Gender Pronouns v God, lawsuit on religious freedom - Admin Warning in the OP

Tilden Katz

seamus wrote: »

Puberty blockers are generally known to be safe when prescribed appropriately. The known side effects are known to be relatively minor and are outweighed by the more immediate issues they are prescribed for.

Listing off a pile of statistically small side effects can be done for any medication to "prove" that they're unsafe.

I'll put more stock in the the medical professionals who work in this area and the people who carry out the studies, rather than the randomers online who think that reading a few transphobic websites constitutes proof.

No longitudinal studies exist on the effects of puberty-blockers. The NHS had to change its literature last year to reflect this. To what people and what studies do you refer and why does the NHS not know about them? It’s utterly glib to compare medication given as an off-label use to minors to the side effects listed on medication that has been fully tested for a particular use. And yes, sometimes drugs are given to adults off-label or to children when the other option is certain death but I’m sure you can appreciate why that’s different. Adults can consent and children facing certain death (such as when cancer drugs are trialled) have nothing to lose by taking the trial drug.

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

No longitudinal studies exist on the effects of puberty-blockers. The NHS had to change its literature last year to reflect this. To what people and what studies do you refer and why does the NHS not know about them? It’s utterly glib to compare medication given as an off-label use to minors to the side effects listed on medication that has been fully tested for a particular use. And yes, sometimes drugs are given to adults off-label or to children when the other option is certain death but I’m sure you can appreciate why that’s different. Adults can consent and children facing certain death (such as when cancer drugs are trialled) have nothing to lose by taking the trial drug.

That raises the question of whether you give the blockers to someone who is suicidal over their crisis of identity?

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

That raises the question of whether you give the blockers to someone who is suicidal over their crisis of identity?

Well, even the Tavistock clinic, the specialist treatment centre in the UK, admitted that the suicide risk is low amongst children. But putting that aside for one second, for the child with cancer cells marauding through their body and no approved treatment available or working for them, the outcome is certain. Without this drug, they won’t have a life even if they desperately want to live. It’s out of their hands. So trying it makes sense. It might not work and their outcome could be the same but it would be worth a shot.

For a suicidal child with an identity crisis, I wouldn’t think that the only solution is a tablet. And this is the problem really. The prescription of puberty blockers is time sensitive. So do doctors feel pressured to prescribe the drug before the child advances more into puberty where perhaps other avenues could have been explored? Talk therapy, finding out what the root of this identity crisis is - that takes time.

suicide_circus

The idea that medical staff are immune to political pressure and professional coercion is ludicrous. Medical history is littered with treatments which turned out to be mistakes.

Shield

Overheal wrote: »

That raises the question of whether you give the blockers to someone who is suicidal over their crisis of identity?

If you said to a doctor "give me [x] medication or there is a chance I will kill myself", it is likely you would be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. If it was that easy, you would have people demanding benzos on the same basis.

The real dilemma here is, how do you find out if these blockers are completely effective and fully reversible, with zero long-term side effects on children without first using children as test subjects?

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

I can't imagine how you would convince the judge you weren't taking the piss.

I think thats how a lot of us feel about the entire pronoun thing, not just that example

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

That raises the question of whether you give the blockers to someone who is suicidal over their crisis of identity?

The claim is that allowing such children to avail of blockers helped reduce their suicide risk, yet no analysis was seemingly done as to the effect of therapy and other measures being presumably done in concert. I doubt a child who is presenting with suicidal ideation is simply being administered some drugs and sent on their way.

Shield

Overheal wrote: »

I can't imagine how you would convince the judge you weren't taking the piss.

I might have agreed with you 10 years ago, but alternative pronouns have been mainstreamed by the likes of the BBC here noting:

"Emrys Travis, Cambridge University Student Union's LGBT+ campaigns officer, uses "they," "them," and "their," but also "ey," "em," and "eir" with trans friends".

That same BBC article links to this site as an "online resource for the non-binary community", where you can choose from a buffet of hundreds of pronouns like pix/pix/pixs/pixself if you identify as a Pixie, mo/moon/moons/moonself if you identify as a moon, and squid/squids/squidself if you identify as a squid.

The point here is that, if this is taken as seriously as pushed by the BBC, you could end up with each of your friends/colleagues having their own bespoke pronouns that you would be asked to use, then required to use, then legally obliged to use, as happened in New York here.

Ostensibily, if I tell you that my pronouns are whomp/whizz/whirr/whizelf from the approved list I mentioned earlier, you could be legally obligated to use my pronouns in the future.

I can't speak for other police officers, but I want to be retired before the day comes that I arrest squidself.

Gatling

We will see the pup payment replaced by the pub payment due to becoming unemployed due to using the wrong pronoun on the wrong day of the week during the wrong cycle of the moon on Mars

Rodin

Overheal wrote: »

If someone who was already your friend, for years etc. and they started to transition like this you'd just cut them out of your life? Mutual friends?

Yes. If they started indulging in this modern woke nonsense, I'd have no interest in spending time with them.

