[Godstud]

It is rather an open wound when you are not cicumcised.

What are you talking about? Not being circumcised is the natural state of human males. There's no "open wound".

[skinster]

Trans-identifying female comes out against medicalising and mutilating children:

[Pants-of-dog]

Can anyone provide a solid science based argument for banning either of these things?

[skinster]

Listen to Newgent's testimony, she went through it.

[Pants-of-dog]

No thanks.

Having someone watch a video on a debate forum is akin to asking them to watch the video, analyze the video enough to get the argument from said video, write the argument out here in the thread, and then and only then can the person so addressed begin to actually answer the argument.

And even after that, it is common for whoever posted the video to then claim that the person who went to all this work got the argument wrong.

If there is a scientific argument in that video, please simply write it out.

[skinster]

You don't want to see her testimony or that of the ever-growing detransitioners because you've placed your faith in the lie of gender ideology or that people can change from one sex to the other.

If you don't want to watch it, no bother, it's not really for you or those within the cult. It is for those who are unaware of the extent of it. I urge those who are on the fence to watch it.

Hannah Barnes wrote about the psychotic nature of "gender affirming" healthcare in a recent book which anyone can read about here. When my current reading list gets smaller, I'll pick it up and tell you all about it, PoD.

[Pants-of-dog]

I also have not been able to find a science based reason to ban these two practices.

The opposition to ritual scarification is based on colonialism, it seems. “Those savages are so uncivilized that they deserve to be enslaved and forced off their lands”, et cetera. It is not difficult to imagine this same paradigm being forced on Jews and Muslims.

[skinster]

I also have not been able to find a science based reason to ban these two practices.

Maybe read the Cass review or why there is a scandal surrounding the Tavistock "gender" clinic and why it was shut down.

The opposition to ritual scarification is based on colonialism, it seems. “Those savages are so uncivilized that they deserve to be enslaved and forced off their lands”, et cetera. It is not difficult to imagine this same paradigm being forced on Jews and Muslims.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... r-children

“The aim is to close the Tavistock clinic [the Gender and Identity Development Service (Gids)] by spring 2023, moving to the new provider model through specialist children hospitals,” a senior NHS source told the Guardian. There will be no immediate changes for patients already under the Tavistock’s care, according to the source. “The children being seen by the Tavistock (and those on waiting lists) will be transferred to a new provider over the course of that time.”

In a statement, NHS England said it intended to build a “more resilient service” by expanding provision, and would establish two services led by specialist children’s hospitals in London and north-west England.

It followed recommendations from Dr Hilary Cass, who is leading an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people.

She said there was a need to move away from a model of a sole provider, and instead establish regional services to better meet patients’ needs.

In her interim report, released in March, she wrote: “It has become increasingly clear that a single specialist provider model is not a safe or viable long-term option in view of concerns about lack of peer review and the ability to respond to the increasing demand.”

Cass said there was “insufficient evidence” for her to make any firm recommendations around the routine use of puberty blockers. She told the NHS to “enrol young people being considered for hormone treatment into a formal research protocol with adequate follow-up into adulthood, with a more immediate focus on the questions regarding puberty blockers”.

Her interim report found the rise in referrals to the Gids at the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust in London had resulted in overwhelmed staff and waiting lists of up to two years.

Cass said this was leaving young people “at considerable risk” of distress and deteriorating mental health. The number of referrals to the service went from 138 in 2010-11 to 2,383 in 2020-21.

Last spring, in a highly critical report on the Gids, the Care Quality Commission demanded monthly updates on waiting list numbers and actions to reduce them.

NHS England said the two new services in London and north-west England would be the “first step” in a national regional network “given the urgent requirement to stabilise current service provision for patients”.

The final number is yet to be confirmed but it is understood seven or eight services could eventually be put in place.

….(article continues)…..

So they closed it in order to have more services at the regional level capable of handling the increasing load.

The Cass review can be found here:
https://cass.independent-review.uk/publ ... im-report/

The actual report is a 112 page PDF.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-c ... ssible.pdf

[skinster]

They closed it because of whistleblowers within concerned about immediately putting kids on medication that sterilises them before stuff like, offering them therapy, for transing the gay away, for there not being any evidence base to support such drugs, for not following up on patients and accurately collecting data, for little to zero support for detransitioners, amongst other things. It's a long report which you have found, maybe you should read it.

The Cass review’s interim report finds children with gender identity issues are ill served by adults who shut down debate
Ideology has no place in medicine. An individual’s healthcare must not be influenced by a clinician’s biases. But an independent review has highlighted that the quality of care for children with gender dysphoria in England has been unconscionably compromised in recent years, partly as a result of adult affinities to an unevidenced worldview.

The review, led by the distinguished paediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Dr Hilary Cass, has published its interim report. Its findings echo concerns already flagged by the courts, the Care Quality Commission, and, as the Observer has reported over the years, several NHS whistleblowers.

