As usual, there's more going on here than what we're being told. The judge wouldn't have ruled for joint medical decisions if this was a clear-cut case either way. I feel so sorry for this poor kid...
As far as I'm aware from what I've read absolutely no decision had even been made yet on whether to put him on blockers or not. The mother was simply seeking an evaluation at a clinic that specializes in this field. The reaction from the right has been as if the kid was going to be wheeled into surgery at any second. Moreover, the reaction for the Governor of Texas promising intervention reminds me ALOT of what the Bush brothers did in regards to Terri Schiavo. In other words, small government conservatism gets thrown out the window at the drop of a hat to placate the religious right, and the highest levels of power in the Republican Party will go so far as to intervene in the lives of specific individual familes to pander to their voters.
My prediction?? In ten years time, the kid will turn out to have been transgender, his/her mother is going to get death threats for the foreseeable future, and not a single person pushing so hard for his/her "well-being" will have an ounce of remorse or apology if they turn out to have been wrong in retrospect. They'll just pretend it never happened.
I can see where you're coming from but I'm just not sure that these kinds of decisions should be made for a seven year old. Identities are not formed that young. My daughter is a tom-boy, likes playing basketball, and has never been interested in dolls, make-up or anything else traditionally 'feminine' but that hardly means that she's going to 'identify' as a boy. It's interesting that nobody has a problem with a tom-boyish girl these days and there's little, if any, pressure for them to 'transition' but when it's the other way around, it's seen in a completely different light. Why is that?
I'm not an expert on the subject. I just think this idea that the mother is some kind of monster who is basically engaging in this exercise to prove some "political" point is stretching it at best and outright projection at worst. It's amazing how anything that is seen as being in favor deference to gay or trans rights is immediately dismissed as "political" and opposition to them is just seen as normal, default behavior. They won't stop at 50/50 decision making. They're going to move to destroy the mother. Give an inch, they'll take 100 miles. Again, NOTHING has been done to this child yet from a medical perspective.
I'm not saying that at all, I'm just not also jumping to the conclusion that the dad is some testosterone laden Neanderthal that can't live with the fact that his 'boy' is a bit too 'feminine'. Conclusions can be jumped to either way...
Whatever the case may be, by FAR the most political thing about it is State Representatives and the Governor vowing to personally intervene in a family dispute. It's about the farthest thing from "small government" one can imagine. It is now the mother vs. the entire Texas government.
Well if the case was in California or Massachusetts it would be different but since it's in Texas this isn't surprising. I just don't see this ending well for this poor kid no matter how it turns out. I'd feel the same way no matter which state this was in. No seven year old should have to deal with this shit...
Bernie Sanders has called for the full national legalization of marijuana. This is about 50-70 years overdue and I can't think of a position I can more wholeheartedly support, and I have less than zero interest in smoking any of it.
You really just have to look to Canada on how successful it actually is.
But you can look to Canada to see how successful single payer health care system is, but you all have been piddling that away so.
He also wants to expunge all former convictions, which is even more laudable.
I agree, but not 100%. I'm sure some pretty nasty dealers got put away for selling weed because that's just what they were caught selling. I'd agree with a case-by-case reevaluation though...
This is my take as well. It's one thing for a guy who has NOTHING but a drug possession charge. It's entirely another for a guy with a drug possession charge, plus assault, resisting arrest, carrying amounts large enough to be considered "intent to distribute", and more.
Desperate Trump has officially had his lawyer in charge of the DOJ, William Barr, open a criminal investigation into the oranges of the mueller report. It is after all a criminal offense in this banana republic to even look into wrongdoing by the President who the DOJ and his lawyers literally argue is above the law.
This politically motivated investigation is a reaction to skyrocketing support for impeaching and removing the president for his politically motivated attempt to force a notoriously corrupt country to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating his likely democratic opponent and the democratic party and creating some trumped up charges in exchange for hundreds of *millions of dollars in military aid that congress had already approved to send to them. He did this through a shadow foreign policy deep state outside the government headed by his other personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani.
We've become a full blown banana republic supported by a party that is loyal to one man alone and not to the country.
Desperate Trump has officially had his lawyer in charge of the DOJ, William Barr, open a criminal investigation into the oranges of the mueller report. It is after all a criminal offense in this banana republic to even look into wrongdoing by the President who the DOJ and his lawyers literally argue is above the law.
