young boy that plays with dolls having to fend off pressing questions about if they want to be a girl- because the clock is ticking.
Keep moving those goalposts, sweetie.Redstone said:
Facts:
- Majority resolve.
- The "treatment" often advocated to youth is sterilizing. Blockers and hormones, and blockers do have a physical and psychological impact, often to the very negative, as we have many testimonies of.
- As an interested person, I do look at and highlight studies and articles that are "against me." Especially if I want to quote it. No problem at all.
- Flawed study
- The very study you showed discussed a POSITIVE impact on mental health and decrease in suicidal ideation
- You don't even study the studies that you cite for your side, or else you'd see just how flawed they are
You're simply making things up now.
dargscisyhp said:Joe Boudain said:
I've always maintained that the end goal of the morally relativist left is to degrade children, as they are the closest to Sinlessness, i.e Christ, that you can get as humans.
The morally relativist left think about christ a lot less than you believe. Not sure why in the world you think we want to degrade children lmao, it's somewhat bordering on so farfetched as to be funny.
The people playing the tunes have that as their end goal, you're just dancing to the music. Abortion, disfigurement, gay adoption, a couple of points make a line.
Gay adoption now? Hell yeah! Let's keep those kids as wards of the state! Why put them with loving parents who may have similar genitalia?!
Joe Boudain said:dargscisyhp said:Joe Boudain said:
I've always maintained that the end goal of the morally relativist left is to degrade children, as they are the closest to Sinlessness, i.e Christ, that you can get as humans.
The morally relativist left think about christ a lot less than you believe. Not sure why in the world you think we want to degrade children lmao, it's somewhat bordering on so farfetched as to be funny.
The people playing the tunes have that as their end goal, you're just dancing to the music. Abortion, disfigurement, gay adoption, a couple of points make a line.
Conspiracist bull*****
Okay, I've had my fill of this. I've shared analysis of the fundamental flaws of these key studies for the anti-trans side. I've shared ample links to present my case. Take it for what you will. The information is out there. You just need to dig into these studies (such as the Littman and Amsterdam studies) and look at the methodology. If you still wish to peddle them, that's on you.
My guess is how you read the presented evidence is going to depend on which side you're coming from on the subject. Of course, the anti-trans side isn't wanting children to die by suicide, but I don't think they understand what kind of hell gender dysphoria is. Helping these kids is good, and should be left up to patient and doctor, not some random stranger on the internet or in a statehouse.
My guess is how you read the presented evidence is going to depend on which side you're coming from on the subject. Of course, the anti-trans side isn't wanting children to die by suicide, but I don't think they understand what kind of hell gender dysphoria is. Helping these kids is good, and should be left up to patient and doctor, not some random stranger on the internet or in a statehouse.
PacifistAg said:I've only said this about myself. My discussion about suicide and transition as it relates to children has only been based on statistical improvements in mental health and a decrease in suicidal ideation.Quote:
PacifistAg makes a big jump here saying either these kids transition or they will kill themselves -> so its morally good to let them transition as they hold their own life hostage.
Right, but you still hold the point that its important for young kids to consider transitioning early because of the suicide risk. We're firmly in the land of consequentialism. Where consequences about actions to improve happiness dictate what is good and bad. It is a morality without a compass. Its running up against resistance from those that view this through an absolute lens of morality. Its wrong to endorse transitioning so young because of consent and irreversibility issues, consequences be damned.That's not what is happening.Quote:
I don't want to see every tomboy girl that plays in the dirt be pulled aside by a school teacher asking if they want to be a boy. I don't want every young boy that plays with dolls having to fend off pressing questions about if they want to be a girl- because the clock is ticking.
I agree with you, but you're an extremely informed person on a subject you care deeply about. As this becomes more mainstream and widespread, you're going to see the introduction of pop-psychology. Well meaning people who read a couple articles on Vox are going to pull parents aside and talk to them about the decisions they all face. This is just mainstream-iffication of any mental health trend that breaks through.
PacifistAg said:
Okay, I've had my fill of this. I've shared analysis of the fundamental flaws of these key studies for the anti-trans side. I've shared ample links to present my case. Take it for what you will. The information is out there. You just need to dig into these studies (such as the Littman and Amsterdam studies) and look at the methodology. If you still wish to peddle them, that's on you.
My guess is how you read the presented evidence is going to depend on which side you're coming from on the subject. Of course, the anti-trans side isn't wanting children to die by suicide, but I don't think they understand what kind of hell gender dysphoria is. Helping these kids is good, and should be left up to patient and doctor, not some random stranger on the internet or in a statehouse.
