Israfil

The problem of underdetermination states that for any given set of evidence, there are multiple theories that fit the evidence. Let's not even go into the possibility of a "fact" itself

I just read the article you linked. Pay attention to the Strengths and Weaknesses of the study, by the author: Strengths of this study include its large sample size and representation of a broad geographic area of the United States. It is the first study in which associations between pubertal suppression for transgender youth and suicidality are examined. Limitations include the study’s cross-sectional design, which does not allow for determination of causation. Longitudinal clinical trials are needed to better understand the efficacy of pubertal suppression. Because the 2015 USTS data do not contain the relevant variables, we were unable to examine associations between access to pubertal suppression and degree of body dysphoria in this study. Notably, past studies have revealed that body image difficulties persist through pubertal suppression and remit only after administration of gender-affirming hormone therapy with estrogen or testosterone.11 It is also limited by its nonprobability sample design. Future researchers should work toward the collection of population-based survey data that include variables related to gender-affirming medical interventions. Of note, because pubertal suppression for transgender youth is a relatively recent intervention, some participants might not have known that these interventions existed and thus would not have reported ever wanting them. Had these individuals known about pubertal suppression, it is possible that they might have desired it. Because we do not have data on whether individuals who did not desire pubertal suppression would have wanted it had they known about it, we restricted our analysis to those who reported ever desiring pubertal suppression. Reverse causation cannot be ruled out: it is plausible that those without suicidal ideation had better mental health when seeking care and thus were more likely to be considered eligible for pubertal suppression. The Endocrine Society guidelines for pubertal suppression eligibility recommend that other mental health concerns be “reasonably well controlled.”7 Because this study includes only adults who identify as transgender, it does not include outcomes for people who may have initiated pubertal suppression and subsequently no longer identify as transgender. Notably, however, a recent study from the Netherlands of 812 adolescents with gender dysphoria revealed that only 1.9% of adolescents who initiated pubertal suppression discontinued this treatment without proceeding to gender-affirming hormone therapy with estrogen or testosterone.25 I'm not denying that gender-affirming treatment is beneficial to trans people. What I'm pointing out is that I don't think that a 13-year-old person is mature enough to make this decision. Gender is an important part of life, but so is cardiovascular health, not having osteoporosis and brain development. The kid doesn't have completely developed long-term reasoning because the part of the brain that does that is developed precisely with puberty. So they might say they're happy because they are more aligned with the gender they identify with, but don't understand the long-term effects of this treatment.

I was referring to the article I posted, not yours.

A variety of factors come into play when you talk about mental health. Suicide ideation could end by any other type of element. How many of those people remained in therapy? How many were taking antidepressants? How many got out of an environment that was causing that ideation? I say that you don't understand science because you don't. If you don't control other variables, you cannot infer that the puberty blockers were the specific cause of solving that ideation. If you don't study other people who didn't take them and compare the results, you don't know shit about puberty blockers. The only thing you know is that suicide ideation went down.

I read the entire thing. The conclusion was written by the author. He can write whatever the fuck he wants. I don't think the data points to 1% regret, simply by the way he defined regret. Correlation does not imply causation. The study doesn't compare people that didn't transition or only socially transitioned. You cannot infer from it that it was the puberty blockers. You clearly don't know how science works. Instead of blindly trusting your local "scientist" read the data and make your own inferences, instead of blindly accepting his stance on any given subject. His definition of regret is questionable at best and ideological at worst. But doing that interpretation work involves being intellectually honest and due diligence, two things you, unfortunately, continuously prove yourself to be on the short side.

I linked the research there. The 1% statistic came from a very sketchy definition. But I trust the Bunny didn't argue out of mere confirmation bias and actually scrolled down for 2 seconds and clicked on the link below the internet article that had the study that substantiated it.

I'm talking about hormone therapy. If you give testosterone to a 13-year-old for 5 years, they'll have a heart attack before 40. Puberty blockers affect bone density, brain development and fertility. Besides, you should dig deeper into your research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/ The way this study defines "regret" excludes many people that underwent surgery and did not achieve what they wanted, he even states it in a piece of the article: "In the present review, nearly half of the patients experienced major regret (based on Pfäfflin classification), meaning that they underwent or desire de-transition surgery, that will never pass through the same process again, and/or experience increase of gender dysphoria from the new gender. One study found that 10 of 14 patients with regret underwent de-transition surgeries (8 mastectomies, 2 vaginectomies, 2 phalloplasties, 2 testicular implants removal, and 1 breast augmentation) for reasons of social regret, true regret or feeling non-binary.23 On the other hand, based on the Kuiper and Cohen Kettenis’ classification, half of the patients in this review had clear regret and uncertain regret. This means that they freely expressed their regret toward the procedure, but some had role reversal to the former gender and others did not. Interestingly, Pfäfflin concluded that from a clinical standpoint, transgender patients suffered from many forms of minor regrets after GAS, all of which have a temporary course.20 This is an important consideration meaning that the actual true regret rate will always remain uncertain, as temporarity and types of regret can bring a huge challenge for assessment." I am not against transition whatsoever. I'm just stating that kids don't have the discernment to choose to transition. They do not understand the consequences and the current guidelines for gender dysphoria treatment lean heavily on promoting the most invasive treatment available i.e: puberty blockers, HRT, and Gender Affirming Surgery. My only take is that this treatment is actually harmful and should only be undertaken after heavy therapeutical follow-up, which is not the norm, many people go to the therapist, get an assessment of gender dysphoria in two or three sessions, and proceed to surgery or HRT. Is it that absurd to defend that children don't have the maturity to take this life-changing decision?

Sometimes individuals pronounce words with the intention of causing surprise, through unexpected discourse. A common reaction to this type of statement is laughter. We call this interaction a joke.

I understood what you said. I don't think it was correct, and since this is a place for discussion I pointed it out.

I'm for this. I can call them whatever they want, and use the pronouns they prefer. I'm just not for chemically castrating someone that doesn't have the maturity to do a fucking tattoo just because they're saying they want to.

He's in pain for being judged as an evil being.

This is fitting for this forum:

There are things that are true that can't be proven. They're truths, not beliefs. There are rational beliefs too. The belief that everything must be proven is also a statement to be proved.

You were the one that stated that white people you know suffered racism in foreign countries, therefore no white privilege.

No. I called god a dude.

You're making assumptions based on stories that don't tell 0,1% of what happened. In my country, we call this "being full of shit". And you still have the audacity of dismissing someone objectively and not aggressively pointing out your bias with an answer I don't see since third grade. You as a foreigner with an english teaching degree can get a job anywhere. Try doing that being a native and watch yourself starve to death. Immigrants from other parts of South America, blacks, and native indians descendants suffer significantly more than whites. Brazil has the largest body count of enslavement in the world. Nowhere else being a black person carries a heavier connotation of historical violence than here. You can be highly qualified as a black person and struggle to find good jobs that a mildly competent white person ends up getting. There is a clear corporate bias that's only been deconstructed in the last 10 years.

Who else could've invented himself? If there was such an entity, that would be the god. God was the first and even invented other gods that could invent their smaller realities into its largest totatility. The guy is fucking mind fucking

This is objectively false. Education is a critical component for taking conscious choices. One of the main reasons children can't choose certain things is a lack of profound knowledge about such things. Hormonal therapy is certainly something that a 13-year-old won't be educated about to the depth they need to make a decision about whether or not he should undertake such treatment. Because their brains are not nearly as fully developed as it should be to make such decisions. Take that you out of that sentence and place an I in its place. Hormonal therapy, especially puberty blockers has vastly documented side effects, including lower bone density and potential sterility. I'm sure that kids shouldn't be taking them in the vast majority of cases.

Firstly, you haven't substantiated any of your claims. Secondly, surgery, especially aesthetic ones always carries risks. Rape and murder happen all the time, let's not protect people or do anything about it too. Your arguments have no consideration for the possible negative consequences for people. It is very different for an adult to choose to do something risky after he understands all its associated risks. A kid isn't even educated enough to understand what are the effects of puberty blockers, Puberty is a pretty important component of maturity. One of the most significant changes during puberty is the growth and development of the prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, impulse control, planning, and working memory. This growth spurt in the prefrontal cortex is responsible for the development of complex thinking, abstract reasoning, and increased self-awareness. All of which are needed to make complex permanent decisions regarding your body. That's why kids can't do tattoos, have sex or use drugs. It became obvious somewhere in the last couple million of years that our little monkey cubs don't have the proper development to choose stuff effectively, so we help them until they can fend for themselves, and then they can do whatever they want with themselves.

I'm talking specifically about surgery and hormonal treatment here. If you think the only consequence of having sex is a disease or having children, perhaps you too should try to investigate this further. Sex is simultaneously the most destructive and creative act in the world. Sexual misconduct is problematic way beyond having to take penicillin. This further support the notion that children shouldn't make decisions about their drug use until they fully understand the consequences and have properly developed. The whole point of a minor is that up to a point in your life, you haven't got the maturity required to make decisions with long-lasting effects. Of course, the age is arbitrary, but the kid that gets enthralled by a 7-hour stream of Fortnite doesn't have the maturity to decide whether or not he should permanently alter their genitals and hormonal profile.

You just argued that a series of behaviors that will permanently affect the healthy development of teens should be justification for another behavior that will permanently affect the healthy development of teens. 13 year shouldn't be sucking dick because they are not mentally mature to handle sex. They are prohibited from drinking because they are prone to addiction and abuse. I'm not saying to prohibit a 13-year-old from saying that they want to be called a certain name or pronoun, or dressing the way they like. I am saying to prohibit 13-year-old from using drugs that will alter the entirety of their development, might cause infertility, and always cause side effects. You are simply not mature enough at 13 to take such decisions.

I think you are the one making assumptions here. The number of testimonials you have carry biases that you cannot see or assess by yourself. You're simply being ignorant and denying being so. In my country and in many others, foreigners, especially those with education and experience, as in the case of people from developed countries, find no problem finding work. You have no multicultural experience and are talking from a very narrow lens here. I suggest you listen to someone that does live in a touristic-focused city and worked in companies with employees from five continents that foreigners are, in many cases, treated better than locals. Racism in underdeveloped countries is directed toward the poor part of its own population.

Ironically, the less you stress about survival and the more you let go, the easier it is to avoid and handle pain and danger.

I encourage you to experience things directly before stating that people from other countries are racist.