The report highlights a profound lack of evidence and medical consensus about the best approach to treating gender dysphoria in children. Yet the NHS’s specialist Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) takes a child’s expressed gender identity as the starting point for treatment. This “affirmative approach” leaves little space for exploration of the potential relationship between their dysphoria and neurodiversity or psychosocial needs, including those arising from childhood trauma or internalised hostility to same-sex attraction. GIDS has compounded this lack of evidence with its own failure to track patient outcomes.

As referrals to GIDS have increased, capacity has not kept up, meaning that children face unacceptably long waits for care. Also, it has been applying the affirmative model in a looser form than in the Netherlands, where it was conceived, and to a patient group whose characteristics have changed dramatically from those for whom it was developed – teenage girls, whose gender dysphoria has manifested in adolescence rather than in early childhood. The majority of young people now referred to GIDS have other complex mental health issues or neurodiversity, but GIDS has failed to assess these needs in the round.

The review is also clear about the lack of evidence about one of the affirmative model’s treatment pathways: puberty-blocking drugs, which, for the vast majority of children prescribed them, function as a precursor to cross-sex hormones. The long-term health consequences of puberty blockers are unknown, and there is clinical confusion about their purpose. It is unclear whether children progress to cross-sex hormones because their gender identity was already settled, or whether puberty blockers interfere with the natural resolution of gender dysphoria.

Young people’s gender identity can remain in flux until their mid-20s, so the risk of regret following irreversible treatment needs to be understood, but there is a lack of data on regret. The report notes the lack of services and support for young detransitioners like Keira Bell, who took the trust that runs GIDS to court, and who has played a vital role in drawing attention to its inadequate care.

The reason that these failures in children’s healthcare have taken so long to be addressed is the polarised nature of the adult debate about gender identity. There has been a deplorable tendency by some to mislabel clinical concerns about the affirmative model as transphobia. This polarisation has contributed to a climate in which clinicians both inside and outside GIDS are fearful of raising concerns. An employment tribunal found that NHS whistleblowers at GIDS faced shocking levels of vilification and attempts to undermine their professional integrity.

Even in the wake of the Cass report’s hard-hitting findings, some clinicians and charities continue in their efforts to shut down legitimate debate about the affirmative model. These adults must examine their consciences, because it is children whose care is compromised as a result of their ideology.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

This is what you defend, PoD. Reconsider it.

[Pants-of-dog]

In other words, the problem is the lack of data in a growing field?

Is that the argument for banning the treatment? We do not know enough?

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog is promoting drugging and mutilating children, because the Woke ideology says it's good. He doesn't actually THINK about what he's doing.
Circumcision? Check.
Genital mutilation? Check.
Puberty blockers? Check.
He's firmly entrenched in the Woke Cult.

I presented evidence and argument against circumcision(scientific evidence) showing that it is not necessary, and in fact has no actual medical justification. That it's done mostly for religious reasons is obvious.

As for mutilating and drugging children based on what they want as children. That's the reason we don't allow children to drink before they are adults. That's why adults make big decisions that will help them reach adulthood, so they can make good decisions. They are not mature enough to make big decisions, and adults should not be deciding on what children want based on the FEELINGS of a child. When this happens, we see terrible results across the board.

Adults need to help children without promoting drugs and genital mutilation, until the children reach adulthood when they can make informed, mature decisions for themselves.

I know that's common sense that will fly right over your head, @Pants-of-dog, but that's the whole argument. It's simple but doesn't take into account Woke cult parents pushing gender ideology on their kids(child abuse). No amount of pseudo-scientific BS is going to change the argument, and facts, that transitioning before adulthood is a massive mistake. That the Woke people are silencing de-transtitioners demonstrates that this is hurting their "cause".

[Pants-of-dog]

I presented evidence and argument against circumcision(scientific evidence) showing that it is not necessary, and in fact has no actual medical justification. That it's done mostly for religious reasons is obvious.

Okay.

But is it a good reason to ban it, as I asked?

As for mutilating and drugging children based on what they want as children. That's the reason we don't allow children to drink before they are adults. That's why adults make big decisions that will help them reach adulthood, so they can make good decisions. They are not mature enough to make big decisions, and adults should not be deciding on what children want based on the FEELINGS of a child. When this happens, we see terrible results across the board.

Adults need to help children without promoting drugs and genital mutilation, until the children reach adulthood when they can make informed, mature decisions for themselves.

I know that's common sense that will fly right over your head, @Pants-of-dog, but that's the whole argument. It's simple but doesn't take into account Woke cult parents pushing gender ideology on their kids(child abuse). No amount of pseudo-scientific BS is going to change the argument, and facts, that transitioning before adulthood is a massive mistake. That the Woke people are silencing de-transtitioners demonstrates that this is hurting their "cause".

So you have no science based argument, as I asked.