You're the example of confirmation bias. You feel a great sense of internal dissonance, and have sought irreparable changes to your body in order to convince yourself that you're pot committed, and there is no turning back.
In order to further justify your new identity, you've sought out information from sympathetic sources to quiet your conscience, and now you're supporting the same thing happening to kids, in order to make yourself feel better.
It is selfish, harmful, and anti-Christ in the most extreme sense possible.
This is a misrepresentation of my position. I think some kids need to transition early, and that's a decision that I will absolutely support, but should be made by the child/guardian and medical professional. Some kids won't feel the need to go on puberty blockers/HRT, just as some trans adults don't need to. Much of that is dependent on the severity of the dysphoria.Quote:
Right, but you still hold the point that its important for young kids to consider transitioning early because of the suicide risk. We're firmly in the land of consequentialism. Where consequences about actions to improve happiness dictate what is good and bad. It is a morality without a compass. Its running up against resistance from those that view this through an absolute lens of morality. Its wrong to endorse transitioning so young because of consent and irreversibility issues, consequences be damned.
It's not about "improving happiness". That's not what mental health is about. And there's nothing immoral about transitioning at a young age. Children have all sorts of medical treatments during childhood years. As long as they are informed and consent, there's nothing wrong. There's nothing wrong with endorsing effective medical intervention for a child, especially if that's the medical intervention recommended by the doctor and desired by patient/guardian.
This doesn't make sense. Where we're seeing this "pop-psychology" is from people like Littman, or the poster who attempted to make a psychological diagnosis of me immediately after saying "I'm no psychologist". Being transgender isn't a mental health problem. It's not a mental illness. Not all trans people struggle with gender dysphoria. Oftentimes, the only effective treatment for dysphoria is medical intervention. But yes, we need to avoid the pop-psychology produces myths like ROGD.Quote:
I agree with you, but you're an extremely informed person on a subject you care deeply about. As this becomes more mainstream and widespread, you're going to see the introduction of pop-psychology. Well meaning people who read a couple articles on Vox are going to pull parents aside and talk to them about the decisions they all face. This is just mainstream-iffication of any mental health trend that breaks through.
It's always humorous when the guy who boasted of his respect for the Taliban, and his desire to emulate them, turns around and talks about someone being "anti-Christ".
I don't need to justify my identity, and I only seek out information to grow in my understanding. That's why I also dig into methodologies behind these studies, as its fairly early in the study process, and there are a lot of people peddling junk (See Lisa Littman and ROGD) that can be easily believable if you don't dig into it. I'm sorry my desire to grow in knowledge offends you so much, but that must be related to the whole Taliban thing.
I don't need to justify my identity, and I only seek out information to grow in my understanding. That's why I also dig into methodologies behind these studies, as its fairly early in the study process, and there are a lot of people peddling junk (See Lisa Littman and ROGD) that can be easily believable if you don't dig into it. I'm sorry my desire to grow in knowledge offends you so much, but that must be related to the whole Taliban thing.
Okay, I had previously said I had had my fill of this. I then saw your post, so I wanted to address it before leaving. With all due respect, though, I'm bowing out. Information has been presented. If people wish to read it, great. I believe the science is on my side of this. But if people wish to not read any of it, so be it. I don't think anyone here is going to say "aha! You are right, and I'm wrong".
I'd be more than glad to continue this via email if you'd like. You seem like someone who approaches it honestly. I just think we've maxed out anything here.
I'd be more than glad to continue this via email if you'd like. You seem like someone who approaches it honestly. I just think we've maxed out anything here.
Boy it didn't take long for this to go down the track I figured it would....
Let's see what I missed…Ag_of_08 said:
Boy it didn't take long for this to go down the track I figured it would....
That may be one of the most appropriate things I've ever seen posted on TexAgs LOL!
I will be honest, as a doc, I do not understand a lot of this stuff. And I have been doing this a long time and interacted with a lot of patients and non patients.
I have come to the conclusion that I am going to treat everyone like I think Christ would want me to as He is my Lord and Savior.
And to me, that means love, humility, and self sacrifice.
I have come to the conclusion that I am going to treat everyone like I think Christ would want me to as He is my Lord and Savior.
And to me, that means love, humility, and self sacrifice.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Telling the truth is an act of charity.
Redstone said:
Telling the truth is an act of charity.
Imagine a person with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, that while still treatable will require months of intense chemo radiation therapy. The imagine the relief the person would feel if the doctor said. "I think it's just indigestion, you're fine just the way you are" and prescribing them opiates for pain.