Rodin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The claim is that allowing such children to avail of blockers helped reduce their suicide risk, yet no analysis was seemingly done as to the effect of therapy and other measures being presumably done in concert. I doubt a child who is presenting with suicidal ideation is simply being administered some drugs and sent on their way.

The same lie was told to enable abortion in the case of threatened suicide.
There was no acknowledgement that abortion is not an effective treatment for suicidal ideation or that abortion actually increases the likelihood of mental health problems.

We need to make decisions based on evidence, not emotions.

Tilden Katz

Shield wrote: »

If you said to a doctor "give me [x] medication or there is a chance I will kill myself", it is likely you would be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. If it was that easy, you would have people demanding benzos on the same basis.

The real dilemma here is, how do you find out if these blockers are completely effective and fully reversible, with zero long-term side effects on children without first using children as test subjects?

Answer: you can’t.

Yellow_Fern

Shield wrote: »

If you said to a doctor "give me [x] medication or there is a chance I will kill myself", it is likely you would be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. If it was that easy, you would have people demanding benzos on the same basis.

The real dilemma here is, how do you find out if these blockers are completely effective and fully reversible, with zero long-term side effects on children without first using children as test subjects?

The strongest argument for puberty blockers is that it can be hard to transition after puberty. However this only applies to boys becoming girls. It does not apply to girls becoming boys, which can be done at any age without too much extra trouble. Nevertheless giving these drugs to little girls is increasingly common. If you make this argument you can be labeled bigot transphobe and huge risks. The extant that these drugs are completely effective and fully reversible is hard to get at from a research perspective but you can get a glimpse of this by looking at how how rarely they are used outside of trans sector.

Rodin

If we all just stand back and think about puberty blockers in the cold light of day... it is nothing but an assault on children.
It really isn't being resisted half aggressively enough.
Those who advocate abusing children in this way need to be put in their place.

jaxxx

"Pronouns are based on gender".

Hmm.. ..
____________________

Jaxxx: Anyone here have any dogs/cats/other animals?

*random user puts their hand up

Jaxxx: Yes, you with your hand up!

User: I have 2 dogs!

Jaxxx: And what are their names?

User: Hamish and Lulu

Jaxxx: So a boy dog and a girl dog, respectively?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: I see. Is Hamish a good boy? Does he like his belly rubbed?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: Wonderful. And is Lulu a good girl? Has she got you wrapped around her paws?

User: Oh like you wouldn't believe!
____________________

Dogs.. .. .. aren't men or women, are they? They're male and female.. .. and yet.. .. pronouns apply to them too.. .. So, if dogs aren't men and women, but male and female, and male and female are sexes, and pronouns are not exclusive to humans, thus pronouns cannot be based on humanity's genders, then that must mean.. .. ..

Food for thought.

AllForIt

jaxxx wrote: »

"Pronouns are based on gender".

Hmm.. ..
____________________

Jaxxx: Anyone here have any dogs/cats/other animals?

*random user puts their hand up

Jaxxx: Yes, you with your hand up!

User: I have 2 dogs!

Jaxxx: And what are their names?

User: Hamish and Lulu

Jaxxx: So a boy dog and a girl dog, respectively?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: I see. Is Hamish a good boy? Does he like his belly rubbed?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: Wonderful. And is Lulu a good girl? Has she got you wrapped around her paws?

User: Oh like you wouldn't believe!
____________________

Dogs.. .. .. aren't men or women, are they? They're male and female.. .. and yet.. .. pronouns apply to them too.. .. So, if dogs aren't men and women, but male and female, and male and female are sexes, and pronouns are not exclusive to humans, thus pronouns cannot be based on humanity's genders, then that must mean.. .. ..

Food for thought.

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

jaxxx

AllForIt wrote: »

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

Are you seriously comparing the use of pronouns for animals (which we are btw, we ain't 'special', we're just another species) to inanimate objects? Jesus wept.. .. .. .. I'd get a telescope if I were you cos that went so far over your head that it's probably in the next galaxy.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

If we all just stand back and think about puberty blockers in the cold light of day... it is nothing but an assault on children.
It really isn't being resisted half aggressively enough.
Those who advocate abusing children in this way need to be put in their place.

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

Yes. If they started indulging in this modern woke nonsense, I'd have no interest in spending time with them.

Can’t agree with that position, you weren’t really friends if you can’t support them in such a significant life change. But that is your choice.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

“She” refers to a female of any species, “he” refers to a male of any species, and it is absolutely common to call female and male living things by their sexed pronoun. Pronouns refer definitionally to sex, not gender. Watch literally any wildlife documentary.

I’m honestly baffled as to how you concluded that pronouns are species-specific.

Gentlemanne

jaxxx wrote: »

"Pronouns are based on gender".

Hmm.. ..
____________________

Jaxxx: Anyone here have any dogs/cats/other animals?

*random user puts their hand up

Jaxxx: Yes, you with your hand up!

User: I have 2 dogs!

Jaxxx: And what are their names?

User: Hamish and Lulu

Jaxxx: So a boy dog and a girl dog, respectively?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: I see. Is Hamish a good boy? Does he like his belly rubbed?

User: Yes!

