7 ms·

> But if you really are honestly curious and unbiased, M. K. Anderson wrote a well-researched article for Protean in 2022. He misrepresents Singal's writing, u

> But if you really are honestly curious and unbiased, M. K. Anderson wrote a well-researched article for Protean in 2022. He misrepresents Singal's writing, uses guilt-by-association smears, and focuses more on personal vilification of Singal than substantive critique. For example his claim that Singal's writing "endangers trans lives" is hyperbolic and unsupported. This is nothing more than a hit piece penned to destroy the heretic.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
> For example his claim that Singal's writing "endangers trans lives" is hyperbolic and unsupported. Partially due to Singal’s sensationalist journalism, trans people in the United States are about to lose access to some forms of healthcare—treatments that will remain accessible to cis people, like hormone replacement therapy. So I think history has vindicated this particular claim. I don’t expect you to agree, however. I am honored that you made an account just to respond to this! Welcome to HN.
- jazzyjackson 1y ago
  That's quite the leap of causation
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    https://commonslibrary.org/the-anti-trans-movement/ https://commonslibrary.org/the-anti-trans-movement/ Singal is part of the “Disinformation and Conversion” faction, as a promoter of so-called “rapid onset gender dysphoria.”
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  Couldn't it be possible that chemically altering minors isn't be best course of treatment? The UK, Finland, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have all stopped routine prescription of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria on the grounds that their efficacy is not clear but the negative side effects are. It's extremely hard to claim the science is settled at this point. The allegations of harm seem to come from an a priori conclusion that these treatments are beneficial.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    I welcome any novel, high-quality scientific research on better treatments for gender dysphoric children. But, in the States at least, there is no longer any funding for that. They cut all of it by grepping the NIH and NSF databases for “gender”, more or less. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/nih-terminating-active-research-grants-related-lgbtq-dei/story?id=119553232 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/nih-terminating-active-researc... What there soon will be in the States, assuming SCOTUS overturns the Colorado ban this term, is a renaissance of conversion therapy. If you abuse the child hard enough and long enough, they’ll have bigger problems than gender dysphoria or—coming up in the next wave of manufactured outrage—same-sex attraction. Hard to say that the “just asking questions” club has the child’s best interests at heart.
    - Manuel_D 1y ago
      There has been quality research published recently on treating gender dysphoria. For instance, A 2020 study on treating GD with hormone therapy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039488.2019.1691260 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039488.2019.1... Somewhat unique among studies on pediatric gender affirming hormone therapy, this study had a control group that wasn't prescribed blockers. The group on blockers fared no better than the control group. This is the study that primarily motivated Finland to stop routine prescription of puberty blockers to children, with half a dozen or so other European countries following suit after their reviews of the evidence. Researchers in the US have typically balked at the idea of including a control group in their studies on blockers, arguing that it's unethical to withhold live-saving medicine from patients. This, conveniently, lets authors frame null results as positive, by claiming that gender dysphoria patient would have fared even worse without blockers. This is what Johanna Olson-Kennedy did in her latest study: she observed no change in the patients' outcomes, and claimed that this indicates that blockers are beneficial because they prevented the patients from getting even worse. But without a control group in her study, this is statement is just speculation. The retreat from gender affirming care is motivated by the absence of good evidence in favor of their usage. And it's hardly a US-specific phenomenon. It's uniquely politicized in the US, I'll grant that, but this shift in stance on altering children's endocrine systems is happening in plenty of other countries too, so I'm not so convinced this is solely borne out by this latest President. And again, I find the attempts to equate anti-gay conversion therapy aimed at suppressing homosexual desire with exploring ways to become more comfortable in one's natural body. It's fundamentally different to[ tell a boy attracted to other boys that his feelings are wrong than it is to tell a boy identifying as a girl on account of his same sex attractions, "boys can like other boys, not only girls can like boys". The former is telling someone to reject a part of themselves, the latter is expanding's one's concept of gender to include one's natural state of being.

TimorousBestie 1y ago

> For example his claim that Singal's writing "endangers trans lives" is hyperbolic and unsupported. Partially due to Singal’s sensationalist journalism, trans people in the United States are about to lose access to some forms of healthcare—treatments that will remain accessible to cis people, like hormone replacement therapy. So I think history has vindicated this particular claim. I don’t expect you to agree, however. I am honored that you made an account just to respond to this! Welcome to HN.

jazzyjackson 1y ago
That's quite the leap of causation
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  https://commonslibrary.org/the-anti-trans-movement/ https://commonslibrary.org/the-anti-trans-movement/ Singal is part of the “Disinformation and Conversion” faction, as a promoter of so-called “rapid onset gender dysphoria.”
Manuel_D 1y ago
Couldn't it be possible that chemically altering minors isn't be best course of treatment? The UK, Finland, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have all stopped routine prescription of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria on the grounds that their efficacy is not clear but the negative side effects are. It's extremely hard to claim the science is settled at this point. The allegations of harm seem to come from an a priori conclusion that these treatments are beneficial.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  I welcome any novel, high-quality scientific research on better treatments for gender dysphoric children. But, in the States at least, there is no longer any funding for that. They cut all of it by grepping the NIH and NSF databases for “gender”, more or less. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/nih-terminating-active-research-grants-related-lgbtq-dei/story?id=119553232 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/nih-terminating-active-researc... What there soon will be in the States, assuming SCOTUS overturns the Colorado ban this term, is a renaissance of conversion therapy. If you abuse the child hard enough and long enough, they’ll have bigger problems than gender dysphoria or—coming up in the next wave of manufactured outrage—same-sex attraction. Hard to say that the “just asking questions” club has the child’s best interests at heart.
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    There has been quality research published recently on treating gender dysphoria. For instance, A 2020 study on treating GD with hormone therapy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039488.2019.1691260 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039488.2019.1... Somewhat unique among studies on pediatric gender affirming hormone therapy, this study had a control group that wasn't prescribed blockers. The group on blockers fared no better than the control group. This is the study that primarily motivated Finland to stop routine prescription of puberty blockers to children, with half a dozen or so other European countries following suit after their reviews of the evidence. Researchers in the US have typically balked at the idea of including a control group in their studies on blockers, arguing that it's unethical to withhold live-saving medicine from patients. This, conveniently, lets authors frame null results as positive, by claiming that gender dysphoria patient would have fared even worse without blockers. This is what Johanna Olson-Kennedy did in her latest study: she observed no change in the patients' outcomes, and claimed that this indicates that blockers are beneficial because they prevented the patients from getting even worse. But without a control group in her study, this is statement is just speculation. The retreat from gender affirming care is motivated by the absence of good evidence in favor of their usage. And it's hardly a US-specific phenomenon. It's uniquely politicized in the US, I'll grant that, but this shift in stance on altering children's endocrine systems is happening in plenty of other countries too, so I'm not so convinced this is solely borne out by this latest President. And again, I find the attempts to equate anti-gay conversion therapy aimed at suppressing homosexual desire with exploring ways to become more comfortable in one's natural body. It's fundamentally different to[ tell a boy attracted to other boys that his feelings are wrong than it is to tell a boy identifying as a girl on account of his same sex attractions, "boys can like other boys, not only girls can like boys". The former is telling someone to reject a part of themselves, the latter is expanding's one's concept of gender to include one's natural state of being.