This politically motivated investigation is a reaction to skyrocketing support for impeaching and removing the president for his politically motivated attempt to force a notoriously corrupt country to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating his likely democratic opponent and the democratic party.
We've become a full blown banana republic supported by a party that is loyal to one man alone and not to the country.
Bill Barr is outright manevolent. Trump did indeed find his Roy Cohn. And if you know anything about Roy Cohn, you know how bad William Barr is. But everyone should have seen this coming. I warned about him from jump street. For a further deep-dive, this article reveals his utterly radical view of Executive power and immunity. This is a 30+ year project that is being implemented as we speak. I'm telling you, it's game over if these people aren't stopped:
Desperate Trump has officially had his lawyer in charge of the DOJ, William Barr, open a criminal investigation into the oranges of the mueller report. It is after all a criminal offense in this banana republic to even look into wrongdoing by the President who the DOJ and his lawyers literally argue is above the law.
This politically motivated investigation is a reaction to skyrocketing support for impeaching and removing the president for his politically motivated attempt to force a notoriously corrupt country to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating his likely democratic opponent and the democratic party and creating some trumped up charges in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid that congress had already approved to send to them. He did this through a shadow foreign policy deep state outside the government headed by his other personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani.
We've become a full blown banana republic supported by a party that is loyal to one man alone and not to the country.
Hundreds of millions, not hundreds of billions. But yes.
Besides the partisan department of "justice", the Republican majority in the Senate confirmed a record fourth judge to the judiciary that is rated NOT QUALIFIED by the non-partisan American Bar Association meaning he might have literally never entered a courtroom in his lives.
Here's what the ABA wrote about the judge, Justin Walker:
“Mr. Walker’s experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any significant trial experience,” the ABA found. “Mr. Walker has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. ... In addition, based on review of his biographical information and conversations with Mr. Walker, it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law.”
This is the fourth judge that is NOT QUALIFIED to be awarded a lifetime seat on the Federal Judiciary. Obama managed to go 8 years without nominating one judge who has never tried a case or is NOT QUALIFIED.
Besides the partisan department of "justice", the Republican majority in the Senate confirmed a record fourth judge to the judiciary that is rated NOT QUALIFIED by the non-partisan American Bar Association meaning he might have literally never entered a courtroom in his lives.
Here's what the ABA wrote about the judge, Justin Walker:
“Mr. Walker’s experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any significant trial experience,” the ABA found. “Mr. Walker has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. ... In addition, based on review of his biographical information and conversations with Mr. Walker, it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law.”
This is the fourth judge that is NOT QUALIFIED to be awarded a lifetime seat on the Federal Judiciary. Obama managed to go 8 years without nominating one judge who has never tried a case or is NOT QUALIFIED.
This is totally sickening.
I agree this is a real concern that hasn't received enough attention. I imagine in the US system there's always been a tendency to appoint judges that agree with the political point of view of the party in control at the time, but that inherent bias now seems to be more of a long-term, concerted effort to reshape the judiciary (and make it subsidiary to the executive).
There's an apparent logical inconsistency with that last bit, given that one of the attributes desired of judges is to be a strict constructionist on the Constitution. However, I think the intention is to appoint people who either have such strong political views or who feel such a deep obligation to those that appointed them, that their judgments will reflect their politics, rather than their legal instincts, when there's a clash. On the plus side I suspect that relatively few of the judges appointed will actually go along with that after being in post for a while, but even making the attempt seems to me corrosive to a democratic system.
Please stop using “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden”
What you are asking for doesn't exist. There are no studies that compare treatment outcomes with trans folk who didn't go through an operation and those who did.
Which, again, is exactly my point. There is zero solid, credible evidence that this improves life outcomes. Doubly so for those who start it as children. Naturally, there won't be any evidence that is harms life outcomes either. That is the nature of unknown things.
With zero evidence, some want to permanently alter the life outcomes of kids. In a way that may drastically lower their quality of life.
If you can't see why using kids in what amounts to a biological experiment is wrong, I can't help you.
It's crazy what politics will justify in the minds of some.
A "first of it's kind" study involved a question and answer sheet with about 100 people. That's the most this has been researched.
It's an experiment. On kids. That's wrong. End of.
And if you want to experiment on kids the burden of proof is in you to show that it is safe, helpful, and better than all alternatives.
Which, again, is a huge unstudied aspect of this whole question.
