DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Celebrate Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday

The Republican party nominates one of the trashiest human beings it could possibly find to run for president and then someone asks if that's sad? One would think that belongs in the political jokes thread.

Right next to the brain-dead corpse falling up stairs, shaking hands with ghosts and slobbering while mumbling gibberish lies about obscene policies on the other side.

A joke indeed.

I had no idea trump's symptoms had gotten that bad. Well, it was bond to happen.

It surety was.

You do know that it was “qualified mental health professionals “ who performed frontal lobotomies on thousands of patients.

The idea that, as opposed to virtually all of human history, in the past few decades people can be “gender fluid”, that boys can become girls, strikes me as silly. The idea that a 6’4” male should get up on the swimming blocks and compete with females is silly. The idea that places on a woman’s sports team should be stolen by males is obnoxious. The idea that ribbons and medals dedicated to female athletes can be stolen by biological males is wrong.

I listened to a young lady swimmer talking about her season. She was a college senior and had dedicated herself to becoming an all American her senior season. All Americans in swimming are those who finish top 8 in their event. 9-16 are honorable mention all Americans. She busted her butt her season year and in the event she finishes 17, because a boy stole one of the spots in front of her. Should not have happened but it was inevitable once the term “trans woman” entered the vocabulary.

Meanwhile, lefties who used to be so fond of “following the science” have now stood science on its head.

Doctors also used to prescribe cocaine to people to get rid of ghosts in their blood. It doesn’t mean that their understanding of health hasn’t improved over time and we shouldn’t do things now, like address bad blood pressure.

I think we are finally getting into the era of addressing mental health and realizing it’s on par with physical health. For some reason, that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially men. It did with me, and I think I’ve come to realize that I have over the course of time developed poor habits here and there because I was brought up to believe that feeling sadness or anxiety meant that I was weak.

That being said, I don’t think most on here have or even would disagree with you when it comes to the sports issues. I’ve said it before that biological males basically have a performance enhancing drug equivalent advantage over biological females.

When it comes to things outside of that, in my traditionally conservative view, I take the stance that I do not care what people do or how they identify if it really is no bearing on my life. I don’t think they should be ostracized or or subject to abuse. If their choices are for their own health and it doesn’t affect anyone else, then hell, what should I care?

Amen.

I doubt many on here have many specifics they can call upon tonsupport their views, other than the media spin they might see and here. In the UK one prominent MP stated the coming election would be fougjt based on the transgender issues..... The reason is simple, the conservative party in the UK is in disarray and dont stand for anything. Transgender issues represent MAYBE 3-4% of the natuon but its a nice decisive issue to rally the troops. As James Obrien recently said - they need an enemy to blame all the problems on despite having been in power for 15 years ... Blame the immigrants, blame the queers, blame the lefties who want to raise taxes and embrace all those fractions that are destroying the country.....

And this idea that modedern science can't change or improve.... Eyeyeye. Once the world was flat. Once a group of greek mathematicians murdered another mathematician becuase he proved an infinitely recurring number existed. Once doctors prescribed leeches for juat about anythimg. Once someone suggested bleach as a solution to covid..... Eyeyey

I think we have similar thoughts on this. My "concern" is the "for their own health" part. Is an operation to physically change one's "sex" healthy? Or do they cause long-term damage? An external change doesn't change the internal chemistry. Well, it may change chemistry, but not to the natural functioning of the other sex. There's also the mental/ego-impact of the change. How is it handled? Does "the body keep the score" and from that point on always feel damaged and a part is missing? Once you go cutting things they can't just be put back if one doesn't feel the way they expected after.

Rather than having men "become" women, do we just need to re-think how we view gender? Instead of having 2 categories, should we "add more"? Some indigenous peoples had the concept of "Two-Spirit" individuals. They had extra "categories" for a man that also had a woman's "soul" and/or a woman that also had a man's "soul." To me, it seems that as a society we tend to reduce things into false dichotomies. Things are more complex than we can easily understand, so we try to simplify them, so that one can "understand" them. Unfortunately, the simplifications don't necessarily accurately reflect the reality. Us vs them, left vs right, etc.

Instead of having people try to physically change their bodies, maybe we should try seeing how their minds assimilate the idea of being in a separate "gender" category altogether. Looking at it this way could also address the sport issue. Have their own "leagues."

The problem is "we should" actually means "they should". I'm on the side 05 seems to take. It has no impact on my life so why should I care what "they decide"? As far as the sports issue, they could have their own leagues now and would probably be the most fair way to address it.