[AFAIK]

Is there a scientific argument against female circumcision/ FGM @Pants-of-dog?
Is there a scientific argument for allowing abortion on demand or for aborting rape babies?
Is there a scientific argument for patient consent or even informed consent?
Is there a scientific argument for voluntary vaccination instead of making it compulsory?

Why are you hung up on what the science says about consent and bodily autonomy?

[Pants-of-dog]

Is there a scientific argument against female circumcision/ FGM @Pants-of-dog?

Yes, there is.

Is there a scientific argument for allowing abortion on demand or for aborting rape babies?

Yes.

Is there a scientific argument for patient consent or even informed consent?

Maybe.

Is there a scientific argument for voluntary vaccination instead of making it compulsory?

Yes.

Why are you hung up on what the science says about consent and bodily autonomy?

It would not be correct to assume that I am arguing for a position where we only support consent and body autonomy for scientific reasons.

It is logically possible to argue that there are no scientific reasons to limit consent and bodily autonomy in these areas, while simultaneously accepting that there may be no scientific reasons to support consent and body autonomy for scientific reasons.

[AFAIK]

Could you quickly share these arguments with us? I find it hard to believe you can justify a medical procedure that will leave a child sterile for life whilst dodging inconvenient conclusions.

Your last statement doesn't make sense.

[Pants-of-dog]

@AFAIK

Can you please specify which argument you seek? For ease of discussion, I will make an assumption that you are seeking the argument for trans kids.

The medical science argument for allowing minors to access gender affirming care is that it saves lives.

Here is a review of sixteen studies:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... dical-care

Most show significantly improved mental health outcomes for trans minors after receiving gender affirming treatment; specifically , reduced anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. The studies that do not show a significant improvement suffer from small sample sizes or short follow up times.

[Godstud]

You like to ignore the possibility that people transitioning as children could be a terrible mistake. The studies ignore this, too.

Adults should be free to transition as they want, but children need to be protected from this woke cult of perverts that is grooming children into thinking that changing who they are(biologically) is a solution. Children need to be protected from people who would choose their gender because they follow a Woke cult. Puberty blockers, masectomies and other medical interventions seem like a solution now, but the long-term effects have yet to be determined. De-transitioners are silenced, too.

Ignore this, though... it can't be science, can it?
‘I literally lost organs:’ Why detransitioned teens regret changing genders
https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransit ... g-genders/

@Pants-of-dog you are supporting an ideology that seeks to groom, drug, and genitally mutilate children. Listening to studies supported by a medical industry that directly profits from these people transitioning is fucked-in-the-head.

Gender ideology is a boon to Big Pharma and threat to parental rights
Lupron manufacturer AbbVie made $726 million on the drug alone in 2018. AbbVie has joined other major pharmaceutical companies in lobbying to keep drug prices high while virtue-signaling about diversity and inclusion.

Transgender people require lifelong medical support, making them ideal customers for the health-care industry, and the well-documented phenomenon of “peer contagion”—kids pressuring each other into thinking they’re all trans — ensures an endless supply of consumers.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/gender-id ... al-rights/

[AFAIK]

there may be no scientific reasons to support consent and body autonomy for scientific reasons.

Am I the only one who can't make sense of this tautology?

The medical science argument for allowing minors to access gender affirming care is that it saves lives.

Do you support the amputation of healthy limbs of those suffering from BIID? The last time it was discussed someone shared evidence of sufferers deliberately self harming in order to leave doctors no choice but to amputate.

Do you support providing medical assistance to help anorexics lose weight? Since doing so under medical supervision is safer than them doing it by themselves?

[wat0n]

It seems he doesn't think scientific consensus can be used to take a position on bodily autonomy. It depends.

As for this poll, they are not really comparable. The functional consequences of each are not the same. Neither is the state of the science for that matter, while for circumcision the literature has been going on for decades and most evidence suggests the net effect of circumcision at birth is neutral (potential benefits and costs cancel each other out), with it being more dangerous as an adult, the literature is far, far less clear on the costs and benefits of hormones in minors.

The literature on hormone treatments for children seems to be rather new for me to have any clear opinion, my understanding was that most trans minors eventually stop identifying with the opposite gender but I've also heard of some more recent research suggesting minors who do undergo a procedure don't regret the decision as adults. It is also possible both are actually true and that no matter what happens, the minor will just be okay with the decision or that those who take the step of taking any medical treatment are those who wouldn't have stopped identifying with another gender as adults. I don't know, but these two hypotheses lead to radically different policy on the matter. It's also possible there's something else going on or that some of the existing research is eventually proven wrong via large scale replication.

As such, I don't think circumcision should be banned and have no opinion on legalizing hormone treatment on children except that, if legalized, it should be done under strict medical supervision. Neither should be covered by the taxpayer or insurers as a routine procedure, and should only be funded if there are well established medical reasons for either (e.g. circumcision is known to be used to treat or prevent some cases of urinary tract infection so it would make sense to fund it for children whose families have a history of that).