This issue is a great example of how political influence corrupts, even important things like medicine. Half the country is now emotionally invested in a specific treatment with questionable efficacy. I wonder if that is the source of all the faulty, bad studies as the NHS and US gov point out. If the evidence was strong enough, it wouldn't need political advocacy to justify itself.
That’s right, never said there was. You are kicking up leaves and calling it a mountain lion. I said THAT study was outdated, incomplete and didn’t say what you think it does. I also agreed that hormone therapy on children other than blockers was wrong.
Do not use anything I say, not one thing, to insinuate that I in any way think that using hormones on children is right. I most certainly do not.
Also, obviously you didn’t read what I said or actually read the study. If you had you would see that even this outdated and incomplete study does state that gender reassignment improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
You have an opinion, valid one, you have fight in you for a worthy cause, the children, commendable, you brought it to bear on the wrong person, using the wrong ammunition. I do not disagree with you on your primary point of contention, I am mostly conservative in my views, go figure, though I think that politics has failed us. Liberal and conservative are just fountainheads for pushing agenda that have nothing to do with the good of the people or the wellbeing of humanity. You cannot say that I am politically motivated, I don’t even believe in the integrity of politics anymore. I am not part of the lgbt or trans community because I do not agree with the way they go about things though I think their goals are for the most part laudable.
I can’t change your views, and frankly I don’t care to try. Believe what you want, fight the fights you want to fight for. What I ask is that you don’t put words in my mouth, not tell me what I believe and if at all possible, not regurgitate things that are not true.
Everyone knows that taking what are viewed as "left-wing" positions is automatically doing it for political (i.e. invalid reasons) and everyone else is simply making "rational arguments" that are salt of the earth common sense. That's the only game board they are willing to play on. Not a single person here has advocated for sex reassignment surgery for children, and the implication that anyone has is not just a straw-man, but a whole field of them.
This entire debate is predicated around a case where the mother is seeking EVALUATION to see if her son should be put on puberty blockers sometime in the future. Not that it is going to happen, not a single suggestion of when, but seeking advice from medical professionals to look into it. So, one side is certainly making it political, but it isn't "the left", it's the people who have been misrepresenting the case ON PURPOSE from the beginning and simply LYING about how doctors go about this. Which has already been discussed, ad nauseam.
This issue is a great example of how political influence corrupts, even important things like medicine. Half the country is now emotionally invested in a specific treatment with questionable efficacy. I wonder if that is the source of all the faulty, bad studies as the NHS and US gov point out. If the evidence was strong enough, it wouldn't need political advocacy to justify itself.
The doctors of the world, got together and outlined the course of care. Maybe you know more than them, of course they may all be politically motivated. One thing I am certain of is that it doesn’t matter what anyone says, you know the truth and can’t be swayed. So be it. Ta-ta.
Also, obviously you didn’t read what I said or actually read the study. If you had you would see that even this outdated and incomplete study does state that gender reassignment improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
I did read it, and that's how I know you aren't telling the whole story.
While it does say that some studies say that, it mentions others say the exact opposite, and most importantly, as I have been saying this entire time, the evidence for it is extremely weak.
Which is the same mantra you find anywhere these studies are done. It's all very weak, and we know next to nothing for certain.
So calling it a biological experiment seems pretty accurate.
And I never intended to claim you yourself were an advocate of this practice, if I made it seem that way through my choice of words, I apologize.
"The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
The methodological shortcomings have many reasons. First, the nature of sex reassignment precludes double blind randomized controlled studies of the result. Second, transsexualism is rare [20] and many follow-ups are hampered by small numbers of subjects.[5], [8], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Third, many sex reassigned persons decline to participate in follow-up studies, or relocate after surgery, resulting in high drop-out rates and consequent selection bias.[6], [9], [12], [21], [24], [28], [29], [30] Forth, several follow-up studies are hampered by limited follow-up periods.[7], [9], [21], [22], [26], [30] Taken together, these limitations preclude solid and generalisable conclusions. A long-term population-based controlled study is one way to address these methodological shortcomings."
Everyone knows that taking what are viewed as "left-wing" positions is automatically doing it for political (i.e. invalid reasons) and everyone else is simply making "rational arguments" that are salt of the earth common sense. That's the only game board they are willing to play on. Not a single person here has advocated for sex reassignment surgery for children, and the implication that anyone has is not just a straw-man, but a whole field of them.
