Edit: I think I’ve misread this comment chain, but putting my comment back now
These drugs have been used on cis children for non trans related conditions (such as precocious puberty in young children and some hormone-sensitive cancers in adults) for a long time and their effects are well known and fully reversible.
The use of puberty blockers in transgender youth is supported by twelve major medical associations, including the AMA. The people who take them are always, by established protocol, made aware of their major and side effects in relation to their own goals and self perceptions with regard to gender.
On the basis of the forgoing, trans healthcare is considered life saving by a vast consensus of medical professionals.
Now let’s hear your side of this totally good faith discussion you’ve been talking about.
I agree with the previous poster. Medical evidence from a country with for-profit healthcare should be discounted until proven by non-money-motivated experts
Greed can’t be trusted, and these are children we’re talking about
All American medical science is inadmissible in your view? Ironically I was responding to someone else that was lamenting how people weren’t engaging with the evidence in good faith. But hey, who needs to think critically when you can just twist it into a capitalism bad argument. With bathwater like that, who needs babies?
Yeah, I am all for criticizing capitalism but ffs that’s not the problem here. It is not as if the US is the only place that puberty blockers are used. Other industrialized countries with universal healthcare do as well. The issue is transphobia, clear and simple.
Doctors in Spain, France, Netherlands, Poland, Norway and Denmark also prescribe hormone blockers to minors, just to say a few. Is that non-profit enough for you?
I can’t understand why people can’t just mind their own business. Let me rise my children according to what science says, not what your feelings say. What parents want is to keep their children safe, and puberty blockers helps these children avoid hardships later in life.
If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren’t experimental or dangerous.
Yes, I can. But this law is the opposite of caring about others. You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
The difference is that a blanket ban, even a temporary one “just in case”, is actively hurting children. In the UK, trans teenagers need several years of counseling and doctor visits and jumping through hoops before they can actively start transitioning. These drugs help at least halting puberty, otherwise total transition is much harder or impossible. I don’t think these drugs should be easily accessible, but right now it’s already so hard to get, that kids are getting them from the dark web in secret!
Sure, there are bad parents, and abusive parents. But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children. I’m not “assuming” anything. Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
So, if I had some “””genuine concerns””” about how Jews control the world through a shadowy cabal of financial institutions, owned the world media, etc. etc. would you argue that people should hear me out, empathise and discuss the topic with me?
You’re missing the fact that you could easily replace “science” in their comment with “Facebook”, because those are the “scientists” they’re referring to
Being apprehensive about something you don’t understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn’t be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
Uh… you realise this article is about the UK, right? Hospitals and doctors are pretty universally part of the National Health Service, it’s not really about money.
I’m also 100% in favour of anarchy though so I don’t know if there’s any point in discussing anything further with you.
No, they get paid a standard salary regardless, it’s not like in the US where they get kickbacks for certain drugs or some surgeries are profitable or whatever.
Anarchism is a really solid, consistent ideology, based on the fact that power corrupts, and therefore the best way to organise society is by dismantling hierarchies of power, and distributing decision-making across the entire society. It’s essentially the ultimate democracy, where everyone works together and looks after eachother. The only real criticism that can be made of it is that it’s “too utopian”, which is a bit of a self-defeating argument if you ask me!
As an anarchist, yeah that’d pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren’t licensed medical professionals. They shouldn’t be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation, not by taking advantage of people’s poor decision-making - this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.
Anarchists are all about rules and regulations, as long as they’re non-hierarchical - to the extent that one of the major phrases associated with anarchism is “Anarchy is order”, and the well recognised symbol of the A within the O. For example, you could agree with a group of friends to take turns to be the designated driver - any of you can freely and voluntarily decide to get a taxi, but you decide to work together for the benefit of the group. If someone takes advantage of the benefit without taking their turn, you’ll quickly all agree to stop driving that friend. This is a really simplified example of how anarchism works.
I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it. It’s a very sensible and coherent ideology.
Predatory loans is a great example - they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices. If you’re poor and you’re struggling to make ends meet, your credit card is already maxed out because you had to fix your car and you can’t afford groceries what other option do you have other than a short term loan?
Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things! You know that, you little rascal! If youre interested in the etymology, the term anarchism comes from the greek “an archos”, e.g. without hierarchy. It is possible to have laws without hierarchy.
An absence of state, definitely. Government? Depends on your definition of government but if you take it to mean state then sure. Lawlessness and disorder, definitely not - I’ve been to several anarchist collective groups and they’re some of the most well-structured, organised and managed events going.
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
Your average person may feel apprehensive about puberty blockers and hormone treatment because conservative/right wing news propaganda has been lying to people and misinforming them for over a decade on this issue. Your average person may not know better because misinformation is rampant.
But the people in positions of power, such as Victoria Mary Atkins? It’s part of their job to be properly informed, and she is, and she doesn’t care. She still had the gall to cite the Dr. Cass review when pushing through this harmful rule that’s going to irreparably harm trans children.
Dr. Hilary Cass knows better too. The people in power on the right love that review because it gives an appearance of legitimacy to their cruelty against trans people, and lawmakers and judges know they can use it to push though their anti-trans agendas.
Edit: I think I’ve misread this comment chain, but putting my comment back now
These drugs have been used on cis children for non trans related conditions (such as precocious puberty in young children and some hormone-sensitive cancers in adults) for a long time and their effects are well known and fully reversible.