It's not so much that I care what they decide. It's more that I would prefer that someone not have to potentially live with regrets that could potentially be avoidable if they knew there were other options. It'd also be nice if those other options were de-stigmatized. It's so strange to get pushback for wanting people to have more options instead of having to try to fit themselves into "community"-acceptable ones. But, I should probably expect a society that tends to polarize and "simplify" everything to be attached to their limited choices.

Reuters Link
That article feels like a fairly balanced look at the subject. It presents various perspectives.

I don't have a problem with people having that choice. My issue would be if that was the only choice they had. I'm all for options. What I prefer or you prefer for that matter should have no impact on the choice they decide. Maybe we actually agree on that.

I think we do agree more or less.

I do think in some ways there is pressure to go the extreme/surgical route more than there should be (from some directions, i.e, "peers.") But, I'm not hard set against the possibility. I get that sometimes the "drastic" option can be the right option for somebody.

I'm somewhat troubled by the seeming stigma towards people that later change their minds. People should be able to change their minds. I think the "one of us"/"if you're not with us you're against us" mentality is a big problem in society.

I'm for only adults ever being able to make such a decision for that surgery. Once you become an adult and can legally decide on your own I think that's your right. I do understand about making a decision you can't change your mind about but that's something people do all the time. While I understand that some people may not see it in the same light, everything from stunt men to cliff divers... to people that join the military during war time, to people that decide to become police officers make decisions that they can not reverse once it costs them their life. And while I understand they know that may be the consequences of their decisions, much like having a sex change operation I'm not sure they are fully aware that those consequences may end up becoming the reality of their actions. To some extent I think the old saying "Hind sight is 20/20" applies.

There's a huge difference in someone saying "that's a risk I'm willing to take" and when reality sets in and they have to say, "Oh, damn, I'm dying!" People make decisions that become irreversible at some point all the time. While I don't think that either of us understand the situation and importance such people feel about getting such surgeries, I'm pretty sure they do.

Gender medicine ‘built on shaky foundations’, Cass review finds
Analysis finds most research underpinning clinical guidelines, hormone treatments and puberty blockers to be low quality


The head of the world’s largest review into children’s care has said that gender medicine is “built on shaky foundations”.

Dr Hilary Cass, the paediatrician commissioned to conduct a review of the services provided by the NHS to children and young people questioning their gender identity, said that while doctors tended to be cautious in implementing new findings in emerging areas of medicine, “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children”.

Cass commissioned the University of York to conduct a series of analyses as part of her review.

Two papers examined the quality and development of current guidelines and recommendations for managing gender dysphoria in children and young people. Most of the 23 clinical guidelines reviewed were not independent or evidence based, the researchers found.

A third paper on puberty blockers found that of 50 studies, only one was of high quality.

Similarly, of 53 studies included in a fourth paper on the use of hormone treatment, only one was of sufficiently high quality, with little or only inconsistent evidence on key outcomes.

Here are the main findings of the reviews:

Clinical guidelines
Increasing numbers of children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria are being referred to specialist gender services. There are various guidelines outlining approaches to the clinical care of these children and adolescents.

In the first two papers, the York researchers examined the quality and development of published guidelines or clinical guidance containing recommendations for managing gender dysphoria in children and young people up to the age of 18.

They studied a total of 23 guidelines published in different countries between 1998 and 2022. All but two were published after 2010.

Most of them lacked “an independent and evidence-based approach and information about how recommendations were developed”, the researchers said.

Few guidelines were informed by a systematic review of empirical evidence and they lack transparency about how their recommendations were developed. Only two reported consulting directly with children and young people during their development, the York academics found.

“Healthcare services and professionals should take into account the poor quality and interrelated nature of published guidance to support the management of children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence,” the researchers wrote.

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Cass said that while medicine was usually based on the pillars of integrating the best available research evidence with clinical expertise, and patient values and preferences, she “found that in gender medicine those pillars are built on shaky foundations”.


She said the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) had been “highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York’s appraisal to lack developmental rigour and transparency”.

In the foreword to her report, Cass said while doctors tended to be cautious in implementing new findings “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children”.

In one example, she said a single Dutch medical study, “suggesting puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence”, had formed the basis for their use to “spread at pace to other countries”. Subsequently, there was a “greater readiness to start masculinising/feminising hormones in mid-teens”.

She added: “Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations. They deserve very much better.”

Both papers repeatedly pointed to a key problem in this area of medicine: a dearth of good data.


She said: “Filling this knowledge gap would be of great help to the young people wanting to make informed choices about their treatment.”

Cass said the NHS should put in place a “full programme of research” looking at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person presenting to gender services, with consent routinely sought for enrolment in a research study that followed them into adulthood.

Gender medicine was “an area of remarkably weak evidence”, her review found, with study results also “exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint”.