This entire debate is predicated around a case where the mother is seeking EVALUATION to see if her son should be put on puberty blockers sometime in the future. Not that it is going to happen, not a single suggestion of when, but seeking advice from medical professionals to look into it. So, one side is certainly making it political, but it isn't "the left", it's the people who have been misrepresenting the case ON PURPOSE from the beginning and simply LYING about how doctors go about this. Which has already been discussed, ad nauseam.
It would help if there was one rational (i e evidence based) argument for this practice. There's not, so the fad being political in nature fits like a glove.
The unrelenting political screeds we are subjected to over this issue ad nauseum doesn't help it's non political case either.
Even adult trans people have trouble getting HRT or SRS. No kid has ever gotten SRS, nor could they. The mother isn't physically capable of arranging surgery for her kid because she'd never find a doctor that would perform it in the United States. The reason we're not worried about the kid getting surgery is because the kid couldn't get surgery even if her mother insisted on it.
As for hormone replacement therapy, the youngest person to ever receive HRT was 16, which happened once in history, and even then, it required a yearlong waiting period. Again, the mother can't get HRT for her daughter, even if both of them wanted it.
I asked my counselor--who happens to specialize in transgender teenagers--what medical treatments minors could receive. Minors can't get SRS. Teenagers very rarely get HRT, and if they get it, they don't get it early. A 7-year-old would never be able to get either. Don't matter how allegedly crazy a dishonest man says his wife is.
As for puberty blockers? No, they don't stunt your growth. Puberty takes off where it left off. There are no long-term effects beyond the delay itself. That's why doctors are willing to prescribe it. It doesn't prevent you from growing up; it just stalls the process. It can be restarted just fine after you go off the blockers.
Is it even surprising? Puberty starts in your early teens, but it never actually stops. The hormones you start producing as a teenagers keep getting produced as an adult. It's not like teenage biological males stop producing testosterone when they grow up, or biological females stop producing estrogen at age 20. It's not growth hormones you're blocking; those are the ones that only come in a few select spurts and then don't come back.
The notion that any mother would force their kid to go through puberty blockers, much less HRT, much less SRS, is simply not grounded in reality. The average trans kid's experience with coming out to their parents is intense, visceral, extreme opposition, generally bolstered by verbal abuse. None of us have ever heard of a parent pressuring their kid into transitioning, even a nonmedical transition.
But a conservative Christian father stopping at nothing to deny his daughter's identity and force her to live according to his own personal views?
God only knows how many times we've heard that story before, blow by blow. That's practically the standard formula for a transgender kid's childhood.
Also, obviously you didn’t read what I said or actually read the study. If you had you would see that even this outdated and incomplete study does state that gender reassignment improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
I did read it, and that's how I know you aren't telling the whole story.
While it does say that some studies say that, it mentions others say the exact opposite, and most importantly, as I have been saying this entire time, the evidence for it is extremely weak.
Which is the same mantra you find anywhere these studies are done. It's all very weak, and we know next to nothing for certain.
So calling it a biological experiment seems pretty accurate.
And I never intended to claim you yourself were an advocate of this practice, if I made it seem that way through my choice of words, I apologize.
"The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
The methodological shortcomings have many reasons. First, the nature of sex reassignment precludes double blind randomized controlled studies of the result. Second, transsexualism is rare [20] and many follow-ups are hampered by small numbers of subjects.[5], [8], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Third, many sex reassigned persons decline to participate in follow-up studies, or relocate after surgery, resulting in high drop-out rates and consequent selection bias.[6], [9], [12], [21], [24], [28], [29], [30] Forth, several follow-up studies are hampered by limited follow-up periods.[7], [9], [21], [22], [26], [30] Taken together, these limitations preclude solid and generalisable conclusions. A long-term population-based controlled study is one way to address these methodological shortcomings."
I have a lot of sympathy with your view here. I accept that evidence about the effectiveness of treatments is currently weak (and that it is inherently difficult to change that). I also accept that pursuing treatments anyway could thus be described as experimental.
However, I'm not convinced that your conclusion that experimental treatment is wrong is justified. That seems to take as a premise that a subject is currently in a 'normal' condition and there is thus a high risk of worsening that. For at least some of those pursuing treatment, that's far from the correct premise. For those with the most serious gender dysphoria it would be more accurate to describe them as having a life-threatening condition (the high rates of suicide have already been referred to). In those circumstances 'experimental' treatments are regularly sought both for and by patients - I'm sure you will have seen many stories about people seeking the latest cancer drug before it's undergone proper clinical trials for instance.
Most surgeons require 1 year rle (real life experience) and two letters from psychologists/psychiatrists. When I was interviewing surgeons I needed another letter than the VA therapist that I had. I actually passed up on the first because she had a patient that started testosterone when he was 12. I even paid the money for the second visit because I was sure that I had mistaken what she said. So I asked bluntly did she mean blockers, she said no he started testosterone at the age of 12. It made me sick and I left.
Yup. Very bad judgment. I wonder what kind of medication it was specifically--was it distinct from HRT? Because my counselor specified that 16 was the youngest age ever for HRT. No, 12 is too young for HRT, or anything beyond blockers. Blockers should be used to buy time since they're the reversible option; HRT should be for longer-established cases where the diagnostic period is well over, and the treatment path is very well-paved. Do you know how long ago this case was? I have great difficulty imagining the grounds for hormone supplements when puberty hasn't even started.
My shrink mentioned a horror story about a counselor who was too eager to recommend SRS (!) to a trans woman who really just had a crossdressing fetish. S/he ended up regretting it. Regretting HRT is one thing, but regretting SRS is a much more painful experience. Losing your penis ain't for everyone.
We complain about gatekeepers, but there's a reason they exist. The issue is that some counselors are too gung-ho about the process and too quick to recommend non-reversible treatments, whether surgery or hormones, to patients, while others are needlessly skeptical and will keep treatment out of reach if a patient doesn't fit an overly narrow list of criteria. The field is new, so it makes sense that there's variability in a transgender specialist's judgment.
Most surgeons require 1 year rle (real life experience) and two letters from psychologists/psychiatrists. When I was interviewing surgeons I needed another letter than the VA therapist that I had. I actually passed up on the first because she had a patient that started testosterone when he was 12. I even paid the money for the second visit because I was sure that I had mistaken what she said. So I asked bluntly did she mean blockers, she said no he started testosterone at the age of 12. It made me sick and I left.
Yup. Very bad judgment. I wonder what kind of medication it was specifically--was it distinct from HRT? Because my counselor specified that 16 was the youngest age ever for HRT. No, 12 is too young for HRT, or anything beyond blockers. Blockers should be used to buy time since they're the reversible option; HRT should be for longer-established cases where the diagnostic period is well over, and the treatment path is very well-paved. Do you know how long ago this case was? I have great difficulty imagining the grounds for hormone supplements when puberty hasn't even started.
My shrink mentioned a horror story about a counselor who was too eager to recommend SRS (!) to a trans woman who really just had a crossdressing fetish. S/he ended up regretting it. Regretting HRT is one thing, but regretting SRS is a much more painful experience. Losing your penis ain't for everyone.
We complain about gatekeepers, but there's a reason they exist. The issue is that some counselors are too gung-ho about the process and too quick to recommend non-reversible treatments, whether surgery or hormones, to patients, while others are needlessly skeptical and will keep treatment out of reach if a patient doesn't fit an overly narrow list of criteria. The field is new, so it makes sense that there's variability in a transgender specialist's judgment.
Very interesting read. I'm curious to see the reactions of folks in this thread. I just stumbled onto it while looking up some psychological terminology...
Very interesting read. I'm curious to see the reactions of folks in this thread. I just stumbled onto it while looking up some psychological terminology...
I know people like that exist, because I've seen them on the Internet. I've never met any in person. However, I think that the article descends into hyperbole.
They reveal a civilization that has stopped believing in itself, that hates itself, and that is therefore unwilling to defend the values of individual freedom, democracy, and scientific and scholarly skepticism that have been handed down to us since antiquity.
He's projecting the attitudes of a few ivory tower intellectuals onto the entirety of western civilization.
He's projecting the attitudes of a few ivory tower intellectuals onto the entirety of western civilization.
I agree, but I find the analysis having some value nonetheless. The type he described wields a whole lot of cultural and political power. A tiny elite they may be, but one holding the reigns of power.
He's projecting the attitudes of a few ivory tower intellectuals onto the entirety of western civilization.
I agree, but I find the analysis having some value nonetheless. The type he described wields a whole lot of cultural and political power. A tiny elite they may be, but one holding the reigns of power.
Really, I can't think of any in actual positions of power. Can you name a few?
I thought this was interesting, a guy pulled over for a traffic stop prays to his lord and savior, Donald Trump, for salvation.
