Submitted by wdcmsnbcgay t3_y9w45i in Pennsylvania
M4053946 t1_it8ctsa wrote
Reply to comment by discogeek in A Queer Community Speaks Up for Student After Teacher's Transphobia by wdcmsnbcgay
Are you actually asking? Because multiple mainstream sources, including the NY Times and reuters have recently reported on the fact that the medical treatments being touted have "little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy". Which means, quite simply, that the medical treatments are unethical. This also means that taking actions that dramatically increase the chances that a kid pursues these medical treatments are also unethical. And since we know that the vast majority of kids who say they are trans will stop making that claim if allowed to go through puberty normally, then the ethical way of handling this situation is to educate kids on puberty and allow them to go through it normally, instead of helping them to transition.
It really is amazing. Kids are depressed, anxious, lonely, and confused about puberty, and they get the idea in their head that changing their gender (whatever that means) is a solution. And instead of offering them education and counseling, we allow the pharmaceuticals and medical industry to make them promises based, not on research, but on the content in sales brochures, and we send these kids down a road that involves a lifetime connection to taking pills and surgeries with high complication rates. And this is regarded as the option that good, caring people should do. Someone please make this make sense.
nttnypride t1_it8k6vv wrote
The Reuters article you linked to was overall a balanced report, and did not in any way support the half-truths and complete lies you spewed forth in the rest of your comment.
M4053946 t1_it8uuab wrote
I guess you missed this bit:
"Puberty blockers and sex hormones do not have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for children’s gender care. No clinical trials have established their safety for such off-label use. The drugs’ long-term effects on fertility and sexual function remain unclear. "
nttnypride t1_it8vrid wrote
I could cherry pick a lot more of that article in support of gender-affirming care, but I encourage everyone to read it for themselves. (Also this is my last reply to you as you are not an honest broker.)
M4053946 t1_it8vwca wrote
Still no sources.
M4053946 t1_it8x5qa wrote
And, in case you're looking for a source, here's the updated guidance from the NHS.
From that doc:
"The interim Cass Report has advised that although there are differing views on the benefits versus the harms of early social transition, it is important to acknowledge that it should not be viewed as a neutral act. Dr Cass has recommended that social transition be viewed as an ‘active intervention’ because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning. In line with this advice, the interim service specification sets out more clearly that the clinical approach in regard to pre-pubertal children will reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence; and that for 12 adolescents the provision of approaches for social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of, or prevention of, clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning and the young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition."
discogeek t1_it8fb9e wrote
When were we talking about any medical treatment whatsoever here? You're the one obsessed over medical treatments, it's not an issue on this story. Read the article before commenting next time. Maybe you and the teacher should both comprehend what other people - including children - want before shooting off your mouth saying something stupid.
akennelley t1_it8hhha wrote
Hes an idiot, just ignore him.
M4053946 t1_it8upwx wrote
It's pretty simple.
Helping kids socially transition results in more kids transitioning medically. Sorry if that was confusing for you.
[deleted] t1_it9yk52 wrote
Recognizing non binary pronouns encourage medical transitions?
M4053946 t1_ita42q9 wrote
From recent, updated guidance from the NHS:
"The interim Cass Report has advised that although there are differing views on the benefits versus the harms of early social transition, it is important to acknowledge that it should not be viewed as a neutral act. Dr Cass has recommended that social transition be viewed as an ‘active intervention’ because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning. In line with this advice, the interim service specification sets out more clearly that the clinical approach in regard to pre-pubertal children will reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence; and that for adolescents the provision of approaches for social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of, or prevention of, clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning and the young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition."
Did you read that? The NHS considers social transition as not a neutral act, and should only be done to resolve clinically significant distress. So yes, recognizing non-binary pronouns for kids who self diagnosed themselves after watching hundreds of hours of toktok is problematic.
[deleted] t1_ita5w6z wrote
I was just confused because this is referring to pre-pubescent children and the incident is discussing high school age children.
Also last time I checked this is America not the leader less UK
bdschuler t1_it8dx1z wrote
> Someone please make this make sense.
Ok, I am game. Kid wanted to just be called by a certain pronoun.. it is that simple. No need to complicate it..
The rest of your rant about naked kids and doctors.. I dunno.. something you watched on TV blew up a very rare thing or something to rile you up I am guessing?
PensiveLog t1_it8lcz8 wrote
Wow. Absolutely nothing in that diatribe was true. That’s actually kind of impressive, although I feel like your time would be better spent actually reading the articles you cite instead of binge watching Matt Walsh.
M4053946 t1_it8ue85 wrote
I noticed that while I cited sources, you didn't.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments