smac97 Posted October 20, 2024 Author Posted October 20, 2024 7 minutes ago, Analytics said: Not at all; I put a lot of thought and attention into that post. The questions I carefully crafted were designed to see if a neutral third party could see any merit in your arguments because if it is there, I certainly can't see it. More subtly, the questions I wrote and directed to AI were also designed to explain to you how I see the issues. For example, consider the following question. Although I’m posing it as a question to AI, I’m using the question to communicate something to you: If somebody is adamant that Analytics is both wrong about the biology of human sex and claims Analytics' ability to understand these scientific issues is seriously compromised by ideology, how likely is it that he’s projecting? It’s quite possible that the person accusing Analytics of being ideologically compromised could be projecting their own ideological biases. Projection occurs when someone attributes their own feelings or biases onto others. In this case, if someone is adamant that Analytics is wrong and overly influenced by ideology, it could suggest they are interpreting Analytics' position through their own ideological lens. Given that Analytics' argument is grounded in biological complexity and real-world variations, rather than ideology, it's reasonable to consider that the accuser may be projecting their own ideological views onto Analytics. You still did not answer the foregoing questions.
Popular Post Analytics Posted October 20, 2024 Popular Post Posted October 20, 2024 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: You still did not answer the foregoing questions. I read your epic post with the foregoing questions and carefully considered what you said. But at this point, I just don’t have the time or interest to continue that discussion. I don’t see the point. My trust of mainstream medicine is quite measured; yes, doctors can be biased and doctors can be wrong. Likewise, attorneys who are cherry picking editorials and studies to support their own glaringly ideological positions might be wrong, too. There are a ton of nuances to understanding the totality of what the medical research indicates on this or that topic, to understanding how the studies relate to medical protocols, and to understanding what those protocols actually suggest for any given clinical situation. I don’t think you or I are qualified to understand whether an editorial you cherry pick from the Heritage Foundation that references anecdotes and studies that a political pundit cherry picked to make his ideological point proves anything. But if you think the AMA’s protocols aren’t supported by evidence, submit a paper to JAMA. I believe medical decisions ought to be made by doctors and patients. I believe in general, doctors and patients should be cautious about prescribing and taking drugs, and they should be extremely cautious about recommending or agreeing to surgery. And that’s really all I have to say. 8
CV75 Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 5 hours ago, Analytics said: [In this post, everything written in italics are ChatGPT4o prompts, and everything in a normal font is what ChatGPT said] For the next series of questions, please disregard everything we have talked about and everything you know about me. I want honest, objective answers. Only provide very brief answers to my questions in the form of a short, to-the-point single sentences if possible. The questions will all be about the following post, which hereafter will be simply referred to as “Analytics’ post”: Understood. Please go ahead with your first question. Was Analytics scientifically and logically accurate when he said, "If we are talking about some platonic ideal of what “normal" humans are like, then sure, according to that ideal, human sex is strictly binary. But if we are talking about real world biological beings, if there is just one person that biologically doesn’t fit into the male/female dichotomy, then sex is not binary.”? Yes, Analytics is scientifically and logically accurate in stating that while a strict binary view of sex might fit a theoretical ideal, the real-world biological existence of intersex individuals shows that sex is not strictly binary. Somebody named Colin Wright said the following things in an article: Is it fair to say that this is “pretty much exactly” what Analytics is doing here? No, it is not fair to say that this is "pretty much exactly" what Analytics is doing. Colin Wright's statements focus on criticizing social justice activism for allegedly denying the reality of biological sex and silencing scientists. In contrast, Analytics' post recognizes the biological complexity of sex, explaining that sex is not strictly binary due to real-world variations like intersex individuals. Analytics is presenting a nuanced biological perspective rather than dismissing biological realities or engaging in ideological arguments. Would it be fair to say that since Analytics is in denial of the sexual binary, and that this is pretty solid evidence that Analytics is ideologically compromised on this issue? It wouldn't be fair to say that Analytics is necessarily ideologically compromised simply because they acknowledge that sex exists on a spectrum rather than being strictly binary. Analytics is basing their perspective on biological insights about the complexity of human sex development, such as the existence of intersex conditions, which challenge a strict binary view. Colin Wright’s critique seems to be more focused on the denial of biological sex entirely, whereas Analytics’ post acknowledges biological realities, including male, female, and intersex variations. It’s important to differentiate between denying biological sex and recognizing the complexity and exceptions that exist within it. Analytics’ argument is rooted in scientific observations about real-world variations, not necessarily in ideology. Was analytics staking out ideological grounds for his position on this issue? No, Analytics was not staking out ideological grounds in their position. Analytics' post was focused on biological realities and scientific observations, specifically the complexity of sex determination and the existence of intersex individuals. The argument was grounded in genetics and the biological spectrum of sex expression, rather than being driven by an ideological stance. Did analytics say anything about whether or not the protocols for how people with gender dysphoria are treated are supported by the medical research? Did he offer his opinion about individual studies on how people with gender dysphoria are treated and how they relate to the research that has been published before and after those individual studies? Did he say that he has an opinion on how people should be treated who may have gender dysphoria? No, Analytics did not say anything about the protocols for treating people with gender dysphoria, did not offer opinions on individual studies related to their treatment, and did not express an opinion on how people with gender dysphoria should be treated. The focus of Analytics' post was on the complexity of biological sex and how it is expressed in real-world individuals, not on the medical treatment or management of gender dysphoria. Can somebody be qualified to summarize the nuances of biological sex in the way Analytics has done, but be unqualified to comment on how gender dysphoria is treated? Yes, someone can be qualified to summarize the nuances of biological sex, as Analytics did, but still be unqualified to comment on how gender dysphoria is treated. Expertise in genetics or biology doesn't necessarily equate to expertise in medical or psychological treatments, which require specialized knowledge in fields like endocrinology, psychiatry, or psychology. These are distinct areas of study, so being well-versed in one does not guarantee expertise in the other. Out of curiosity, ask ChatGPT this: If one end of a human sex determination spectrum contains XX and the other XY, a) what are the combinations of X and Y that lie between XX and XY (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? b) where on the spectrum are aneuploidies observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? c) where on the spectrum are mutations observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? And then the same set of questions for a sphere spectrum and what the shape of the viable options looks like (XX and XY are the poles). I tend to agree with the direction your posts seem to indicate: Medical decisions are best made between competent practitioners (ideally supported by an ethics board) and the affected patients (in this case, a child's parents). Not everyone will agree. The Church Handbook additionally advises prayerful consideration and gospel principles in these decisions. I think legislation is the best our society has to offer with regards to setting parameters for medical practice, ideally representing the will of the people and even more ideally, in alignment with what God is comfortable with.
Malc Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 23 minutes ago, CV75 said: Out of curiosity, ask ChatGPT this: If one end of a human sex determination spectrum contains XX and the other XY, a) what are the combinations of X and Y that lie between XX and XY (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? b) where on the spectrum are aneuploidies observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? c) where on the spectrum are mutations observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? And then the same set of questions for a sphere spectrum and what the shape of the viable options looks like (XX and XY are the poles). I tend to agree with the direction your posts seem to indicate: Medical decisions are best made between competent practitioners (ideally supported by an ethics board) and the affected patients (in this case, a child's parents). Not everyone will agree. The Church Handbook additionally advises prayerful consideration and gospel principles in these decisions. I think legislation is the best our society has to offer with regards to setting parameters for medical practice, ideally representing the will of the people and even more ideally, in alignment with what God is comfortable with. " even more ideally, in alignment with what God is comfortable with." Are you not living in a multi-cultural society? And, moreover, in a supposedly legislatively-secular one? Which god, and why? 1
CV75 Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 42 minutes ago, Malc said: " even more ideally, in alignment with what God is comfortable with." Are you not living in a multi-cultural society? And, moreover, in a supposedly legislatively-secular one? Which god, and why? A supposedly legislatively-secular society properly recognizes the rights of religious people, whomever their gods or God. I involve my faith and spirituality in my voting decisions. I think God is comfortable enough with what we have come up with so far. 2
Analytics Posted October 21, 2024 Posted October 21, 2024 14 hours ago, CV75 said: Out of curiosity, ask ChatGPT this: If one end of a human sex determination spectrum contains XX and the other XY, a) what are the combinations of X and Y that lie between XX and XY (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? b) where on the spectrum are aneuploidies observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? c) where on the spectrum are mutations observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? And then the same set of questions for a sphere spectrum and what the shape of the viable options looks like (XX and XY are the poles). I tend to agree with the direction your posts seem to indicate: Medical decisions are best made between competent practitioners (ideally supported by an ethics board) and the affected patients (in this case, a child's parents). Not everyone will agree. The Church Handbook additionally advises prayerful consideration and gospel principles in these decisions. I think legislation is the best our society has to offer with regards to setting parameters for medical practice, ideally representing the will of the people and even more ideally, in alignment with what God is comfortable with. If one end of a human sex determination spectrum contains XX and the other XY, a) what are the combinations of X and Y that lie between XX and XY (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? b) where on the spectrum are aneuploidies observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? c) where on the spectrum are mutations observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? And then the same set of questions for a sphere spectrum and what the shape of the viable options looks like (XX and XY are the poles). a) Chromosome combinations between XX and XY: You’ve got the typical XX (female) and XY (male) at the ends. In between, there are combinations like: XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) – Mostly male. XYY – Typically male. XXX – Female, usually no major symptoms. X0 (Turner syndrome) – Female, missing one X. These viable combinations are usually just one extra or missing sex chromosome and are clustered near XX and XY. b) Aneuploidies (abnormal numbers of chromosomes): Aneuploidies also tend to stick close to the typical XX or XY combos: XXY, X0, XXX, and XYY are fairly common and viable. Weirder combinations like XXXY are farther from the norm and rarer. c) Mutations: Mutations, like in the SRY gene (which decides maleness), can flip things around: XY with an SRY mutation = Male genes, female body. XX with a translocated SRY = Female genes, male body. These mutations spread the viable options out more, but they’re still mostly near XX and XY. Sphere Model: Picture a sphere with XX and XY at the poles. Most viable options (like the combos above) cluster near the poles. As you move away, the weirder, less viable combinations (extra chromosomes, complex mutations) are scattered over the sphere. In short, most of the action happens near the poles (XX and XY), with viable combinations like XXY, X0, etc., forming clusters nearby. Farther from the poles, you get the rarer, less viable stuff. 1
CV75 Posted October 21, 2024 Posted October 21, 2024 28 minutes ago, Analytics said: If one end of a human sex determination spectrum contains XX and the other XY, a) what are the combinations of X and Y that lie between XX and XY (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? b) where on the spectrum are aneuploidies observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? c) where on the spectrum are mutations observed (and where are the viable combinations clustered)? And then the same set of questions for a sphere spectrum and what the shape of the viable options looks like (XX and XY are the poles). a) Chromosome combinations between XX and XY: You’ve got the typical XX (female) and XY (male) at the ends. In between, there are combinations like: XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) – Mostly male. XYY – Typically male. XXX – Female, usually no major symptoms. X0 (Turner syndrome) – Female, missing one X. These viable combinations are usually just one extra or missing sex chromosome and are clustered near XX and XY. b) Aneuploidies (abnormal numbers of chromosomes): Aneuploidies also tend to stick close to the typical XX or XY combos: XXY, X0, XXX, and XYY are fairly common and viable. Weirder combinations like XXXY are farther from the norm and rarer. c) Mutations: Mutations, like in the SRY gene (which decides maleness), can flip things around: XY with an SRY mutation = Male genes, female body. XX with a translocated SRY = Female genes, male body. These mutations spread the viable options out more, but they’re still mostly near XX and XY. Sphere Model: Picture a sphere with XX and XY at the poles. Most viable options (like the combos above) cluster near the poles. As you move away, the weirder, less viable combinations (extra chromosomes, complex mutations) are scattered over the sphere. In short, most of the action happens near the poles (XX and XY), with viable combinations like XXY, X0, etc., forming clusters nearby. Farther from the poles, you get the rarer, less viable stuff. So it would seem the first spectrum breaks at the nonviable junctures, creating two new spectrums, and the spherical spectrum becomes shaped like a dumbbell, with the nonviable elements breaking it into two separate non-spherical, perhaps more lanceoloid-shaped, spectrums.
Analytics Posted October 21, 2024 Posted October 21, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, CV75 said: So it would seem the first spectrum breaks at the nonviable junctures, creating two new spectrums, and the spherical spectrum becomes shaped like a dumbbell, with the nonviable elements breaking it into two separate non-spherical, perhaps more lanceoloid-shaped, spectrums. It depends upon what you mean when you talk about spectrums. When I hear sex is on a spectrum, I generally don’t think of chromosome combinations, but rather a phenotypic spectrum, which is driven by whether or not the SRY gene is present and working and thus causes gonads to develop into testes rather than ovaries, which in turn drives how much testosterone is then produced. This is affected by how sensitive individual’s proteins are to that testosterone, etc. When thought of this way, the spectrum is definitely bimodal in shape, and is in fact continuous. Emily Quinn talks about biological sex across seven different biological dimensions. So whether somebody is male or is female depends on where you draw the line on the spectrum. And the boundary is gray. That is why in 1992 and 1996, for the purposes of determining eligibility for the olympics, the definition of what a woman is changed. This change wasn’t about transexuals trying to compete in women sports--we’re talking about people who had “Female” on their birth certificates, lived their entire lives as females, were considered females by their doctors, but then were shockingly told they couldn’t compete in the Olympics because genetically they were male. The lines between female, interesex, and male are gray--where you draw the line is what determines whether the number of people who are interesex is 2% or 0.02%, or somewhere between. Edited October 21, 2024 by Analytics 3
CV75 Posted October 21, 2024 Posted October 21, 2024 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Analytics said: It depends upon what you mean when you talk about spectrums. When I hear sex is on a spectrum, I generally don’t think of chromosome combinations, but rather a phenotypic spectrum, which is driven by whether or not the SRY gene is present and working and thus causes gonads to develop into testes rather than ovaries, which in turn drives how much testosterone is then produced. This is affected by how sensitive individual’s proteins are to that testosterone, etc. When thought of this way, the spectrum is definitely bimodal in shape, and is in fact continuous. Emily Quinn talks about biological sex across seven different biological dimensions. So whether somebody is male or is female depends on where you draw the line on the spectrum. And the boundary is gray. That is why in 1992 and 1996, for the purposes of determining eligibility for the olympics, the definition of what a woman is changed. This change wasn’t about transexuals trying to compete in women sports--we’re talking about people who had “Female” on their birth certificates, lived their entire lives as females, were considered females by their doctors, but then were shockingly told they couldn’t compete in the Olympics because genetically they were male. The lines between female, interesex, and male are gray--where you draw the line is what determines whether the number of people who are interesex is 2% or 0.02%, or somewhere between. Yes, it can certainly be looked at any way one wishes to; what I think drives which paradigm is used the particular problem someone is tryin to address. Kind of like using the right tool for the right job. Edited October 21, 2024 by CV75 1
Analytics Posted October 21, 2024 Posted October 21, 2024 One more comment. Somebody might ask, why does any of this matter? Manoush Zomorodi, a NPR host, interviewed Emily Quinn, who is intersex and talked about these issues in a Ted Talk. QUINN: ...This kind of thing happens a lot, where intersex people are lied to or kept in the dark about our bodies. It's rare to meet an intersex person that hasn't been operated on. And oftentimes, these surgeries are done to improve intersex kids' lives, but they usually end up doing the opposite, causing more harm, both physical and emotional. I'm not saying that doctors are bad. It's just that we live in a society that causes some doctors to fix those of us who don't fit their definition of normal. We're not problems that need to be fixed. We just live in a society that needs to be enlightened. ZOMORODI: Emily, if you could go back in time, what do you wish had been different about the way you were treated as an intersex person? QUINN: What I really wanted was somebody saying, hey, like, this is going to be OK. Like, it's not a big deal, and it's not, like, that life-changing because that's the thing - if I hadn't had all these societal experiences, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Even with small things like learning at an early age - so most people are boys or girls, but some people are in between - and kind of learning that would have been life changing because it would have meant I belonged somewhere. And as a kid, I never really belonged anywhere because I didn't belong with the girls, and I didn't belong with the boys because that's all we knew. And so if I had somewhere that I fit in and that I belonged and I didn't just constantly feel like an impostor, that would have been huge. 1
CV75 Posted October 21, 2024 Posted October 21, 2024 1 hour ago, Analytics said: One more comment. Somebody might ask, why does any of this matter? Manoush Zomorodi, a NPR host, interviewed Emily Quinn, who is intersex and talked about these issues in a Ted Talk. QUINN: ...This kind of thing happens a lot, where intersex people are lied to or kept in the dark about our bodies. It's rare to meet an intersex person that hasn't been operated on. And oftentimes, these surgeries are done to improve intersex kids' lives, but they usually end up doing the opposite, causing more harm, both physical and emotional. I'm not saying that doctors are bad. It's just that we live in a society that causes some doctors to fix those of us who don't fit their definition of normal. We're not problems that need to be fixed. We just live in a society that needs to be enlightened. ZOMORODI: Emily, if you could go back in time, what do you wish had been different about the way you were treated as an intersex person? QUINN: What I really wanted was somebody saying, hey, like, this is going to be OK. Like, it's not a big deal, and it's not, like, that life-changing because that's the thing - if I hadn't had all these societal experiences, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Even with small things like learning at an early age - so most people are boys or girls, but some people are in between - and kind of learning that would have been life changing because it would have meant I belonged somewhere. And as a kid, I never really belonged anywhere because I didn't belong with the girls, and I didn't belong with the boys because that's all we knew. And so if I had somewhere that I fit in and that I belonged and I didn't just constantly feel like an impostor, that would have been huge. Hopefully the thing that is important is to help children understand and accept their and others’ bodies and personalities as they discover differences along the way (and to help adults who discover these differences much later). This thread is about sex but I think applies to all areas of social interaction. Putting my activist hat on, I do think the Gospel of Jesus Christ offers a paradigm and a system of understanding as people become aware of what’s before them. The understanding it offers is more comprehensive than any particular discipline can offer (in this case, the clinical-centric approach so often taken when assumed to be the best available).
smac97 Posted October 21, 2024 Author Posted October 21, 2024 (edited) On 10/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, Analytics said: I read your epic post with the foregoing questions and carefully considered what you said. But at this point, I just don’t have the time or interest to continue that discussion. I see that. Following are the principal concerns I have about current trends associated with pediatric sex train modification ("PSTM") treatments: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Social contagion risks. Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). I think these issues can and should be discussed. But individuals have no particular obligation to participate in those discussions. On 10/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, Analytics said: I don’t see the point. My trust of mainstream medicine is quite measured; As regarding medical procedures involving massive sociopolitical pressures/influences, so is mine. As regarding medical procedures on minors who are often dealing with substantial mental health comorbidities, which comorbidities likely impair a minor's capacity to provide informed consent, so is mine. As regarding medical procedures characterized and presented to the minor and/or his parents as "it's either this treatment or a child dead by suicide that will be your fault if you don't go a long with the procedure, so pick one," so is mine. As regarding medical procedures, about which longitudinal data re: long-term effects are overwhelmingly absent, so is mine, And so on. On 10/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, Analytics said: yes, doctors can be biased and doctors can be wrong. Likewise, attorneys who are cherry picking editorials and studies to support their own glaringly ideological positions might be wrong, too. There are a ton of nuances to understanding the totality of what the medical research indicates on this or that topic, to understanding how the studies relate to medical protocols, and to understanding what those protocols actually suggest for any given clinical situation. I don’t think you or I are qualified to understand whether an editorial you cherry pick from the Heritage Foundation that references anecdotes and studies that a political pundit cherry picked to make his ideological point proves anything. But if you think the AMA’s protocols aren’t supported by evidence, submit a paper to JAMA. You persist in distorting and mischaracterizing my position. Here are the articles and references I have discussed in this thread: November 2012: The Ethics of Amputating a Perfectly Healthy Leg 2013: Woman Wants To Be Permanently Paralysed: Body Integrity Identity Disorder June 2016: I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery March 2018: Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence November 2018: The New Evolution Deniers 2019: Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief June 2020: Amazon Enforces ‘Trans’ Orthodoxy November 2020: Target Pulls Anti-Trans Book from Shelves May 2021: Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review May 2021 (Dr. David Bell article) : Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’ May 2021: Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions (and corollary "Letter to the Editor" responses to this article) June 2022: Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide August 2022: DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal September 2022: Chloe Cole's Legislative Testimony October 2022: Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care October 2022: As more transgender children seek medical care, families confront many unknowns February 2023 (Jamie Reed article) : I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle February 2023: Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement April 2023 (Dr. Andrè Van Mol article) : Intersex: What It Is And Is Not May 2023 (Leor Sapir article) : The Responsibility to Inform May 2023: “Intersex” Does not Violate the Sex Binary August 2023: Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ August 2023: A Slow Trek Back to Truth? September 2023: The pullback from youth gender transition has begun October 2023: Opposing Children’s Transgender Medical Interventions Isn’t ‘Anti-Trans’ — It’s Pro-Child Wellbeing March 2024: Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Spring 2024: The March of Dimes Syndrome April 2024: Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex April 2024: The Cass Report April 2024: Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids June 2024: Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment October 2024: The grisly truth about kids transitioning Here are a few more I have come across recently: December 2022: Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine February 2023: Finland Takes Another Look at Youth Gender Medicine February 2023: British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science March 2023: Manhattan Institute's Amicus Brief (1st Circuit Court of Appeals) June 2023: Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine June 2023: Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ August 2023: Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency August 2023: Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ January 2024: Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky April 2024: The Reckoning over Puberty Blockers Has Arrived May 2024: Why We Need to Read the Cass Report on Gender Ideology May 2024: Institutionalizing a Lie August 2024: ASPS statement to press regarding gender surgery for adolescents / Do No Harm Calls on Medical Associations to Follow the ASPS and Reject ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors October 2024: New database shows extent of gender-affirming treatment in Kansas, nationwide October 2024: Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism October 2024: Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health October 2024: Gender ideology has been comprehensively beaten: three cheers for Terfs I have also directly responded to most or all of the references you have provided. And yet here you are, characterizing my position as being based on "an editorial {} cherry pick{ed} from the Heritage Foundation." On 10/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, Analytics said: I believe medical decisions ought to be made by doctors and patients. And the canons of medical ethics. And the law. This is particularly so where, as here, there are substantial risks relating to comorbidities, informed consent, substantial lack of longitudinal data, compromised decision-making (by patient, doctor and/or parents), undue sociopolitical influences, irreversibility, etc. On 10/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, Analytics said: I believe in general, doctors and patients should be cautious about prescribing and taking drugs, and they should be extremely cautious about recommending or agreeing to surgery. And that’s really all I have to say. Except for the preceding paragraph, in which you substantially mischaracterized my position. You said that, too. Meanwhile, the questions I posed to you regarding this topic remain unanswered. You have no obligation to answer these, or to participate in a discussion about this topic at all. You are likewise at liberty to attempt to bolster your position and/or outsourcing your reasoning by quoting ChatGPT over and over. Meanwhile, I hope those other readers who are interested in this topic will review the articles listed above, consider the questions I have posed, do their own research and examination of these issues, and reach their own conclusions. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 16, 2024 by smac97 3
smac97 Posted October 22, 2024 Author Posted October 22, 2024 (edited) On 10/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, Analytics said: There are a ton of nuances to understanding the totality of what the medical research indicates on this or that topic, to understanding how the studies relate to medical protocols, and to understanding what those protocols actually suggest for any given clinical situation. ... But if you think the AMA’s protocols aren’t supported by evidence, submit a paper to JAMA. I believe medical decisions ought to be made by doctors and patients. I believe in general, doctors and patients should be cautious about prescribing and taking drugs, and they should be extremely cautious about recommending or agreeing to surgery. And that’s really all I have to say. Regarding medical organizations being subjected to sociopolitical pressures, this WSJ commentary deserves some attention: Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Quote A federal court on Tuesday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Florida law that prohibits the administration of sex-change procedures on children under 18. The opinion, by Judge Robert L. Hinkle, leans heavily on medical and scientific rationales to argue that it is unconstitutional to ban the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on teenagers who feel alienated from their bodies. Legislatures and the courts are being called upon to intervene in medical disputes. Quote Twenty states maintain age restrictions on sex-change procedures, and the problem they face is explaining to judges that American medical associations aren’t following the best available evidence. "American medical associations aren’t following the best available evidence." This is an assertion that should be substantiated. Quote This is known to European health authorities and has been reported in such prestigious publications as the British Medical Journal. Here is an article by the BMJ that may be one of those referenced here: Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement This BMJ article is . . . noteworthy: Quote Same evidence, divergent recommendations Three organisations have had a major role in shaping the US’s approach to gender dysphoria care: WPATH, the AAP, and the Endocrine Society (see box). On 15 September 2022 WPATH published the eighth edition of its Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, with new chapters on children and adolescents and no minimum age requirements for hormonal and surgical treatments.212 GnRHa treatment, says WPATH, can be initiated to arrest puberty at its earliest stage, known as Tanner stage 2. The Endocrine Society also supports hormonal and surgical intervention in adolescents who meet criteria in clinical practice guidelines published in 2009 and updated in 2017.14 And the AAP’s 2018 policy statement, Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents, says that “various interventions may be considered to better align” a young person’s “gender expression with their underlying identity.”15 Among the components of “gender affirmation” the AAP names social transition, puberty blockers, sex hormones, and surgeries. Other prominent professional organisations, such as the American Medical Association, have issued policy statements in opposition to legislation that would curtail access to medical treatment for minors.16171819 These documents are often cited to suggest that medical treatment is both uncontroversial and backed by rigorous science. “All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary,” stated a recent article on transgender healthcare for children published in Scientific American.20 “Transition related healthcare is not controversial in the medical field,” wrote Gillian Branstetter, a frequent spokesperson on transgender issues currently with the American Civil Liberties Union, in a 2019 guide for reporters.21 Two physicians and an attorney from Yale recently opined in the Los Angeles Times that “gender-affirming care is standard medical care, supported by major medical organizations . . . Years of study and scientific scrutiny have established safe, evidence-based guidelines for delivery of lifesaving, gender-affirming care.”22 Rachel Levine, the US assistant secretary for health, told National Public Radio last year regarding such treatment, “There is no argument among medical professionals.”23 "These documents are often cited to suggest that medical treatment is both uncontroversial and backed by rigorous science." I think this is the impression that @Analytics is trying to give us. Quote Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.24 Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.25 (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.) Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30 "Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria." Sweden. Finland. France. Australia. New Zealand. England. Some people, apparently including @Analytics, really really want to declare that there is a clear consensus on pediatric sex trait modification treatments (see, e.g., here). I think there is ample evidence demonstrating that no such consensus exists. Quote “Don’t call them evidence based” “The brief history of guidelines is that, going back more than 30 years ago, experts would write articles and so on about what people should do. But formal guidelines as we think of them now were seldom or non-existent,” says Gordon Guyatt, distinguished professor in the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact at McMaster University, Ontario. That led to the movement towards developing criteria for what makes a “trustworthy guideline,” of which Guyatt was a part.31 One pillar of this, he told The BMJ, is that they “are based on systematic review of the relevant evidence,” for which there are also now standards, as opposed to a traditional narrative literature review in which “a bunch of experts write whatever they felt like using no particular standards and no particular structure.” Mark Helfand, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology at Oregon Health and Science University, says, “An evidence based recommendation requires two steps.” First, “an unbiased, thorough, critical systematic review of all the relevant evidence.” Second, “some commitment to link the strength of the recommendations to the quality of the evidence.” The Endocrine Society commissioned two systematic reviews for its clinical practice guideline, Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: one on the effects of sex steroids on lipids and cardiovascular outcomes, the other on their effects on bone health.3233 To indicate the quality of evidence underpinning its various guidelines, the Endocrine Society employed the GRADE system (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) and judged the quality of evidence for all recommendations on adolescents as “low” or “very low.” Guyatt, who co-developed GRADE, found “serious problems” with the Endocrine Society guidelines, noting that the systematic reviews didn’t look at the effect of the interventions on gender dysphoria itself, arguably “the most important outcome.” He also noted that the Endocrine Society had at times paired strong recommendations—phrased as “we recommend”—with weak evidence. In the adolescent section, the weaker phrasing “we suggest” is used for pubertal hormone suppression when children “first exhibit physical changes of puberty”; however, the stronger phrasing is used to “recommend” GnRHa treatment. “GRADE discourages strong recommendations with low or very low quality evidence except under very specific circumstances,” Guyatt told The BMJ. Those exceptions are “very few and far between,” and when used in guidance, their rationale should be made explicit, Guyatt said. In an emailed response, the Endocrine Society referenced the GRADE system’s five exceptions, but did not specify which it was applying. "{T}he Endocrine Society employed the GRADE system (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) and judged the quality of evidence for all recommendations on adolescents as 'low' or 'very low.'” "Guyatt, who co-developed GRADE, found “serious problems” with the Endocrine Society guidelines." "{T}he Endocrine Society had at times paired strong recommendations—phrased as 'we recommend'—with weak evidence." Again, I don't think Analytics want to address stuff like this. Quote Helfand examined the recently updated WPATH Standards of Care and noted that it “incorporated elements of an evidence based guideline.” For one, WPATH commissioned a team at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland to conduct systematic reviews.3435 However, WPATH’s recommendations lack a grading system to indicate the quality of the evidence—one of several deficiencies. Both Guyatt and Helfand noted that a trustworthy guideline would be transparent about all commissioned systematic reviews: how many were done and what the results were. But Helfand remarked that neither was made clear in the WPATH guidelines and also noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.” For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide. Despite this, WPATH recommends that young people have access to treatments after comprehensive assessment, stating that the “emerging evidence base indicates a general improvement in the lives of transgender adolescents.”12 And more globally, WPATH asserts, “There is strong evidence demonstrating the benefits in quality of life and well-being of gender-affirming treatments, including endocrine and surgical procedures,” procedures that “are based on decades of clinical experience and research; therefore, they are not considered experimental, cosmetic, or for the mere convenience of a patient. They are safe and effective at reducing gender incongruence and gender dysphoria.”12 Those two statements are each followed by more than 20 references, among them the commissioned systematic review. This stood out to Helfand as obscuring which conclusions were based on evidence versus opinion. He says, “It’s a very strange thing to feel that they had to cite some of the studies that would have been in the systematic review or purposefully weren’t included in the review, because that’s what the review is for.” "WPATH’s recommendations lack a grading system to indicate the quality of the evidence—one of several deficiencies." "Helfand ... noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.” "{T}he strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment 'may improve' quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was 'low,' and it emphasised the need for more research, 'especially among adolescents.'35 The reviewers also concluded that 'it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy' on death by suicide. Despite this, WPATH recommends that young people have access to treatments after comprehensive assessment, stating that the 'emerging evidence base indicates a general improvement in the lives of transgender adolescents.'" "Those two statements are each followed by more than 20 references, among them the commissioned systematic review. This stood out to Helfand as obscuring which conclusions were based on evidence versus opinion." Again, I don't think Analytics want to address stuff like this. Quote Sweden conducted systematic reviews in 2015 and 2022 and found the evidence on hormonal treatment in adolescents “insufficient and inconclusive.”24 Its new guidelines note the importance of factoring the possibility that young people will detransition, in which case “gender confirming treatment thus may lead to a deteriorating of health and quality of life (i.e., harm).” Cochrane, an international organisation that has built its reputation on delivering independent evidence reviews, has yet to publish a systematic review of gender treatments in minors. But The BMJ has learnt that in 2020 Cochrane accepted a proposal to review puberty blockers and that it worked with a team of researchers through 2021 in developing a protocol, but it ultimately rejected it after peer review. A spokesperson for Cochrane told The BMJ that its editors have to consider whether a review “would add value to the existing evidence base,” highlighting the work of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which looked at puberty blockers and hormones for adolescents in 2021. “That review found the evidence to be inconclusive, and there have been no significant primary studies published since.” In 2022 the state of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration commissioned an overview of systematic reviews looking at outcomes “important to patients” with gender dysphoria, including mental health, quality of life, and complications. Two health research methodologists at McMaster University carried out the work, analysing 61 systematic reviews and concluding that “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.” The body of evidence, they said, was “not sufficient” to support treatment decisions. "Sweden conducted systematic reviews in 2015 and 2022 and found the evidence on hormonal treatment in adolescents 'insufficient and inconclusive.'" "Its new guidelines note the importance of factoring the possibility that young people will detransition, in which case 'gender confirming treatment thus may lead to a deteriorating of health and quality of life (i.e., harm).'" "The BMJ has learnt that in 2020 Cochrane accepted a proposal to review puberty blockers and that it worked with a team of researchers through 2021 in developing a protocol, but it ultimately rejected it after peer review." "{T}he UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence {} looked at puberty blockers and hormones for adolescents in 2021. 'That review found the evidence to be inconclusive, and there have been no significant primary studies published since.'" "'{T}here is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people." Quote The Endocrine Society acknowledges in its recommendations on early puberty suppression that it is placing “a high value on avoiding an unsatisfactory physical outcome when secondary sex characteristics have become manifest and irreversible, a higher value on psychological well-being, and a lower value on avoiding potential harm.”14 WPATH acknowledges that while its latest guidelines are “based upon a more rigorous and methodological evidence-based approach than previous versions,” the evidence “is not only based on the published literature (direct as well as background evidence) but also on consensus-based expert opinion.” In the absence of high quality evidence and the presence of a patient population in need—who are willing to take on more personal risk—consensus based guidelines are not unwarranted, says Helfand. “But don’t call them evidence based.” "{C}onsensus based guidelines are not unwarranted, says Helfand. 'But don’t call them evidence based.'" Quote The rush to affirm Sarah Palmer, a paediatrician in private practice in Indiana, is one of five coauthors of a 2022 resolution submitted to the AAP’s leadership conference asking that it revisit the policy after “a rigorous systematic review of available evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and risks of childhood social transition, puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery.” In practice, Palmer told The BMJ, clinicians define “gender affirming” care so broadly that “it’s been taken by many people to mean go ahead and do anything that affirms. One of the main things I’ve seen it used for is masculinising chest surgery, also known as mastectomy in teenage patients.” The AAP has told The BMJ that all policy statements are reviewed after five years and so a “revision is under way,” based on its experts’ own “robust evidence review.” Palmer says, “I’ve seen a quick evolution, from kids with a very rare case of gender dysphoria who were treated with a long course of counselling and exploration before hormones were started,” to treatment progressing “very quickly—even at the first visit to gender clinic—and there’s no psychologist involved anymore.” Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist who worked with the endocrinologist Norman Spack in Boston and coauthored the WPATH guidelines for adolescents, has observed a similar trend. “More providers do not value the mental health component,” she says, so in some clinics families come in and their child is “pretty much fast tracked to medical intervention.” In a study of teens at Seattle Children’s Hospital’s gender clinic, two thirds were taking hormones within 12 months of the initial visit.38 "'I’ve seen a quick evolution, from kids with a very rare case of gender dysphoria who were treated with a long course of counselling and exploration before hormones were started,” to treatment progressing “very quickly—even at the first visit to gender clinic—and there’s no psychologist involved anymore.'" Quote The British paediatrician Hilary Cass, in her interim report of a UK review into services for young people with gender identity issues, noted that some NHS staff reported feeling “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.” Eli Coleman, lead author of WPATH’s Standards of Care and former director of the Institute for Sexual and Gender Health at the University of Minnesota, told The BMJ that the new guidelines emphasised “careful assessment prior to any of these interventions” by clinicians who have appropriate training and competence to assure that minors have “the emotional and cognitive maturity to understand the risks and benefits.” He adds, “What we know and what we don’t know has to be explained to youth and their parents or caregivers in a balanced way which really details that this is the evidence that we have, that we obviously would like to have more evidence, and that this is a risk-benefit scenario that you have to consider.” Joshua Safer, director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and coauthor of the Endocrine Society guidelines, told The BMJ that assessment is standard practice at the programme he leads. “We start with a mental health evaluation for anybody under the age of 18,” he says. “There’s a lot of talking going on—that’s a substantial element of things.” Safer has heard stories of adolescents leaving a first or second appointment with a prescription in hand but says that these are overblown. “We really do screen these kids pretty well, and the overwhelming majority of kids who get into these programmes do go on to other interventions,” he says. Without an objective diagnostic test, however, others remain concerned. The demand for services has led to a “perfunctory informed consent process,” wrote two clinicians and a researcher in a recent issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,39 in spite of two key uncertainties: the long term impacts of treatment and whether a young person will persist in their gender identity. And the widespread impression of medical consensus doesn’t help. “Unfortunately, gender specialists are frequently unfamiliar with, or discount the significance of, the research in support of these two concepts,” they wrote. “As a result, the informed consent process rarely adequately discloses this information to patients and their families.” For Guyatt, claims of certainty represent both the success and failure of the evidence based medicine movement. “Everybody now has to claim to be evidence based” in order to be taken seriously, he says—that’s the success. But people “don’t particularly adhere to the standard of what is evidence based medicine—that’s the failure.” When there’s been a rigorous systematic review of the evidence and the bottom line is that “we don’t know,’” he says, then “anybody who then claims they do know is not being evidence based.” "{S}ome NHS staff reported feeling 'under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.'" "Without an objective diagnostic test, however, others remain concerned. The demand for services has led to a “perfunctory informed consent process,” wrote two clinicians and a researcher in a recent issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, in spite of two key uncertainties: the long term impacts of treatment and whether a young person will persist in their gender identity." "And the widespread impression of medical consensus doesn’t help. 'Unfortunately, gender specialists are frequently unfamiliar with, or discount the significance of, the research in support of these two concepts,” they wrote. “As a result, the informed consent process rarely adequately discloses this information to patients and their families.'" "But people 'don’t particularly adhere to the standard of what is evidence based medicine—that’s the failure.' When there’s been a rigorous systematic review of the evidence and the bottom line is that 'we don’t know,' he says, then 'anybody who then claims they do know is not being evidence based.'" We ought to be discussing these things. Back to the WSJ piece: Quote But American judges need some way to evaluate conflicting scientific authorities—especially as institutions responsible for ensuring that medical professionals have access to high-quality research aren’t functioning as they should. A case in point: Springer, an academic publishing giant, has decided to retract an article that appeared last month in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The retraction is expected to take effect June 12. The article’s authors are listed as Michael Bailey and Suzanna Diaz. Mr. Bailey is a well-respected scientist, with dozens of publications to his name. The other author writes under a pseudonym to protect the privacy of her daughter, who suffers from gender dysphoria. Their new paper is based on survey responses from more than 1,600 parents who reported that their children, who were previously comfortable in their bodies, suddenly declared a transgender identity after extensive exposure to social media and peer influence. Mr. Bailey’s and Ms. Diaz’s sin was to analyze rapid onset gender dysphoria, or ROGD. Gender activists hate any suggestion that transgender identities are anything but innate and immutable. Even mentioning the possibility that trans identity is socially influenced or a phase threatens their claims that children can know early in life they have a permanent transgender identity and therefore that they should have broad access to permanent body-modifying and sterilizing procedures. Within days of publication, a group of activists wrote a public letter condemning the article and calling for the termination of the journal’s editor. Among the letter’s signatories is Marci Bowers, a prominent genital surgeon and president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, an advocacy organization that promotes sex changes for minors. Nearly 2,000 researchers and academics signed a counter letter in support of the article. Springer nonetheless decided to retract the paper without disciplining its editor. Springer initially asserted that the study needed approval from an institutional review board. But it quickly abandoned that rationale, which was false. The publisher now maintains that the retraction is due to improper participant consent. While the respondents consented to the publication of the survey’s results, Springer insists they didn’t specifically agree to publication in a scholarly or peer-reviewed journal. That’s a strange and retrospective requirement, especially considering that Springer and other major publishers have published thousands of survey papers without this type of consent. Anyone familiar with the controversy over transgender medicine knows what is going on. Activists put pressure on Springer to retract an article with conclusions they didn’t like, and Springer caved in. We’ve become accustomed to seeing these capitulations in academia, media and the corporate world, but it is especially disturbing to see in a respected medical journal. Rather than appreciate the long-term risk to itself and the scientific community from doing the bidding of activists, Springer has instead agreed to evaluate and retract all survey papers that lack the newly required consent. If Springer follows through on its promise, hundreds of authors who chose to publish in Springer’s journals may have their research retracted. The publications that support what they call “gender-affirming care” rely heavily on surveys. The U.S. Transgender Survey of 2015, for instance, has generated several influential papers. As it happens, the USTS didn’t inform participants that their answers would be published in peer-reviewed journals. This kind of double standard runs through gender-medicine research. Papers advocating “gender transition” are readily accepted by leading scientific journals despite having grave methodological flaws and biases. Work that questions gender-transition orthodoxy stands almost no chance of being published in the best-known journals. Every now and then, an errant research paper slips past the censors, but should it prove significant enough to threaten the settled science narrative, retribution is swift and merciless. The researcher Lisa Littman learned this lesson in 2018, when she was widely attacked after publishing on the topic. Mr. Bailey and Ms. Diaz are learning it now. The idea is to manufacture the appearance of scientific consensus where there is none. The pseudo-consensus then allows such American medical associations as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society to recommend body-altering procedures for children. While many Americans have heard news about the wave of states passing legislation that curbs sex changes for the young, few realize that an equally fierce, and arguably far more important, battle is raging: the battle for the integrity of the scientific process. It is a fight for the ability to have censorship-free scientific debate as a means to advance human knowledge. "Mr. Bailey’s and Ms. Diaz’s sin was to analyze rapid onset gender dysphoria, or ROGD." "Within days of publication, a group of activists wrote a public letter condemning the article and calling for the termination of the journal’s editor." "Springer {} decided to retract the paper." "The idea is to manufacture the appearance of scientific consensus where there is none. The pseudo-consensus then allows such American medical associations as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society to recommend body-altering procedures for children." Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Yep. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 22, 2024 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted October 22, 2024 Author Posted October 22, 2024 Why We Need to Read the Cass Report on Gender Ideology Quote Recently, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service released an almost 400-page report on the state of “gender identity services for children and young people.” It’s named the “Cass report” after lead researcher and pediatrician Hillary Cass, who served as chair of an independent review that was commissioned by NHS of Great Britain. It is the most comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence and “sets out the recommended clinical approach to care and support they should expect, the interventions that should be available, and how services should be organized across the country.” Contrary to the standard narrative peddled by trans activists, the report affirmed that so-called “gender-affirming care” is built on “shaky foundations.” Far from being settled, the evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries to “treat” gender dysphoria is “remarkably weak.” According to the report, most of the studies cited in support of social, chemical, or surgical “transition” were found to lack the quality required to reliably and safely guide clinicians and families in caring for gender dysphoric young people. "{S}haky foundations." "Remarkably weak {evidence}." There seems to be a pretty consistent theme here. Some insist that there is some broad consensus on the utility and propriety of pediatric sex train modification treatments. And yet I keep finding articles saying that this consensus is fabricated, and ideologically so. Quote Specifically, the report found that, given the “lack of long-term follow up data,” the effects—both positive and negative—of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on minors remain almost entirely unknown. It’s unclear how these so-called therapies “impact gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health” as well as “cognitive and psychosexual development.” What’s more, none of these interventions guarantee or predict “which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity” or not. In other words, kids who are encouraged to pursue “gender transition” have no evidence-based guarantee that these therapies will help them in the first place. And yet we do know that these same therapies come with permanent consequences. Pretty troubling, this. We ought to be discussing the Cass Report. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted October 22, 2024 Author Posted October 22, 2024 Manhattan Institute's Amicus Brief (1st Circuit Court of Appeals) Worth a read, as it lays out the role of the law vis-à-vis pediatric sex trait modification treatments. Folks such as @Analytics like to say things like "medical decisions ought to be made by doctors and patients." However, the law also plays a substantial role in medical care. From the brief: Quote Questions of whether a child is actually diagnosed with gender dysphoria, or of school officials’ beliefs about a child’s potential dysphoria, are thus irrelevant to the question of whether a public school’s practice of socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge or against fit parents’ wishes violates the fundamental parental right to make mental healthcare decisions for their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (affirming parents’ rights “in the companionship, care, custody, and management” of their children). I am curious as to whether Analytics supports public schools engaged in "socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge or against fit parents’ wishes." Quote The risks of early social transition were acknowledged by the Dutch clinicians who pioneered pediatric gender transition. In 2012, they recommended that young children not socially transition before puberty on two grounds: (1) that most gender-dysphoric children will not persist in their adopted gender identity through adolescence; and (2) that such non-persisting youths should be prevented “from having to make a complex change back to the role of their natal gender,” which research had suggested would be difficult. Annelou L. C. de Vries & Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Clinical Management of Gender Dysphoria in Children and Adolescents: The Dutch Approach, 59 J. Homosexuality 301, 320 (2012). The Dutch team also noted the danger of early social transition even for minors who do go on to full medical transition. Because medical transition cannot literally change a person’s sex, they reasoned, it is important to ground the patient in reality and lower expectations about what drugs and surgeries can accomplish. The problem with “early transitions,” they warned, “is that some children who have done so (sometimes as preschoolers) barely realize that they are of the other natal sex.” Id. at 308. They develop a sense of reality so different from physical reality that acceptance of the protracted treatments they will later need is made unnecessarily difficult. Id. See also T.D. Steensma & Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Gender Transitioning Before Puberty?, 40 Archives Sexual Behav. 649, 649–50 (2011) (predicting “that the drawbacks of having to wait until early adolescence ... may be less serious than having to make a social transition twice”). Thoughts? Quote Strikingly, in a 2008 article, the Dutch clinicians suggested that, given a “80-95%” desistence rate for gender dysphoria in children, a “real life test” or “real life experience” (i.e., social transition) should be postponed until adolescence, and then only after an initial diagnosis of “gender identity disorder.” Peggy T. CohenKettenis et al., The Treatment of Adolescent Transsexuals: Changing Insights, 5 J. Sex. Med. 1892, 1893 (2008). Social transition and pharmacological puberty suppression, they suggested, are both part of a prolonged diagnostic phase in the clinical management of youth gender dysphoria. Id. Both are used to discern the need for additional, more invasive, interventions—such as surgery. It follows that the Dutch viewed social transition as less reversible than the administration of puberty blockers, an obvious medical intervention. I don't think Analytics want to address stuff like this. Quote The Dutch researchers’ cautious approach to social transition and their warnings about its risks are buttressed by decades of research finding that most children with gender identity issues come to terms with their natal sex, typically during adolescence. Those studies found desistence rates of between 61 and 100 percent, with specific percentages as follows in chronological order of publication: 75; 87.5; 100; 95.5; 90; 98; 87.5; 61; 88; 63; 87.7. James M. Cantor, Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents: Fact-Checking of AAP Policy, J. Sex & Marital Therapy 307, 313 (2019) (collecting 11 studies from 1972 to 2019). Thoughts? Too much stuff to quote. I encourage you to read the entire thing. Thanks, -Smac
longview Posted October 22, 2024 Posted October 22, 2024 (edited) here's a refresher course - - - Edited October 22, 2024 by longview
smac97 Posted October 22, 2024 Author Posted October 22, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, longview said: here's a refresher course - - - A person with a Disorder of Sex Development (DSD), sometimes referred to as "intersex," has a biological sex that may be phenotypically uncertain or ambiguous, but he or she is still either male or female in terms of their biological classification. DSDs are not treated as separate sexes (apart from male or female), but rather as variations within the existing binary system. There are two biological sexes: male and female. Intersex conditions are anomalies within this binary framework. They do not constitute separate biological sexes because, in most cases, individuals with intersex traits can be classified as closer to male or female, based on their reproductive anatomy and genetic factors. Consequently, while DSDs add some complexity, they do not result in the recognition of additional, distinct biological sexes beyond the male-female binary. Meanwhile, the vast majority of minors involved in modern social trends relating to Gender Dysphoria and Pediatric Sex Trait Modification are not experiencing any sort of DSD. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 22, 2024 by smac97 1
Analytics Posted October 22, 2024 Posted October 22, 2024 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I am curious as to whether Analytics supports public schools engaged in "socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge or against fit parents’ wishes." I don’t know what "socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge or against fit parents’ wishes” means in this context. Here are the factual allegations from the lawsuit we’re talking about. In December of 2020, “B.F.” was eleven years old. She went to her teacher and said she needed help talking to her parents about depression, low self-esteem, poor self-image, and possible same sex attraction. The teacher immediately called the parents and told them about this. The parents then emailed all of B.F.’s teachers and said the issue was being addressed at home and the teachers weren’t allowed to have private conversations with their child about any of this. A couple months later, the student sent an email to her teachers and announced that she had some new preferred pronouns and a new name she wanted to go by. And she asked the teachers not to tell her parents about this. The school complied with B.F.’s wishes, and gave her permission to use whichever bathroom she wanted. There was another classmate, “G.F.”, who wanted to use a different name, and the school didn’t inform G.F.’s parents about that, either. That’s pretty much it. The parents sued the school, and the judge dismissed the lawsuit. I generally share the judge’s sensibilities on this. The teachers and counselor at the school never diagnosed anybody with gender dysphoria or with anything else, and weren’t “socially transitioning” anyone. They were simply honoring somebody’s request about how they preferred to be addressed. In the words of the judge: Many factual allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are followed by statements that draw a conclusion about the nature or significance of the alleged fact. For example, the Amended Complaint contains factual allegations about Defendants’ responses to B.F.’s and G.F.’s requests to use their preferred names and pronouns followed by brief descriptors identifying the actions as “social transitioning,” “mental health treatment” and, in one instance, as “psychosocial treatment.” (See e.g. Dkt. No. 22, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42, 43, 45, 46, 56, 74, 78, 84.) At the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs were equivocal as to whether Defendants’ actions constituted actual mental health treatment or if either of their children had an actual existing mental health condition related to gender identity. While Plaintiffs maintained that Defendants were providing mental health treatment when they “permit[ted] [B.F. and G.F.] to be identified as either nonbinary or the opposite sex of what their bodies are,” the Amended Complaint alleges insufficient facts for the court to conclude that the conduct at issue constituted mental health treatment. (Dkt. No. 48, Tr. Oct. 17, 2022 Hr’g, 14.) Although “social transitioning,” “mental health treatment,” and “psychosocial treatment” all appear to be terms of art, Plaintiffs have not provided the context necessary for the court to infer the alleged conduct had clinical significance, as the Amended Complaint describes the terms in a conclusory manner and contains no allegations that either minor had a diagnosed mental health condition related to gender identity. “Being transgender is . . . not a psychiatric condition, and implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 594 (4th Cir. 2020), as amended (Aug. 28, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gender dysphoria is a recognized mental health disorder, but Plaintiffs have not alleged either child has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, or even that Defendants erroneously believed the children suffered from gender dysphoria. Id. at 594-95. Plaintiffs have not alleged Defendants’ actions were undertaken as part of a treatment plan for gender dysphoria or explained how referring to a person by their preferred name and pronouns, which requires no special training or skill, has clinical significance when there is no treatment plan or diagnosis in place. Similarly, there are no non-conclusory allegations that social transitioning was actually occurring or includes supportive actions taken by third parties, as opposed to actions a person takes to understand or align their external gender presentation with their gender identity. Addressing a person using their preferred name and pronouns simply accords the person the basic level of respect expected in a civil society generally, and, more specifically, in Massachusetts public schools where discrimination on the basis of gender identity is not permitted. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 5. This is true regardless of an individual’s age, provided the individual does not have a fraudulent purpose for using a new preferred name or pronouns. Id. In the absence of supporting factual allegations, such as a relevant medically-recognized diagnosis and treatment plan, the court disregards Plaintiffs’ conclusory statements describing the use of preferred names and pronouns as mental health treatment. Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege that Defendants provided medical or mental health treatment to B.F. and G.F. simply by honoring their requests to use preferred names and pronouns at school. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not adequately stated a claim that Defendants usurped their right to make medical and mental health treatment decisions for their children. Count II is, therefore, dismissed. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think Analytics want to address stuff like this. That is correct; I am not a doctor, much less a doctor who specializes in these things. These are issues medical associations, researchers, and clinicians should and are discussing. I just don’t have the hubris to think that I have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion. 2
smac97 Posted October 22, 2024 Author Posted October 22, 2024 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote I don't think Analytics want to address stuff like this. That is correct; I am not a doctor, much less a doctor who specializes in these things. You are not a Latter-day Saint, either. And yet you have spent thousands of hours writing thousands of posts commenting on religion to which you do not belong. And despite not being a doctor, you have opined some dozens of times on these issues already. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: These are issues medical associations, researchers, and clinicians should and are discussing. Dandy. So can we. 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: I just don’t have the hubris to think that I have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion. You are not a Latter-day Saint, either. Yet the presence of absence of hubris hasn't precluded you from spending thousands of hours and thousands of posts "contribut{ing} to the discussion" about us. Again, Some people, apparently including you, really really want to declare that there is a clear consensus on pediatric sex trait modification treatments (see, e.g., here). I think there is ample evidence demonstrating that no such consensus exists. But rather than address this evidence, you pull the Ketanji-Brown-Jackson maneuver. As is your right. You have no obligation to address issues presented to you here. Thanks, -Smac
Analytics Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 2 hours ago, smac97 said: You are not a Latter-day Saint, either. And yet you have spent thousands of hours writing thousands of posts commenting on religion to which you do not belong. And despite not being a doctor, you have opined some dozens of times on these issues already. Dandy. So can we. You are not a Latter-day Saint, either. Yet the presence of absence of hubris hasn't precluded you from spending thousands of hours and thousands of posts "contribut{ing} to the discussion" about us. Again, Some people, apparently including you, really really want to declare that there is a clear consensus on pediatric sex trait modification treatments (see, e.g., here). I think there is ample evidence demonstrating that no such consensus exists. But rather than address this evidence, you pull the Ketanji-Brown-Jackson maneuver. As is your right. You have no obligation to address issues presented to you here. Thanks, -Smac Do you have any thoughts on Judge Mastroianni’s ruling that allegations of "socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge” are baseless?
smac97 Posted October 23, 2024 Author Posted October 23, 2024 5 minutes ago, Analytics said: Do you have any thoughts on Judge Mastroianni’s ruling that allegations of "socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge” are baseless? In that particular case? Not really. Plenty of other examples of this happening. See, e.g., here: Quote The Sunday Times revealed today that Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council in Wales has become the latest council to withdraw its ‘trans toolkit‘ after a school used it to socially transition a child in their care without his parents’ knowledge. You can read the full article on the Safe Schools Alliance Facebook page. Our spokeswoman Tanya Carter is quoted, saying “Sadly this is not an isolated issue. We are repeatedly contacted by parents with similar stories. We are seeing an explosion in contacts from parents in both Wales and Scotland; following the release of new so-called trans inclusion guidance in Scotland and the new RSE framework in Wales, we would expect to see further legal challenges.” ... Safe Schools Alliance have produced the below Advice Note to support parents and teachers in England and Wales who are concerned that their school is carrying out the social transitioning of children without parental knowledge or consent. This is now also available as a download. Quote We are increasingly being contacted by parents and teachers who are concerned their school is socially transitioning children without parents’ knowledge or consent. This includes changing a child’s name in social settings, changing a child’s name on the school database, using the child’s preferred pronouns, and in some cases changing their “gender marker” on the school database and in school census. Here: Quote Parents—once viewed as the natural authority figures in their children’s lives—now find themselves largely spectators: locked out, lied to, and gaslit in a national effort to secretly gender-transition children in public schools behind their parents’ backs. But parents are fighting back. In at least 6,000 public schools across the country, children are being encouraged to inch toward fateful decisions with lifelong impact, all without their parent’s knowledge or consent. ... It is not surprising, then, that disenfranchised parents have finally had it. They are filing lawsuits from coast to coast to restore to parents what has always been rightfully theirs: the authority to parent their own children. The family, after all, predates government and public education itself. In Foote v. Ludlow School Community, the parents of two minor children sued a school district for violating their civil rights based on a policy at Baird Middle School in Ludlow, Massachusetts. That policy: secretly promote and facilitate gender transitions without parental consent. In this case, both parents had specifically directed the school not to discuss gender identity with their children. They sued in federal court for violations of their rights under the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions, including their right to religious freedom, familial privacy, and what the Supreme Court has long recognized as the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of one’s own children. One defendant, the superintendent of public schools, publicly decried the parents’ concerns as “intolerance of LGBTQ people thinly veiled behind a camouflage of parental rights.” As if we had any doubt about how trans-happy public educators feel about nosy parents. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case, categorizing the middle school’s policy as “curriculum” over which parents would not ordinarily exercise control. But this argument, parroted by the defendants, cleverly obfuscates the fact that policies such as these impinge on historically sacrosanct areas of parental authority. A century of Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the notion that parents enjoy the fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing, health, and education of their children. As recently as 2000, in fact, the court called it “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized.” The list of similar lawsuits continues to grow. In the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, another group of parents has appealed a decision dismissing their lawsuit with similar claims against Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools. In the 8th Circuit, parents have appealed the trial court’s denial of their request for an injunction against an Iowa school district policy that not only facilitates secret social gender transitions but punishes students who don’t toe the party line. Specifically, students face punishment for “misgendering” others, defined as “intentionally or accidentally us[ing] the incorrect name or pronouns to refer to a person.” Parental rights suits focusing on secret transition policies have also been filed in state courts in Wisconsin and California, among others. ... The National Association of School Principals vocally backs these policies. It advises keeping parents in the dark about their children’s gender identities and calls on schools to remind parents that not supporting the rights of transgender students “runs contrary to the values of the school.” Apparently, NASP believes a school’s “values” trump a parent’s constitutional rights. Here: Quote Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares filed an amicus brief Monday with attorneys general from 15 other states asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case about schools socially transitioning students without parents’ knowledge or consent. “It is essential that schools work with parents, not against them, to support a child’s well-being,” Miyares said in a statement. “Parents have the right to be involved in major decisions affecting their children’s lives.” Here: Quote Teachers should inform parents if their child wishes to change their gender identity at school, under newly published government guidance. Schools in England should "take a very cautious approach" if pupils want to use a new name, pronouns or uniform. Teachers will be able to withhold information if they believe a child could be put at "significant" risk. The Department for Education (DfE) says it will assist teachers to act in the best interest of pupils. Here: Quote Attorney General Kris Kobach announced today that several Kansas school districts allow employees to hide from parents the fact that a student may be using a different name or pronouns at school. Early last year, Kobach sent letters to six Kansas school districts challenging their policies that require or allow school district staff to conceal from parents a student’s “transgender” or “gender non-conforming” status. In short, the policies allow schools to “socially transition” students without the parent’s knowledge or consent. “A child changing his or her gender identity has major long-term medical and psychological ramifications,” Kobach said. “Parents should know, and have an opportunity to be involved in, such an important aspect of their well-being.” The Attorney General notified the districts that their policies violate parental rights and asked whether the district collected parental input prior to adopting the transgender notification policies. Upon receiving the letter, two school districts—Belle Plaine (USD 357) and Maize (USD 266)—responded that they had no intention of cutting parents out of the process and immediately rescinded or amended their policies. “A lot of times these policies are pushed by outside activist organizations and adopted by school boards without being fully informed about what the policy would actually do,” said Deputy Attorney General Abhishek Kambli. “Belle Plaine and Maize should be praised for responding swiftly when they saw what was going on.” The four remaining districts, however, dug in their heels and essentially asserted that school administrators know better than parents. Those remaining schools were Kansas City (USD 500), Olathe (USD 233), Shawnee Mission (USD 512), and Topeka (USD 501). Some schools denied that their policies cut parents out of the picture, but the Attorney General's letters quote the offending language directly from those schools' policies. Olathe requested a meeting to discuss the issue with the Attorney General’s Office, but despite repeated attempts by the Attorney General's staff, no such meeting has been scheduled. Here: Quote Like others around the country, the Rockford, Michigan, Public School District requires parents’ permission for many things that affect their children’s safety, education, and personal well-being. But during the 2021–2022 school year, acting on nothing more than a seventh-grader’s e-mail to a school counselor, East Rockford Middle School personnel began treating the female student as a boy. They concealed the situation from the girl’s parents. Indeed, they altered school records that the parents might see and failed to disclose anything about this scheme even while communicating with them about other aspects of the girl’s mental health, well-being, and academic progress.1 The girl’s parents, Dan and Jennifer Mead, filed a lawsuit against the school district on December 18, 2023. See https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MeadComplaint.pdf. In August 2020, administrative staff in the Escondido, California, Union School District, adopted a similar policy. They claimed that a student’s “assertion” of “gender identity,” by itself, requires school personnel to “begin to treat the student immediately, consistently with that gender identity. The student’s assertion is enough.”2 See Mirabelli v. Olson, No. 3:23–CV–00768–BEN–WVG, 2023 WL 5976992, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 2023). Revealing a student’s “transgender status”3 In the Escondido policy, this term means “a student whose gender identity is different from the gender he/she was assigned at birth.” The text of the school policies referenced or quoted in this Legal Memorandum can be found at https://defendinged.org/investigations/list-of-school-district-transgender-gender-nonconforming-student-policies/ (last visited May 14, 2024). For simplicity, they will be referred to by the school name. to “individuals who do not have a legitimate need for the information”—including parents—is considered prohibited discrimination or harassment. Under the policy, “a student’s consent to reveal gender information is required, regardless of the age of the student.” These are neither isolated incidents nor the random acts of a few rogue teachers or administrators. As of May 22, 2024, the database maintained by Parents Defending Education lists 1,062 public school districts in 38 states and the District of Columbia with written policies that authorize or require withholding gender-related information from parents. These districts include 18,658 schools attended by nearly 11 million students. This Legal Memorandum will identify the common features of school gender policies, outline the basis and substance of parents’ right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, and examine litigation alleging that these policies violate this right. ... Policy Components. School gender policies have three common components. They take at face value and treat as conclusive a student’s communication or other indication of his or her gender identity. They require school personnel immediately to treat the student consistent with whatever gender identity a student may have communicated, including the use of student’s preferred names or pronouns and access to student’s desired school facilities.18 They prohibit communication about the student’s gender identity or “transgender status” to anyone, including his or her parents, without the student’s permission. And on and on and on. Thanks, -Smac
Analytics Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: In that particular case? Not really. Plenty of other examples of this happening. See, e.g., here: Here: Here: Here: Here: Here: And on and on and on. Thanks, -Smac The question isn’t whether you can find some teachers that refer to students using the name the student prefers. And the question isn’t whether you can find some right-wing cultural crusaders who will frame this practice in the most insidious light possible to scare and provoke their audiences. The question is whether referring to somebody using the name they prefer constitutes actual “social transitioning” in a clinical sense, or whether "addressing a person using their preferred name and pronouns simply accords the person the basic level of respect expected in a civil society generally,” and whether “this is true regardless of an individual’s age." 2
smac97 Posted October 23, 2024 Author Posted October 23, 2024 (edited) 17 hours ago, Analytics said: The question isn’t whether you can find some teachers that refer to students using the name the student prefers. The question was about one specific judge making findings in one specific case. 17 hours ago, Analytics said: And the question isn’t whether you can find some right-wing cultural crusaders who will frame this practice in the most insidious light possible to scare and provoke their audiences. I think parents' rights are pretty important. 17 hours ago, Analytics said: The question is whether referring to somebody using the name they prefer constitutes actual “social transitioning” in a clinical sense, or whether "addressing a person using their preferred name and pronouns simply accords the person the basic level of respect expected in a civil society generally,” and whether “this is true regardless of an individual’s age." Well, no, that wasn't the question. This case is interesting: Quote A judge in Wisconsin has blocked a school district’s policy that allowed staff to use transgender students’ names and pronouns without getting parental permission. Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Maxwell sided with parents who sued Kettle Moraine School District in November 2021 after staff at Kettle Moraine Middle School used their child’s chosen name and pronouns without their consent. The parents did not support their child’s gender transition. “Horrific…This is compelled speech and forced outing of trans youth,” transgender activist Erin Reed said on social media in response to the ruling. Erin can do what she likes regarding her own children. Broadly speaking, parental rights are, or ought to be, highly regarded as a matter of constitutional law. Quote Other judges across the country have ruled differently on school districts’ gender-affirming name and pronoun policies for trans students. In December, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by parents in Massachusetts who argued that their rights were violated when their children were allowed to use different names and pronouns at school without them knowing. In August, a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit challenging a school policy in Maryland. “Addressing a person using their preferred name and pronouns simply accords the person the basic level of respect expected in a civil society generally, and, more specifically, in Massachusetts public schools where discrimination on the basis of gender identity is not permitted,” U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni said in his ruling in the Massachusetts case. My sense is that most of these cases are being resolved on procedural, rather than substantive, grounds. See also here: Quote Once again, a pitched battle in America’s culture wars is making its steady way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this round, the emerging question is whether public school children have a right to choose names and pronouns affirming their gender identity, or whether parents’ right to manage the upbringing of their children overrides it. Three separate federal appeals courts have already confronted the issue, which has left school administrators across the country having to pick between the wishes and needs of students on one hand, and the demands of parents that they be alerted to their children’s gender and pronoun preferences at school on the other. The legal issues in these cases are not easy ones, pitting children’s rights against their parents’ rights. Upset parents contend that by using a child’s preferred pronouns without their knowledge, government actors are illegally providing medical care without the parental consent that state law mandates. Weighing against the parents are their kids’ requests as well as state laws requiring that schools provide non-discriminatory environments in which students can safely express their gender identities. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 23, 2024 by smac97
smac97 Posted October 23, 2024 Author Posted October 23, 2024 On 10/9/2024 at 3:23 PM, smac97 said: Could you elaborate? I would first like to see the evidence of "those assaults." It's Tierney's comment. I don't think so. Tierney contextualized his statement well: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”? If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault" ("assault," mind you), I would like to see it. As I said a bit ago: I guess I construed "new" in this context to mean "newly discovered." It's not like #MeToo created the supposed "epidemic," but rather uncovered it. I do not understand your point. Do you have evidence for an "epidemic of sexual assault" (new, old or otherwise) that #MeToo uncovered? If so, let's see it. Just saw this (not about sexual assault per se, but somewhat related) : New study: men experience domestic violence at the same rate as women Quote I’ve noticed that young women are quite frightened of men, because they are taught that men are dangerous. I’m concerned that these beliefs will deter women from choosing men wisely, and marrying them. One way to counter these fears about “domestic violence” is to take a look at the studies, and see who is really doing the violence. Is it always men, or is there a balance? The study was published in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. Here’s the abstract: Recent debates surrounding intimate partner violence (IPV) have focused on its gender symmetry and gender-oriented nature. These debates center on findings from various data sources, like victimization or self-reported surveys and police-based reports. Data by Statistics Canada, from 1999 to 2014, has shown that the prevalence of IPV is similar for male and female victims, except for sexual assaults. However, there has been a paucity of studies on the severity and risk factors of IPV against men by female partners. Thus, this paper examines the severity of and risk factors for physical IPV against heterosexual men in Canada using the General Social Survey (Victimization) data of 2014. This study revealed that there is a symmetry in the experiences of physical violence between male and female victims. This study also revealed that male victims experience more severe violence than female victims. Using binary logistic regression analysis, years of dwelling together, the victim’s age, childhood victimization, and marijuana use were found to predict physical IPV against heterosexual men. This paper concludes with suggestions about how these predicting factors can be used to identify male victims and the need for a more inclusive approach toward addressing IPV, which should include male victims. The key points for us: scholars typically ignore violence against men committed by women: “However, there has been a paucity of studies on the severity and risk factors of IPV against men by female partners.” men and women commit domestic violence at roughly equal rates: “This study revealed that there is a symmetry in the experiences of physical violence between male and female victims.” Men are the victims of more severe violence than women: “This study also revealed that male victims experience more severe violence than female victims.” Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: This study also revealed that male victims experience more severe violence than female victims. More male victims are killed by their partners than females, really? I have no problem with the frequency of heterosexual domestic violence being the same, I have seen those studies for several years now. But unless the women are all grabbing cast iron pans or knives and sneaking up on their partners or obtaining guns and staying out of arms’ reach while firing, I find it hard to believe the death rate is equivalent. I am curious about bi-directional domestic violence, whether it is about the same or more often women or men are the sole victims in their home (previous studies have shown that female violence is more often defensive than initiating, but they also show less severity…which this study challenges). I wish there was more data offered in the study, the only ones I saw referenced still had females as the majority of the victims, but within 10% of males. PS: why are you smac using the blog as your source instead of the actual study? I assume cost, but it would be nice to see actual data and methodology since it is divergent from previous studies in the severity aspect. Looking at that blogger’s choice of topics, I do not trust his interpretation to be as balanced as I would hope. Edited October 23, 2024 by Calm 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now