Imagine how much koolaid this guy has drunk of the cult of Trump that he believes prayers to the guy that only cares about himself would do something. I guess invoking Trump doesn't make you above the law. Shocker.
I thought this was interesting, a guy pulled over for a traffic stop prays to his lord and savior, Donald Trump, for salvation.
Imagine how much koolaid this guy has drunk of the cult of Trump that he believes prayers to the guy that only cares about himself would do something. I guess invoking Trump doesn't make you above the law. Shocker.
I thought this was interesting, a guy pulled over for a traffic stop prays to his lord and savior, Donald Trump, for salvation.
Imagine how much koolaid this guy has drunk of the cult of Trump that he believes prayers to the guy that only cares about himself would do something. I guess invoking Trump doesn't make you above the law. Shocker.
He's projecting the attitudes of a few ivory tower intellectuals onto the entirety of western civilization.
I agree, but I find the analysis having some value nonetheless. The type he described wields a whole lot of cultural and political power. A tiny elite they may be, but one holding the reigns of power.
Really, I can't think of any in actual positions of power. Can you name a few?
They don't dirty their hands, they pull the strings. The Koch brothers and George Soros are a couple of names I hear people call out a lot. There are more that I can find with minimal effort but I think I already made my point. When the mega-rich do decide to take the reigns, you get China...
He's projecting the attitudes of a few ivory tower intellectuals onto the entirety of western civilization.
I agree, but I find the analysis having some value nonetheless. The type he described wields a whole lot of cultural and political power. A tiny elite they may be, but one holding the reigns of power.
Really, I can't think of any in actual positions of power. Can you name a few?
They don't dirty their hands, they pull the strings. The Koch brothers and George Soros are a couple of names I hear people call out a lot. There are more that I can find with minimal effort but I think I already made my point. When the mega-rich do decide to take the reigns, you get China...
I've never heard anything from Soros or the Kochs that I would consider evidence that they hate western civilization.
Comments
Well if the case was in California or Massachusetts it would be different but since it's in Texas this isn't surprising. I just don't see this ending well for this poor kid no matter how it turns out. I'd feel the same way no matter which state this was in. No seven year old should have to deal with this shit...
This is my take as well. It's one thing for a guy who has NOTHING but a drug possession charge. It's entirely another for a guy with a drug possession charge, plus assault, resisting arrest, carrying amounts large enough to be considered "intent to distribute", and more.
This politically motivated investigation is a reaction to skyrocketing support for impeaching and removing the president for his politically motivated attempt to force a notoriously corrupt country to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating his likely democratic opponent and the democratic party and creating some trumped up charges in exchange for hundreds of *millions of dollars in military aid that congress had already approved to send to them. He did this through a shadow foreign policy deep state outside the government headed by his other personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani.
We've become a full blown banana republic supported by a party that is loyal to one man alone and not to the country.
Bill Barr is outright manevolent. Trump did indeed find his Roy Cohn. And if you know anything about Roy Cohn, you know how bad William Barr is. But everyone should have seen this coming. I warned about him from jump street. For a further deep-dive, this article reveals his utterly radical view of Executive power and immunity. This is a 30+ year project that is being implemented as we speak. I'm telling you, it's game over if these people aren't stopped:
https://prospect.org/power/40-year-war-bill-barr-oversight/
Hundreds of millions, not hundreds of billions. But yes.
Here's what the ABA wrote about the judge, Justin Walker:
“Mr. Walker’s experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any significant trial experience,” the ABA found. “Mr. Walker has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. ... In addition, based on review of his biographical information and conversations with Mr. Walker, it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law.”
This is the fourth judge that is NOT QUALIFIED to be awarded a lifetime seat on the Federal Judiciary. Obama managed to go 8 years without nominating one judge who has never tried a case or is NOT QUALIFIED.
This is totally sickening.
I agree this is a real concern that hasn't received enough attention. I imagine in the US system there's always been a tendency to appoint judges that agree with the political point of view of the party in control at the time, but that inherent bias now seems to be more of a long-term, concerted effort to reshape the judiciary (and make it subsidiary to the executive).
There's an apparent logical inconsistency with that last bit, given that one of the attributes desired of judges is to be a strict constructionist on the Constitution. However, I think the intention is to appoint people who either have such strong political views or who feel such a deep obligation to those that appointed them, that their judgments will reflect their politics, rather than their legal instincts, when there's a clash. On the plus side I suspect that relatively few of the judges appointed will actually go along with that after being in post for a while, but even making the attempt seems to me corrosive to a democratic system.