The use of puberty blockers in transgender youth is supported by twelve major medical associations, including the AMA. The people who take them are always, by established protocol, made aware of their major and side effects in relation to their own goals and self perceptions with regard to gender.
On the basis of the forgoing, trans healthcare is considered life saving by a vast consensus of medical professionals.
Now let’s hear your side of this totally good faith discussion you’ve been talking about.
I agree with the previous poster. Medical evidence from a country with for-profit healthcare should be discounted until proven by non-money-motivated experts
Greed can’t be trusted, and these are children we’re talking about
All American medical science is inadmissible in your view? Ironically I was responding to someone else that was lamenting how people weren’t engaging with the evidence in good faith. But hey, who needs to think critically when you can just twist it into a capitalism bad argument. With bathwater like that, who needs babies?
Yeah, I am all for criticizing capitalism but ffs that’s not the problem here. It is not as if the US is the only place that puberty blockers are used. Other industrialized countries with universal healthcare do as well. The issue is transphobia, clear and simple.
The issue is extremely well educated medical professionals disagreeing with extremely well educated medical professionals who are motivated by money
If you think it’s simply 100% transphobia, then that’s why no professionals are asking your opinion
Tell us more about this expert opinion
Glad that professionals are asking for neither of our opinions, honestly.
Doctors in Spain, France, Netherlands, Poland, Norway and Denmark also prescribe hormone blockers to minors, just to say a few. Is that non-profit enough for you?
deleted by creator
I can’t understand why people can’t just mind their own business. Let me rise my children according to what science says, not what your feelings say. What parents want is to keep their children safe, and puberty blockers helps these children avoid hardships later in life.
deleted by creator
If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren’t experimental or dangerous.
Yes, I can. But this law is the opposite of caring about others. You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
deleted by creator
The difference is that a blanket ban, even a temporary one “just in case”, is actively hurting children. In the UK, trans teenagers need several years of counseling and doctor visits and jumping through hoops before they can actively start transitioning. These drugs help at least halting puberty, otherwise total transition is much harder or impossible. I don’t think these drugs should be easily accessible, but right now it’s already so hard to get, that kids are getting them from the dark web in secret!
Sure, there are bad parents, and abusive parents. But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children. I’m not “assuming” anything. Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
deleted by creator
So, if I had some “””genuine concerns””” about how Jews control the world through a shadowy cabal of financial institutions, owned the world media, etc. etc. would you argue that people should hear me out, empathise and discuss the topic with me?
You’re missing the fact that you could easily replace “science” in their comment with “Facebook”, because those are the “scientists” they’re referring to
I know exactly why people are apprehensive
Being apprehensive about something you don’t understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn’t be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
deleted by creator
Uh… you realise this article is about the UK, right? Hospitals and doctors are pretty universally part of the National Health Service, it’s not really about money.
I’m also 100% in favour of anarchy though so I don’t know if there’s any point in discussing anything further with you.
deleted by creator
No, they get paid a standard salary regardless, it’s not like in the US where they get kickbacks for certain drugs or some surgeries are profitable or whatever.
Anarchism is a really solid, consistent ideology, based on the fact that power corrupts, and therefore the best way to organise society is by dismantling hierarchies of power, and distributing decision-making across the entire society. It’s essentially the ultimate democracy, where everyone works together and looks after eachother. The only real criticism that can be made of it is that it’s “too utopian”, which is a bit of a self-defeating argument if you ask me!
Anyways, nice to chat to you, take it easy!
As an anarchist, yeah that’d pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren’t licensed medical professionals. They shouldn’t be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
deleted by creator
The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation, not by taking advantage of people’s poor decision-making - this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.
Anarchists are all about rules and regulations, as long as they’re non-hierarchical - to the extent that one of the major phrases associated with anarchism is “Anarchy is order”, and the well recognised symbol of the A within the O. For example, you could agree with a group of friends to take turns to be the designated driver - any of you can freely and voluntarily decide to get a taxi, but you decide to work together for the benefit of the group. If someone takes advantage of the benefit without taking their turn, you’ll quickly all agree to stop driving that friend. This is a really simplified example of how anarchism works.
I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it. It’s a very sensible and coherent ideology.
deleted by creator
Predatory loans is a great example - they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices. If you’re poor and you’re struggling to make ends meet, your credit card is already maxed out because you had to fix your car and you can’t afford groceries what other option do you have other than a short term loan?
Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things! You know that, you little rascal! If youre interested in the etymology, the term anarchism comes from the greek “an archos”, e.g. without hierarchy. It is possible to have laws without hierarchy.
An absence of state, definitely. Government? Depends on your definition of government but if you take it to mean state then sure. Lawlessness and disorder, definitely not - I’ve been to several anarchist collective groups and they’re some of the most well-structured, organised and managed events going.
Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn’t too bad for it:
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.
deleted by creator
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
Your average person may feel apprehensive about puberty blockers and hormone treatment because conservative/right wing
newspropaganda has been lying to people and misinforming them for over a decade on this issue. Your average person may not know better because misinformation is rampant.But the people in positions of power, such as Victoria Mary Atkins? It’s part of their job to be properly informed, and she is, and she doesn’t care. She still had the gall to cite the Dr. Cass review when pushing through this harmful rule that’s going to irreparably harm trans children.
Dr. Hilary Cass knows better too. The people in power on the right love that review because it gives an appearance of legitimacy to their cruelty against trans people, and lawmakers and judges know they can use it to push though their anti-trans agendas.
deleted by creator