669
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
669 points (95.9% liked)
News
23287 readers
1580 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why does every major medical organization and over a million doctors disagree with you?
No, not really and I don't know what you base that on.
KI, the largest medical research center in Sweden and one of the largest in the world did a systemic study on the research basis of hormone treatment and concluded that treating gender dysphoria in children should only be considered experimental.
https://news.ki.se/systematic-review-on-outcomes-of-hormonal-treatment-in-youths-with-gender-dysphori
Ah yes, you have one 'health board' that was conspicuously taken over by TERF ideologues, which then started spouting junk science and ignoring the actual medical professionals. That totally trumps all the reputable medical orgs.
Complete tinfoil hat but you tell yourself whatever you need to get trough the day.
I point to research, you point to whatever the fuck that is. I expected more from this community tbh but shit...
Yes really. Your study suggests doing more studies, not that the effects were negative (because if they were, the conclusion would be no further studies.) At the end of the paper, it also pointed out newer studies not included in the 196 studies out of the 10,000 it pretends to have looked it that found the benefits did exist (nd even then, it really only looked at a couple dozen studies exhaustively).
The biases that your study shows are known, and fucking obvious to anyone that has talked to a trans person once in their lifetime: There aren't many long-term studies. This is due to obvious reasons, like discrimination, lack of support, and higher chance of being murdered, which most people don't want. The study also seemed to show that the bone density issue wasn't as pronounced as some nay-sayers seem to think, but they bury that in the data analysis and hide behind a more hardline in the synopsis. Additionally, you can't really do a randomized approach in this case because of fucking ethical concerns! Obviously!!! Randomly giving out hormones seems like a bad idea, both to people that want it and people that don't!
But, you don't really give a shit because you didn't read the study, and also you hate trans people, and that's what you actually care about.
It's the second paragraph, read the damn thing.
How long did it take you to spell out this nonsense anyway? Probably longer than reading the article...
Also I don't hate trans people, that's just your small-minded assumption you ignorant fuck. I linked an article, that's it.
I did read the thing, and explained how they pointed out the bone density in the data, but obviously, you only read the second paragraph.
But, you're right, I didn't read the entire thing, so could you quote section 3.5 under Results for me, since I'm obviously unable to read? It's the one that might be labeled "Bone health outcomes" if I could read. Assuming that I can't read, and looking at the studies examined, it appears that the loss of bone density is pretty inconclusive, especially when hormones are taken earlier, but there were two studies that showed a minor decrease in bone density in transwomen when using puberty blockers, by a smaller margin than I had previously thought (you can read studies 21 and 22 so my illiteracy doesn't affect you.)
Or would you like to quote the portion about Psychosocial and mental health under section 3.3? What the study shows seems to be that 4 of the 6 studies had some improvement (14, 15, 16, 17), though it should be noted that study 19 was about testing fucking brain activations (no decline in that!) and not about mental health, and study 18 was about initial reduction in symptoms from their first appointment, so really, 4 out of 4 studies showed an improvement.
Dipshit.
lmao, dude, you're just rambling, wtf are you talking about You said:
I pointed to a comprehensive study that shows that it is clearly not the case.
I pointed out the studies flaws because you didn't read it, can't interpret it yourself, and are not a doctor. Here is a list of actual major medical organizations that suggest gender-affirming care for trans youth:
And if the WPATH didn't find actual health benefits that outweighed the actual downsides for puberty blockers and hormonal treatments, then they fucking wouldn't recommend them. This would be obvious to anyone that knew anything.
I didn't write the study. If you think it's flawed take that up with the researches who did write it.
Typical transphobic coward. You refuse to defend the study, but you won't admit it's a bad study.
Will you argue you're not transphobic? Because that would involve admitting that gender-affirming care and all it entails should be administered to any trans person that wants it. Otherwise, you do not care about the outcomes and health of trans people, at best, or want them to suffer, at worst.
You obviously have some personal issues related to this subject-matter. All I did was refute the bullshit claim you made in the original comment by linking this study.
But if you feel so threatened by scientific research that doesn't align with your world view then you need to get help somehow.
I'm not a transphobe.
But again all of this seems to me a way for you to manage what amounts to a threat to your world view.
I do. I have many trans friends whose lives depend on their care. They have to listen to this shit way more than I do, to justify their existence as if being trans is something they chose to be. They didn't.
People use the same words you're using now to defend why trans people should not be allowed gender-affirming care that they and their doctors suggest they should have. It must only be coincidental that the words you say are the words spoken by transphobes.
Say that trans people should get the gender-affirming care they desire, that gender-affirming care is scientifically backed, and that trans rights are human rights, and I'll take back that you're a cowardly transphobe.
I have only discussed this article. I've made no personal statement on the subject matter. And you are losing your mind, you cannot accept this data for what it is. To you, it's a personal insult, but there is nothing personal about it.
I'll say this to anyone who reacts to scientific research with hostility, would that be Flat earthers, Q-anons, Religious fanatics or anyone else; seek help!
It's the only advice I can give.
Okay, transphobe, I'm glad your only excuse to discredited evidence is projection.
Yeah whatever. Just get some help
U dont rly care do u?
If you get help or not? Idk if it helps you expand your world view, i suppose thats good.
Do you want the last word? Because you've ceased making a point, since I pointed out how bad your study was, pointed out exactly how you are transphobic, and you shifted to ad hominem attacks. I can only assume you think you looked good in this debacle or that I will get exasperated pointing out how you could be less transphobic, but you didn't and I won't because I like my trans friends and I would do anything for them.
Do you have any trans friends, family, or coworkers? Do they know that you argue on the internet that they don't deserve the medical care they need? I could speculate, but there's no point. You are another transphobe in an insidious sea of transphobes, and I can only hope that they know of your hateful rhetoric.
Where does it say “Medicalization of trans children is a bad idea”? Because I only read that it’s not researched enough and might have reversible side effects.
They conclude that it shouldn't be standard practice and only considered experimental. Isn't that enough?
It still doesn’t say it’s “a bad idea” like that commenter said, just that we don’t have sufficient proof to conclude that it’s 100% harmless.
There’s plenty of treatments we do that are not 100% safe, but we still employ them because the alternative is worse. The article is just encouraging more research, not for the practice to stop (It being considered “experimental” or “standard” barely matters as far as I know, since there’s a lot of assessments and tests to do before allowing someone to undergo hormonal therapy anyway).
No, it's rare for a treatment to go from standard practice to experimental, like they suggest. That means a serious misassesment has been made at some point.
The researches conclude that the hormone treatment makes irreversible changes to the bone structure but that the positive aspects as a treatment to gender dysphoria have not been sufficiently observed.
The thing is even if it does go experimental, I don’t think it would change much. Even now, they aren’t administering it like candy.
And about bones, doesn’t the study say this?
If it’s only a “delay”, which doesn’t even need the hormone treatment to stop for it to partially recover, doesn’t that mean it’s reversible?
Partially recovered doesn't sound reveserible, does it? And the severity ranges from case to case, safe to assume.
Obviously, we only experience puberty once in life. Anything that alters that process will have consequences.