We have become weak as a people, and our solution is to warp reality through surgery and/or medicine to make reality go away.
Joe Boudain said:Redstone said:
Telling the truth is an act of charity.
Imagine a person with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, that while still treatable will require months of intense chemo radiation therapy. The imagine the relief the person would feel if the doctor said. "I think it's just indigestion, you're fine just the way you are" and prescribing them opiates for pain.
We have become weak as a people, and our solution is to warp reality through surgery and/or medicine to make reality go away.
So you are equating aggressive cancer with being trans?
Seems like a strange analogy. Do you know any trans people?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
It's an imperfect analogy, but that's a hallmark of analogies and not this one in particular. I know one person who struggles with gender dysphoria, he's the child of one of my 2nd cousins.dermdoc said:Joe Boudain said:Redstone said:
Telling the truth is an act of charity.
Imagine a person with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, that while still treatable will require months of intense chemo radiation therapy. The imagine the relief the person would feel if the doctor said. "I think it's just indigestion, you're fine just the way you are" and prescribing them opiates for pain.
We have become weak as a people, and our solution is to warp reality through surgery and/or medicine to make reality go away.
So you are equating aggressive cancer with being trans?
Seems like a strange analogy. Do you know any trans people?
The gist of my point is that as a society we've been taught that "the blues" are "depression" and requires medication, that stress is pathological and requires medication, and that inner turmoil means you're actually the opposite sex and requires massive irreversible surgery and medication.
Fair enough, I was not taught that and see no comparison between aggressive cancer and being trans.Joe Boudain said:It's an imperfect analogy, but that's a hallmark of analogies and not this one in particular. I know one person who struggles with gender dysphoria, he's the child of one of my 2nd cousins.dermdoc said:Joe Boudain said:Redstone said:
Telling the truth is an act of charity.
Imagine a person with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, that while still treatable will require months of intense chemo radiation therapy. The imagine the relief the person would feel if the doctor said. "I think it's just indigestion, you're fine just the way you are" and prescribing them opiates for pain.
We have become weak as a people, and our solution is to warp reality through surgery and/or medicine to make reality go away.
So you are equating aggressive cancer with being trans?
Seems like a strange analogy. Do you know any trans people?
The gist of my point is that as a society we've been taught that "the blues" are "depression" and requires medication, that stress is pathological and requires medication, and that inner turmoil means you're actually the opposite sex and requires massive irreversible surgery and medication.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:Joe Boudain said:Redstone said:
Telling the truth is an act of charity.
Imagine a person with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, that while still treatable will require months of intense chemo radiation therapy. The imagine the relief the person would feel if the doctor said. "I think it's just indigestion, you're fine just the way you are" and prescribing them opiates for pain.
We have become weak as a people, and our solution is to warp reality through surgery and/or medicine to make reality go away.
So you are equating aggressive cancer with being trans?
Seems like a strange analogy. Do you know any trans people?
Yeah, it's an utterly ridiculous analogy.
The MO of a person unable to intellectually critique a point of view is to claim to not be able to understand the analogy. Much like with the issue of the taliban thread, and now with the issue of the doctor.
It becomes much easier to talk about the analogy than the easily understandable point the analogy was constructed to illustrate.
You see these same people bringing up typo's or grammatical errors to deflect from the argument at hand, or going "Boo" and pretending that people are actually physically afraid of trans people, rather than worried that people think it's mainstream to neuter children.
It becomes much easier to talk about the analogy than the easily understandable point the analogy was constructed to illustrate.
You see these same people bringing up typo's or grammatical errors to deflect from the argument at hand, or going "Boo" and pretending that people are actually physically afraid of trans people, rather than worried that people think it's mainstream to neuter children.
People who know what they're talking about don't need analogies. They just talk about the subject. Analogies are a crutch that prevent people from saying exactly what they mean.
Many are afraid to say what they mean, because it gives their critics the ammo to use against them.
In Joe's case, what he means would often get him on the no fly list.Ag_of_08 said:
Many are afraid to say what they mean, because it gives their critics the ammo to use against them.
Shrodinger's analogy I guess. It's simultaneously too harsh for dermdoc, while at the same time being too mealymouthed for Ag of 08.Ag_of_08 said:
Many are afraid to say what they mean, because it gives their critics the ammo to use against them.
Two people disagreeing requires a quantum explanation? You live in a complicated world.
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
54
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
49
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
38
Andrew13
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29
Another Doug
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
27
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
27
RafterAg223
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
26
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
23
therealnick05
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
20