[Pants-of-dog]

I already mentioned this. The judge made other decisions (which had to do with the girl's treatment) and furthermore he also decided that the father calling his daughter his daughter was family violence.

Feel free to show us the reasoning in the judgment why the judge decided to designate pronoun usage as family violence.

Again, the judge did not see the pronoun usage BY ITSELF as family violence. So asking why the pronoun usage (and nothing else) is family violence would be illogical.

He's up against the Canadian state and the experimental treatment he opposes is imminent. What reasonable person wouldn't be desperate?

So you found no evidence of desperation.

Instead, you feel you would also be desperate in this situation, and you are going by your feelings.

[Drlee]

Again, the judge did not see the pronoun usage BY ITSELF as family violence. So asking why the pronoun usage (and nothing else) is family violence would be illogical.

It does not matter that the ruling contained many items. The bit about pronouns is egregious. It should not have happened. It should not even have been mentioned along with family violence.

I note that there is not a soul supporting this judge who is prepared to present evidence that this kind of treatment in children is supported by good science, effective and without dramatic negative consequences.

I wonder what other decisions a child should be allowed to make without her/his parent's consent? Perhaps travel? Maybe drinking? How about sexual relations with others? Should a child be allowed to make that decision?

[Pants-of-dog]

It does not matter that the ruling contained many items. The bit about pronouns is egregious. It should not have happened. It should not even have been mentioned along with family violence.

Why should it not have been mentioned?

It seems like it is part of the pattern of non-acceptance on the part of the father.

It would be odd to specifically ignore aspects of behaviour simply because some conservatives are worried about pronouns.

I note that there is not a soul supporting this judge who is prepared to present evidence that this kind of treatment in children is supported by good science, effective and without dramatic negative consequences

Those of us who support the decision do not need to present evidence. This is because the evidence was already presented in the two trials and has already been cited in this thread.

Please note that the first judge consulted independent medical professionals from various fields. If this treatment were as bad as you claim, why would these medical professionals support the child?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Again, the judge did not see the pronoun usage BY ITSELF as family violence. So asking why the pronoun usage (and nothing else) is family violence would be illogical.

Please show where the judge justifies the decision on family violence in line with your position. Here's the judgment (pdf).

I can't find any reasons or justification for it in the judgment.

So you found no evidence of desperation. Instead, you feel you would also be desperate in this situation, and you are going by your feelings.

Any reasonable person would be desperate.

I wonder what other decisions a child should be allowed to make without her/his parent's consent? Perhaps travel? Maybe drinking? How about sexual relations with others? Should a child be allowed to make that decision?

The law this is based on seems reasonable to me. It's clearly meant to protect children to the maximum extent possible and adds the conditions that (a) the treatment must be recommended by a healthcare provider and (b) the healthcare provider is satisfied that the child understands the consequences of the treatment and can make the decision. Since a lot of doctors now subscribe to affirmation only treatment and seem to think that teenagers can make a decision like this, the result is inevitably a path to puberty blockers, hormone treatment and possibly surgery later.

A more difficult question is how much responsibility doctors should have to take if their decisions are wrong. Historically, there's not much evidence that the medical profession has been taken to account for their mistakes and any suffering they caused. One of the best known examples is lobotomy where the excuse later was that they thought it was helping.

Edit: Maybe the law should specify (ideally evidence based) rules regarding the decision making capacity and the level of understanding of adolescents rather than just rely on the judgment of doctors alone.

[Sivad]

It's not too far off from the forced sterilizations the eugenics quacks performed on 80,000 people. This time they're mutilating children.

Someone should start digging into the fraudulent science they ginned up to justify this atrocity.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Someone should start digging into the fraudulent science they ginned up to justify this atrocity.

It will be a political story. This is an extension of the LGB movement with the objective that transgenderism will be considered as natural and acceptable as homosexuality. There is of course a complication in that some people want and need treatment, so medicine has to change rather than kept out (as it was with homosexuality).

I think it's unlikely that there will be any more fraud than in other fields.

[Sivad]

I think it's unlikely that there will be any more fraud than in other fields.

Then there will be quite a bit of fraud. Medical science is notorius for questionable research practices.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.

He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.

ttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ce/308269/

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Then there will be quite a bit of fraud. Medical science is notorius for questionable research practices.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ce/308269/

I'm aware of this and agree for the most part, but I suspect most of it doesn't involve deliberate deception.

A major problem is that the less is known the more freedom there is to come up with creative theories and models, and medicine is no exception to this. With respect to transgender people the theory that everybody has a gender identity has caught on, presumably because it seems somewhat intuitive to people. But as far as I can tell, this concept isn't even well-defined and it's impossible to prove whether it exists or not, i.e. it's not actually science in any meaningful sense of the word and people just accept it as an assumption.