What you are asking for doesn't exist. There are no studies that compare treatment outcomes with trans folk who didn't go through an operation and those who did.
Which, again, is exactly my point. There is zero solid, credible evidence that this improves life outcomes. Doubly so for those who start it as children. Naturally, there won't be any evidence that is harms life outcomes either. That is the nature of unknown things.
With zero evidence, some want to permanently alter the life outcomes of kids. In a way that may drastically lower their quality of life.
If you can't see why using kids in what amounts to a biological experiment is wrong, I can't help you.
It's crazy what politics will justify in the minds of some.
A "first of it's kind" study involved a question and answer sheet with about 100 people. That's the most this has been researched.
It's an experiment. On kids. That's wrong. End of.
And if you want to experiment on kids the burden of proof is in you to show that it is safe, helpful, and better than all alternatives.
Which, again, is a huge unstudied aspect of this whole question.
Yep. Pretty much.
Do not use anything I say, not one thing, to insinuate that I in any way think that using hormones on children is right. I most certainly do not.
Also, obviously you didn’t read what I said or actually read the study. If you had you would see that even this outdated and incomplete study does state that gender reassignment improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
You have an opinion, valid one, you have fight in you for a worthy cause, the children, commendable, you brought it to bear on the wrong person, using the wrong ammunition. I do not disagree with you on your primary point of contention, I am mostly conservative in my views, go figure, though I think that politics has failed us. Liberal and conservative are just fountainheads for pushing agenda that have nothing to do with the good of the people or the wellbeing of humanity. You cannot say that I am politically motivated, I don’t even believe in the integrity of politics anymore. I am not part of the lgbt or trans community because I do not agree with the way they go about things though I think their goals are for the most part laudable.
I can’t change your views, and frankly I don’t care to try. Believe what you want, fight the fights you want to fight for. What I ask is that you don’t put words in my mouth, not tell me what I believe and if at all possible, not regurgitate things that are not true.
This entire debate is predicated around a case where the mother is seeking EVALUATION to see if her son should be put on puberty blockers sometime in the future. Not that it is going to happen, not a single suggestion of when, but seeking advice from medical professionals to look into it. So, one side is certainly making it political, but it isn't "the left", it's the people who have been misrepresenting the case ON PURPOSE from the beginning and simply LYING about how doctors go about this. Which has already been discussed, ad nauseam.
The doctors of the world, got together and outlined the course of care. Maybe you know more than them, of course they may all be politically motivated. One thing I am certain of is that it doesn’t matter what anyone says, you know the truth and can’t be swayed. So be it. Ta-ta.
I did read it, and that's how I know you aren't telling the whole story.
While it does say that some studies say that, it mentions others say the exact opposite, and most importantly, as I have been saying this entire time, the evidence for it is extremely weak.
Which is the same mantra you find anywhere these studies are done. It's all very weak, and we know next to nothing for certain.
So calling it a biological experiment seems pretty accurate.
And I never intended to claim you yourself were an advocate of this practice, if I made it seem that way through my choice of words, I apologize.
"The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
The methodological shortcomings have many reasons. First, the nature of sex reassignment precludes double blind randomized controlled studies of the result. Second, transsexualism is rare [20] and many follow-ups are hampered by small numbers of subjects.[5], [8], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Third, many sex reassigned persons decline to participate in follow-up studies, or relocate after surgery, resulting in high drop-out rates and consequent selection bias.[6], [9], [12], [21], [24], [28], [29], [30] Forth, several follow-up studies are hampered by limited follow-up periods.[7], [9], [21], [22], [26], [30] Taken together, these limitations preclude solid and generalisable conclusions. A long-term population-based controlled study is one way to address these methodological shortcomings."
It would help if there was one rational (i e evidence based) argument for this practice. There's not, so the fad being political in nature fits like a glove.
The unrelenting political screeds we are subjected to over this issue ad nauseum doesn't help it's non political case either.
As for hormone replacement therapy, the youngest person to ever receive HRT was 16, which happened once in history, and even then, it required a yearlong waiting period. Again, the mother can't get HRT for her daughter, even if both of them wanted it.
I asked my counselor--who happens to specialize in transgender teenagers--what medical treatments minors could receive. Minors can't get SRS. Teenagers very rarely get HRT, and if they get it, they don't get it early. A 7-year-old would never be able to get either. Don't matter how allegedly crazy a dishonest man says his wife is.