Alongside a puberty blocker trial, which could be in place by December, there should be research into psychosocial interventions and the use of the masculinising and feminising hormones testosterone and oestrogen, the review found.

Hormone treatment
Many trans people who seek medical intervention in their transition opt to take hormones to masculinise or feminise their body, an approach that has been used in transgender adults for decades.

“It is a well-established practice that has transformed the lives of many transgender people,” the Cass review notes, adding that while these drugs are not without long-term problems and side-effects, for many they are dramatically outweighed by the benefits.

For birth-registered females, the approach means taking testosterone, which brings about changes including the growth of facial hair and a deepening of the voice, while for birth-registered males, it involves taking hormones including oestrogen to promote changes including the growth of breasts and an increase in body fat. Some of these changes may be irreversible.

However, in recent years a growing proportion of adolescents have begun taking these cross-sex, or gender-affirming, hormones, with the vast majority who are prescribed puberty blockers subsequently moving on to such medication.

This growing take-up among young people has led to questions over the impact of these hormones in areas ranging from mental health to sexual functioning and fertility.

Now researchers at the University of York have carried out a review of the evidence, comprising an analysis of 53 previously published studies, in an attempt to set out what is known – and what is not – about the risks, benefits and possible side-effects of such hormones on young people.

All but one study, which looked at side-effects, were rated of moderate or low quality, with the researchers finding limited evidence for the impact of such hormones on trans adolescents with respect to outcomes, including gender dysphoria and body satisfaction.


The researchers noted inconsistent findings around the impact of such hormones on growth, height, bone health and cardiometabolic effects, such as BMI and cholesterol markers. In addition, they found no study assessed fertility in birth-registered females, and only one looked at fertility in birth-registered males.

“These findings add to other systematic reviews in concluding there is insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the risks and benefits of hormone interventions in this population,” the authors write.

However, the review did find some evidence that masculinising or feminising hormones might help with psychological health in young trans people. An analysis of five studies in the area suggested hormone treatment may improve depression, anxiety and other aspects of mental health in adolescents after 12 months of treatment, with three of four studies reporting an improvement around suicidality and/or self-harm (one reported no change).

But unpicking the precise role of such hormones is difficult. “Most studies included adolescents who received puberty suppression, making it difficult to determine the effects of hormones alone,” the authors write, adding that robust research on psychological health with long-term follow-up was needed.

The Cass review has recommended NHS England should review the current policy on masculinising or feminising hormones, advising that while there should be the option to provide such drugs from age 16, extreme caution was recommended, and there should be a clear clinical rationale for not waiting until an individual reached 18.


Puberty blockers
Treatments to suppress puberty in adolescents became available through routine clinical practice in the UK a decade ago.

While the drugs have long been used to treat precocious puberty – when children start puberty at an extremely young age – they have only been used off-label in children with gender dysphoria or incongruence since the late 1990s. The rationale for giving puberty blockers, which originated in the Netherlands, was to buy thinking time for young people and improve their ability to smooth their transition in later life.

Data from gender clinics reported in the Cass review showed the vast majority of people who started puberty suppression went on to have masculinising or feminising hormones, suggesting that puberty blockers did not buy people time to think.

To understand the broader effects of puberty blockers, researchers at the University of York identified 50 papers that reported on the effects of the drugs in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence. According to their systematic review, only one of these studies was high quality, with a further 25 papers regarded as moderate quality. The remaining 24 were deemed too weak to be included in the analysis.

Many of the reports looked at how well puberty was suppressed and the treatment’s side-effects, but fewer looked at whether the drugs had their intended benefits.

Of two studies that investigated gender dysphoria and body satisfaction, neither found a change after receiving puberty blockers. The York team found “very limited” evidence that puberty blockers improved mental health.

Overall, the researchers said “no conclusions” could be drawn about the impact on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health or cognitive development, though there was some evidence bone health and height may be compromised during treatment.

Based on the York work, the Cass review finds that puberty blockers offer no obvious benefit in helping transgender males to help their transition in later life, particularly if the drugs do not lead to an increase in height in adult life. For transgender females, the benefits of stopping irreversible changes such as a deeper voice and facial hair have to be weighed up against the need for penile growth should the person opt for vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina and vulva.

In March, NHS England announced that children with gender dysphoria would no longer receive puberty blockers as routine practice. Instead, their use will be confined to a trial that the Cass review says should form part of a broader research programme into the effects of masculinising and feminising hormones.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...t-on-shaky-foundations-cass-review-finds

So she's not arguing they do what they were intended for. She's not indicating they aren't effective. She seems to be arguing the studies that helped arrive at that conclusion.

The headline was a dead-giveaway.

I think we've both learned you can never tell what's contained in an article just by reading the headline.