[Sivad]

but I suspect most of it doesn't involve deliberate deception.

Sivad's razor: never attribute to incompetence that which can be adequately explained by malfeasance.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sivad's razor: never attribute to incompetence that which can be adequately explained by malfeasance.

Your sig is probably closer to the truth.

[Sivad]

Your sig is probably closer to the truth.

Babbitts are a equal mix of both incompetence and malice. They're stupid and malicious.

[Sivad]

THE GENDER AFFIRMATIVE MODEL:
EXPERIMENTING ON OUR KIDS
The guiding principle behind the Transgender Movement is the Gender Affirmative Model, which was laid out in 2013 in the paper The Gender Affirmative Model: What We Know and What We Aim to Learn.

This paper is authored by eight doctors from some of the most venerable institutions across the United States, including Harvard, UCLA and UCSF. These doctors are considered to be the "thought leaders" of the affirmative model. It can reasonably be assumed that this paper is an authoritative description of their theory.

It is a simplistic model, so badly written, citing such meaningless studies, that one wonders how it could have possibly become the accepted Standard of Care. That is, until you realize where it is coming from. It did not evolve from sound scientific theory, carefully tested following the rules of the scientific method.

It is political ideology dressed up as science. Pure and simple.



OUR ISSUES WITH THIS MODEL


1. The proposed treatment conflicts with the basic premises

" gender may be fluid, and is not binary, both at a particular time and if and when it changes within an individual across time"
They state clearly gender may be fluid and can change over time. Yet, they prescribe puberty blockers, hormones and surgery, all of which create permanent changes, to treat gender dysphoria.



2. The Model blames society for the child's problems

"gender variations are not disorders...if there is pathology, it more often stems from cultural reactions (e.g. transphobia, homophobia, sexism) rather than from within the child."

In other words, if the child has problems, then it's society's fault and society has to change. This discourages the child from examining their own emotional issues and taking responsibility for their problems. It also ignores the myriad of other known causes for gender dysphoria.

Not surprisingly, many parents note that their child can become extremely narcissistic when they decide they are transgender.



3. The Model goes against common sense and good parenting.

"Our goals within this model are to listen to the child and decipher...what the child is communicating about both gender identity and gender expressions."

Gender-affirming specialists often paraphrase this by saying, "let your child be your guide." Given the opportunity, children would guide their parents straight to McDonalds for every meal, and they would never get up, get dressed or go to school. Yet according to this Model, when it comes to gender identity, these same children are suddenly imbued with Yoda-like powers of wisdom and self-knowledge.



4. The authors themselves admit, they have no proof that this model is helpful

"While the developmental impact of our approach has yet to be rigorously studied..."

This paper was written in 2013, and they still have no conclusive evidence that their approach is helpful in relieving gender dysphoria. Moreover, the authors of this model don't really seem to care.



5. The paper concludes by posing some seriously troubling, unanswered questions about the Model, yet the authors have no concerns about implementing it regardless

"can we...distinguish gender non-conforming children who are transgender from (those who are not)?"

"Is there any psychological harm done if a child transitions from one gender to another and then transitions back?"

"What are the outcomes of receiving (or not receiving) psychosocial or medical interventions...which may include irreversible treatments?"

"Are there instances in which a child's beliefs about gender identity can become confused...and how can we help to account for and counter such forces?"

These are vital questions that must be answered BEFORE initiating invasive, irreversible medical interventions. Otherwise, these children are at risk of grievous psychological and physical harm at the hands of those entrusted with their care.

Yet the authors are not bothered by these questions, as they blithely close their paper with the claim that they are guided by the oath of their professions: to "do no harm".

https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/the-lie

[Kaiserschmarrn]

"gender may be fluid, and is not binary, both at a particular time and if and when it changes within an individual across time"
They state clearly gender may be fluid and can change over time. Yet, they prescribe puberty blockers, hormones and surgery, all of which create permanent changes, to treat gender dysphoria.

I've also come across the opposite by "experts": gender is fixed very early, perhaps as early as 2 years of age.

[blackjack21]

I've also come across the opposite by "experts": gender is fixed very early, perhaps as early as 2 years of age.

Life broke into a male-female reproductive paradigm before multi-cellular life evolved. That's the way nature works for the most part. The rest of it is just mental illness and propaganda.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show where the judge justifies the decision on family violence in line with your position. Here's the judgment (pdf).

I can't find any reasons or justification for it in the judgment.

It can be located in the excerpt you already quoted from Bowden.