As for puberty blockers? No, they don't stunt your growth. Puberty takes off where it left off. There are no long-term effects beyond the delay itself. That's why doctors are willing to prescribe it. It doesn't prevent you from growing up; it just stalls the process. It can be restarted just fine after you go off the blockers.
Is it even surprising? Puberty starts in your early teens, but it never actually stops. The hormones you start producing as a teenagers keep getting produced as an adult. It's not like teenage biological males stop producing testosterone when they grow up, or biological females stop producing estrogen at age 20. It's not growth hormones you're blocking; those are the ones that only come in a few select spurts and then don't come back.
The notion that any mother would force their kid to go through puberty blockers, much less HRT, much less SRS, is simply not grounded in reality. The average trans kid's experience with coming out to their parents is intense, visceral, extreme opposition, generally bolstered by verbal abuse. None of us have ever heard of a parent pressuring their kid into transitioning, even a nonmedical transition.
But a conservative Christian father stopping at nothing to deny his daughter's identity and force her to live according to his own personal views?
God only knows how many times we've heard that story before, blow by blow. That's practically the standard formula for a transgender kid's childhood.
I have a lot of sympathy with your view here. I accept that evidence about the effectiveness of treatments is currently weak (and that it is inherently difficult to change that). I also accept that pursuing treatments anyway could thus be described as experimental.
However, I'm not convinced that your conclusion that experimental treatment is wrong is justified. That seems to take as a premise that a subject is currently in a 'normal' condition and there is thus a high risk of worsening that. For at least some of those pursuing treatment, that's far from the correct premise. For those with the most serious gender dysphoria it would be more accurate to describe them as having a life-threatening condition (the high rates of suicide have already been referred to). In those circumstances 'experimental' treatments are regularly sought both for and by patients - I'm sure you will have seen many stories about people seeking the latest cancer drug before it's undergone proper clinical trials for instance.
My shrink mentioned a horror story about a counselor who was too eager to recommend SRS (!) to a trans woman who really just had a crossdressing fetish. S/he ended up regretting it. Regretting HRT is one thing, but regretting SRS is a much more painful experience. Losing your penis ain't for everyone.
We complain about gatekeepers, but there's a reason they exist. The issue is that some counselors are too gung-ho about the process and too quick to recommend non-reversible treatments, whether surgery or hormones, to patients, while others are needlessly skeptical and will keep treatment out of reach if a patient doesn't fit an overly narrow list of criteria. The field is new, so it makes sense that there's variability in a transgender specialist's judgment.
My shrink mentioned a horror story about a counselor who was too eager to recommend SRS (!) to a trans woman who really just had a crossdressing fetish. S/he ended up regretting it. Regretting HRT is one thing, but regretting SRS is a much more painful experience. Losing your penis ain't for everyone.
We complain about gatekeepers, but there's a reason they exist. The issue is that some counselors are too gung-ho about the process and too quick to recommend non-reversible treatments, whether surgery or hormones, to patients, while others are needlessly skeptical and will keep treatment out of reach if a patient doesn't fit an overly narrow list of criteria. The field is new, so it makes sense that there's variability in a transgender specialist's judgment.
https://quillette.com/2019/10/07/oikophobia-our-western-self-hatred/
I know people like that exist, because I've seen them on the Internet. I've never met any in person. However, I think that the article descends into hyperbole.
He's projecting the attitudes of a few ivory tower intellectuals onto the entirety of western civilization.
I agree, but I find the analysis having some value nonetheless. The type he described wields a whole lot of cultural and political power. A tiny elite they may be, but one holding the reigns of power.
Really, I can't think of any in actual positions of power. Can you name a few?
Imagine how much koolaid this guy has drunk of the cult of Trump that he believes prayers to the guy that only cares about himself would do something. I guess invoking Trump doesn't make you above the law. Shocker.
Anyway, it's a short entertaining video.
"Imma put my hands up, but I'm not following the pig's lawful orders."
But I thought it was just BLACK people pulling that.
I'm sure it had something to do with his expired vehicle registration but who knows.
What a dumbass...
They don't dirty their hands, they pull the strings. The Koch brothers and George Soros are a couple of names I hear people call out a lot. There are more that I can find with minimal effort but I think I already made my point. When the mega-rich do decide to take the reigns, you get China...
I've never heard anything from Soros or the Kochs that I would consider evidence that they hate western civilization.