A Transgender Controversy

#1
C C Offline
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/tra...ntroversy/

EXCERPT (Harriet Hall): . . . In my review of [uirl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage]Shrier’s book[/url] on the Science-Based Medicine (SBM) website, I said that while it was mostly based on anecdotes I thought it raised serious concerns that cried out for good scientific studies. As one of the three editors on that website, I was shocked when the other two editors took the unprecedented step of deleting my book review, the first time an SBM article had ever been retracted in the 14 years of its existence. Michael Shermer promptly republished it on skeptic.com, where it can still be read. The reactions to my article were mixed: many respected skeptics (including a former SBM editor) thought it was fair and should not have been retracted, but many commenters called me a transphobe who had caused irreversible harm to members of the trans community.

This response is not uncommon. Some researchers have faced reprisals and loss of jobs. Some are reluctant to question transgender medical interventions because activists have created a climate of fear. The word “woke” originally meant being aware of racial and social issues, but its meaning has become distorted to where it now interferes with rational discourse and scientific inquiry. Scientific American’s “woke” thinking might have led to the termination of Michael Shermer’s long-running “Skeptic” column. Should any subject be out of bounds? Shouldn’t skeptics be free to ask for evidence to support any claim?

Transgender Experts Speak Out. Dr. Marci Bowers is a world-renowned surgeon who has performed over 2000 vaginoplasties. Erica Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Child and Adolescent Gender Clinic. Both have treated thousands of transgender patients. [...] Both Bowers and Anderson are themselves transgender women.

Children with gender dysphoria were once treated with “watchful waiting” (nonintervention and waiting to see if some of them might outgrow it with time as they learned to accept their bodies). It has been replaced by the current practice of “affirmative care,” which some claim prevents suicides, while others say the evidence is not robust enough to know. Doctors and families are expected to corroborate the child’s belief that they are trapped in the wrong body and to give them puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even surgery (which is supposed to wait for the age of consent but sometimes happens earlier). Bowers and Anderson think the new orthodoxy has gone too far; they are seeing more adolescent girls who seem to fit the ROGD description, and they are concerned that currently sloppy healthcare work may lead to more regrets and detransitioners. There are concerns about brain development, impaired fertility, and the inability of puberty-blocked patients to ever experience orgasm. And patients who don’t go through puberty may not develop adequate penile tissue for surgeries like vaginoplasty.

When Anderson submitted a co-authored op-ed to the New York Times warning that many transgender healthcare providers were treating kids recklessly, the newspaper rejected it with the improbable excuse that it was “outside our coverage priorities right now.” I guess their priorities don’t include protecting children. Bowers said, “There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn’t absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there’s no room for dissent, …I think that’s a mistake.”

The science supporting transgender diagnosis and treatment is far from settled, especially for adolescent girls. Unanswered questions remain that can only be answered through good science. If experts could predict which individuals are likely to regret gender transition, irreversible damage might be avoided... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Jun 16, 2022 06:59 PM)C C Wrote: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/tra...ntroversy/

EXCERPT (Harriet Hall): . . . In my review of [uirl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage]Shrier’s book[/url] on the Science-Based Medicine (SBM) website, I said that while it was mostly based on anecdotes I thought it raised serious concerns that cried out for good scientific studies. As one of the three editors on that website, I was shocked when the other two editors took the unprecedented step of deleting my book review, the first time an SBM article had ever been retracted in the 14 years of its existence. Michael Shermer promptly republished it on skeptic.com, where it can still be read. The reactions to my article were mixed: many respected skeptics (including a former SBM editor) thought it was fair and should not have been retracted, but many commenters called me a transphobe who had caused irreversible harm to members of the trans community.

This response is not uncommon. Some researchers have faced reprisals and loss of jobs. Some are reluctant to question transgender medical interventions because activists have created a climate of fear. The word “woke” originally meant being aware of racial and social issues, but its meaning has become distorted to where it now interferes with rational discourse and scientific inquiry. Scientific American’s “woke” thinking might have led to the termination of Michael Shermer’s long-running “Skeptic” column. Should any subject be out of bounds? Shouldn’t skeptics be free to ask for evidence to support any claim?

Transgender Experts Speak Out. Dr. Marci Bowers is a world-renowned surgeon who has performed over 2000 vaginoplasties. Erica Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Child and Adolescent Gender Clinic. Both have treated thousands of transgender patients. [...] Both Bowers and Anderson are themselves transgender women.

Children with gender dysphoria were once treated with “watchful waiting” (nonintervention and waiting to see if some of them might outgrow it with time as they learned to accept their bodies). It has been replaced by the current practice of “affirmative care,” which some claim prevents suicides, while others say the evidence is not robust enough to know. Doctors and families are expected to corroborate the child’s belief that they are trapped in the wrong body and to give them puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even surgery (which is supposed to wait for the age of consent but sometimes happens earlier). Bowers and Anderson think the new orthodoxy has gone too far; they are seeing more adolescent girls who seem to fit the ROGD description, and they are concerned that currently sloppy healthcare work may lead to more regrets and detransitioners. There are concerns about brain development, impaired fertility, and the inability of puberty-blocked patients to ever experience orgasm. And patients who don’t go through puberty may not develop adequate penile tissue for surgeries like vaginoplasty.

When Anderson submitted a co-authored op-ed to the New York Times warning that many transgender healthcare providers were treating kids recklessly, the newspaper rejected it with the improbable excuse that it was “outside our coverage priorities right now.” I guess their priorities don’t include protecting children. Bowers said, “There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn’t absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there’s no room for dissent, …I think that’s a mistake.”

The science supporting transgender diagnosis and treatment is far from settled, especially for adolescent girls. Unanswered questions remain that can only be answered through good science. If experts could predict which individuals are likely to regret gender transition, irreversible damage might be avoided... (MORE - missing details)

Quote:they are concerned that currently sloppy healthcare work
in a private user pays health care system ?
the most expensive health care system in the world . . .  ?
in a society that exploits ill health to make profit . . . ?

i know someone who is a multiple suicide attempt survivor and is currently transitioning

some people want to smash everything into a simple black and white solution when the solution is a mediation
doing nothing is not a solution

i must admit i have emotional bias which i struggle with
i want to understand but i cant understand & need to realise i wont be able to understand as she is because we are all different.
& behind that frustration is the desire to find a solution
but part of my emotion is the desire to solve my emotion, not hers
so i want to solve what i feel rather than what she feels.
what she wants is the key

i want to be able to fix her world for her
but i can not
& there in lies the struggle in myself knowing that those best skilled are doing what they think is best.
having faith and trust in your medical system is critical

and there we have full circle back to the idea that some would criticize a system that is private and self built for not being able to deliver something that no one can afford to pay for
irony ?

what is that ? what is the thing inside that concept of knowing the system is trying to extract as much money as possible from the patient while critics slant their view toward their own bias as a prejudice toward the over all service being delivered.

reforming private health care ?
is that the primary drive ?

how do you do that without regulation ?
is price regulation demanded ?
why 1 regulation and not access allowing patient access like price ?

the moral discussion around what should be available ?
when price is a factor ?
its ok to charge any price to exclude patients
but its not ok to provide health care options as a type of therapy ?

is this the puritan American psychology of denial as a moral defense to solve ignorance ?

good news to see Jo signing the new laws
Reply
#3
confused2 Offline
Thoreau wrote "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.".
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Aaronson: demise of Scientific American + Richard Dawkins on race & sex controversy C C 0 24 Jan 6, 2022 06:13 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)