Jaxxx: Wonderful. And is Lulu a good girl? Has she got you wrapped around her paws?

User: Oh like you wouldn't believe!
____________________

Dogs.. .. .. aren't men or women, are they? They're male and female.. .. and yet.. .. pronouns apply to them too.. .. So, if dogs aren't men and women, but male and female, and male and female are sexes, and pronouns are not exclusive to humans, thus pronouns cannot be based on humanity's genders, then that must mean.. .. ..

Food for thought.

Pronouns are literally just words that can function as nouns. When you say "yer man" instead of a guy's name, that's a pronoun.

Just because we are very binary about a dog or a cat depending on whether they've got bollocks or not doesn't mean human beings can't use words that best represent who they are as a person.

volchitsa

AllForIt wrote: »

================================================


We use the terms she and he for animals we keep as pets because it humanizes them, because we hold them dear. We don't refer to fox's as she and he as we don't ususually keep them as pets or give them names. If you saw a mouse through a gap in the floorboards you wouldn't refer to it as she or he even if you could tell it's sex.

We do the same for inanimate objects, like ships for example.
Scotty: "she's breaking up captian". But obvously a ship doens't have a gender at all, or even a sex.

So, when we use gender pronouns for entities not human, that is in no way to suggest they actually have a gender.

But for living animals, we don't use their pronouns at random. That's why you get funny anecdotes like kids from the city calling cows "he" - the only reason it's "funny" is because it's demonstrably wrong.

(Your point about a ship probably says something about gender stereotyping, about women as prized possessions, like ships. It definitely doesn't prove that living objects have variable genders. They don't - they're either male or female, and we care enough to ascertain which they are, it's always based on their genitals/biological make up, not on their feelings.)

Rodin

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

It's not a therapy.
You shouldn't give it legitimacy by calling it one.

Stopping a child's normal physical development is wrong. Full stop.

TomTomTim

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Pronouns are literally just words that can function as nouns. When you say "yer man" instead of a guy's name, that's a pronoun.

Just because we are very binary about a dog or a cat depending on whether they've got bollocks or not doesn't mean human beings can't use words that best represent who they are as a person.

What? You're not though, you're using a term that is inaccurate based on nearly every metric bar feelings.

Overheal

Rodin wrote: »

It's not a therapy.
You shouldn't give it legitimacy by calling it one.

Stopping a child's normal physical development is wrong. Full stop.

You've picked apart one word of what I said but addressed nothing I said in effect. I've been clear on here already: I am an engineer, not a doctor, and nobody has demonstrated to me here or ever that it is, as you argue, conclusively wrong. I do not have enough information to reach that same conclusion.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but the Keira Bell case found that children could not be expected to understand the full meaning of taking cross-sex hormones, and thus puberty blockers (which for reasons that are unclear seem to lead inexorably to cross-sex hormones), so that informed consent is not possible.

Bell's case was that she was set on the pathway that led her to a double mastectomy and years of hormone treatment, which was not actually what she needed.

The appeal will be coming up soon, but there's little reason to think that the new evidence that has come up since then would change the judgment radically.
For instance, the Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic, the defendant, published results of a study it had been leading for a decade just the day after that judgment went against it, and those results don't show significant improvement in the mental state of children treated with hormones vs those who were not treated. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to suspect that the reason the results weren't made available the day before is that they didn't suit the Tavistock's claims.

Gentlemanne

TomTomTim wrote: »

What? You're not though, you're using a term that is inaccurate based on nearly every metric bar feelings.

I didn't even mention a single term so I'm not sure what you're referring to or how you can be so unequivocal about it.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

On a personal level, I equate it to circumcision, though obviously a far more serious act. It's inflicting a medically unnecessary procedure on a child who lacks the maturity level to give informed consent.

As an aside, I'm curious why gender dysphoria is treated differently than other forms. I doubt one could make a credible argument for the benefits of amputation for someone suffering from body integrity dysphoria.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

That argument is pretty bare and you could apply it to any new child therapy. But are all new therapies an assault on children?

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed, because I worry that most of the concerned posts here are not off of case examples of child abuse, for example, but off a base worry of how they could be used, in the absence of knowing how they are actually being used. Or I just am unaware

As said, there is a dearth of research. For some strange reason, some people seem to think that a lack of research means that puberty blockers are fine to be prescribed to developing minors when I would think that that lack of research should mean the opposite - practicing caution.

With any new therapy, there is a cost benefit analysis. When even the specialist centre says that the suicide risk is low, I’m not seeing how the potential risks are worth it.

Shield

Overheal wrote: »

Does anyone have any journal papers on how puberty blockers are being used and prescribed

There’s one published in the British Medical Journal that showed 50% of those on blockers lost bone mineral density. It’s called “Gender dysphoria: puberty blockers and loss of bone mineral density” and since we are allowed to quote a line or two of an article in discussion, I have gone with this one:

“Any loss of bone mineral density in adolescence is abnormal and may compromise peak bone mass. That most trans and gender diverse adolescents (on blockers) lose bone mass is therefore concerning”.

I cannot understand why we, as a a society, are not losing our minds over this.