In fact, it is the few lines right before the text you bolded about pronouns.

Any reasonable person would be desperate.

No, this is not correct.

Many reasonable people, including the medical professionals consulted by Justice Bowden, would think that accessing medical treatment for your problems is reasonable.

[Sivad]

Life broke into a male-female reproductive paradigm before multi-cellular life evolved. That's the way nature works for the most part. The rest of it is just mental illness and propaganda.

When life broke into male-female the environment wasn't saturated with endocrine disruptors and the food and water supply wasn't heavily contaminated with synthetic hormones.

Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females

Atrazine, one of the world’s most widely used pesticides, wreaks havoc with the sex lives of adult male frogs, emasculating three-quarters of them and turning one in 10 into females, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, biologists.

Hayes and colleagues published a review of the possible causes of a worldwide decline in amphibian populations, concluding that atrazine and other hormone-disrupting pollutants are a likely contributor
https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

The hormone ethinyl-estradiol (EE2) is an active substance in many birth control pills which affects aquatic organisms when released as waste into the water.


It is true that trace amounts of birth control and other medications—as well as household and industrial chemicals of every stripe—are present in many urban and suburban water supplies around the country, but there is considerable debate about whether their levels are high enough to warrant concern.

Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species, and have been shown to labs to impair human cell function.

One of the common culprits is estrogen, much of which is inadvertently released into sewers through the urine of women taking birth control. Studies have shown that estrogen can wreak reproductive havoc on some fish, which spawn infertile offspring sporting a mixture of male and female parts. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh found that human breast cancer cells grew twice as fast when exposed to estrogen taken from catfish caught near untreated sewage overflows. “There is the potential for an increased risk for those people who are prone to estrogenic cancer,” said Conrad Volz, lead researcher on the study.

What may be more troubling is the mixture of contaminants and how they might interact to cause health problems. “The biggest concern is the stew effect,” says Scott Dye of the Sierra Club’s Water Sentinels program. “Trace amounts of this mixed with trace amounts of that can equal what? We don’t know.”

With such contaminants proving elusive to municipal filtration systems, the burden of protection often lies with the end user. But getting traces of birth control and other drugs out of your tap water isn’t so easy.


In 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water in nine states across the country and found that 85 man-made chemicals, including some medications, were commonly slipping through municipal treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Another report by the Associated Press found trace amounts of dozens of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies of some 46 million Americans.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... er-supply/

[Sivad]

Many reasonable people, including the medical professionals consulted by Justice Bowden, would think that accessing medical treatment for your problems is reasonable.

Reasonable people don't ignore the glaring problems with the science, only ludicrous babbitts do that. And reasonable people don't subject physically healthy children to untested radical hormone therapies, only demented quacks experiment on children like that.

[Nonsense]

The Canadian case confirms the adage, "The law is an ass", when political correctness becomes enshrined in law, reason flies out the window.

We now live in a society where the norms of family life have been hijacked by the state & used by poiliticians for their political agenda of social re-engineering.

They wish to eradicate national, family & natural gender identity.

It is time for normal people of sound mind to demonstrate their democratic power by shunning these fascist minority groups that want to weaponise society for their own ends.

Society depends on the normal family, these deviant groups have only one objective, to subvert the status quo of the family within society.

It's time to cut them adrift.

Below is an example from a local rag by an 'educational' establishment to it's pupils on how they define themselves.

I defy anyone to say this is not political correctness & educational brainwashing of children on behalf of the gender-bender idiots in our society.

This nonsense is against the interest of society as a whole & should be stopped.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It can be located in the excerpt you already quoted from Bowden. In fact, it is the few lines right before the text you bolded about pronouns.

I don't see any justification, much less one that agrees with your position. Please quote the text you are referring to.

No, this is not correct.

He opposes the treatments, so yeah, a normal person in that situation would be desperate.

----------------------------------------------

Now for some new and exiting progress in the transgender treatment world: Is the surgical world ready for adolescent gender surgery?

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't see any justification, much less one that agrees with your position. Please quote the text you are referring to.

As I said, you already quoted it.

If you disagree and think that the judge defined ONLY pronoun usage as violence, then please clarify that this is what you are claiming.

If not, then we agree that the pronoun usage was simply one part of a larger pattern.

He opposes the treatments, so yeah, a normal person in that situation would be desperate.

Again, you have no evidence for his supposed desperation.

Your logic consists of imagining yourself in that situation and then imagining what your feelings would be, and then imagining he has the same feelings.

This is not evidence, it is your imagination.

On the other hand, we do have evidence of his attempts to secure interviews with larger media outlets.