>I can’t imagine what it must be like to be a youth with gender dysphoria. And I think that doctors and parents should have full societal support in considering what course of action to pursue when a kid comes in presenting this condition. I think the attempts to ban youth gender medicine are profoundly misguided and a gross interference with the doctor-patient and parent-child relationships.
As someone apparently more empathetic, I would ask you to consider why the practice of "youth gender medicine" is apparently the unquestioned default, when it became so, why it became so, and why, apparently, to you, no amount of data or theory on this particular subject - unlike that of global warming - merits "interference with the doctor-patient and parent-child relationship."
This is odd, to me, because the typical practice of medicine, if you've forgotten, is "first do no harm" - and it usually involves only embarking on treatment programs that have demonstrated evidence of benefit. Yet with this particular medical question, you hold that *not even demonstrated evidence of harm* could affect whether or not this particular treatment program should be considered evidence-based medicine in good standing. As I said, I find that odd. I would expect the null hypothesis to be refraining from serious unstudied interventions until there is - at the very *least* even setting aside all other ethical, moral, & social considerations - evidence that it benefits people. (You may note, however, that Andrew Long Chu's recent article officially declares a break from the notion that evidence of benefit matters in this question - coincidentally, this comes just as evidence of harm, rather than benefit, seems quite rapidly to be emerging.) Thoughts? I would say that at the very least such assertions place these beliefs quite outside & independent of medicine, which is plainly true, and I am in a way glad that it is now being admitted, even if it is in an attempt to bulldoze criticism of (and rational horror at) this set of unevidenced practices.
The conservatives, whose opinions on global warming you bemoan, do, in my experience, on occasion have a more nuanced opinion on the subject than the one you present. Such a conservative might say that no amount of theory or data justifies the attempt to ban or restrict fossil fuels or any particular environmentally harmful technology, as that would be interference with his liberty & pursuit of happiness, a quite serious thing, and your justification for impinging on that right - though I, to be clear, agree with it - is, you must admit, rather more complicated and nebulous, compared to its immediate consequences, which are often simple and concrete.
What I'm saying is, heal thyself, because you're standing on half a leg at best. Here's an interesting thought exercise: When you encounter any material on the subjects you mention at issue on the left, start by highlighting every word, notion or piece of "evidence" invented by, deriving from or related to Psychology & its variety of derivative fields of "study." Go highlighted bit by highlighted bit and look into the origins of that word, notion or piece of "evidence."
This is an important exercise that will help you understand how the purportedly pro-free-speech, pro-civil-liberties "Left" got to where it is today - that is, to direct opposition to those notions where they are perceived to impinge upon the subjects you mention. Most of the "Right" - and certainly the Trumpian "Right" - does not claim to adhere to notions of fairness, equality, or an open and free society, but the "Left" does. So how did they end up where they are? Entirely via the notion of "psychological harm." The things you say must not be said have been declared so because uttering these things "puts people at risk" and is thus "violence." These are their words - from the NYT letter in response to Cotton's editorial, for example, & as I think we've seen, it's the same whenever someone tries to say any of the inconvenient truths you mention.
It's interesting that Democrats are apparently "expected to say" something that squarely contradicts (checks notes) the public position of the Biden DoEd.
>I can’t imagine what it must be like to be a youth with gender dysphoria. And I think that doctors and parents should have full societal support in considering what course of action to pursue when a kid comes in presenting this condition. I think the attempts to ban youth gender medicine are profoundly misguided and a gross interference with the doctor-patient and parent-child relationships.
As someone apparently more empathetic, I would ask you to consider why the practice of "youth gender medicine" is apparently the unquestioned default, when it became so, why it became so, and why, apparently, to you, no amount of data or theory on this particular subject - unlike that of global warming - merits "interference with the doctor-patient and parent-child relationship."
This is odd, to me, because the typical practice of medicine, if you've forgotten, is "first do no harm" - and it usually involves only embarking on treatment programs that have demonstrated evidence of benefit. Yet with this particular medical question, you hold that *not even demonstrated evidence of harm* could affect whether or not this particular treatment program should be considered evidence-based medicine in good standing. As I said, I find that odd. I would expect the null hypothesis to be refraining from serious unstudied interventions until there is - at the very *least* even setting aside all other ethical, moral, & social considerations - evidence that it benefits people. (You may note, however, that Andrew Long Chu's recent article officially declares a break from the notion that evidence of benefit matters in this question - coincidentally, this comes just as evidence of harm, rather than benefit, seems quite rapidly to be emerging.) Thoughts? I would say that at the very least such assertions place these beliefs quite outside & independent of medicine, which is plainly true, and I am in a way glad that it is now being admitted, even if it is in an attempt to bulldoze criticism of (and rational horror at) this set of unevidenced practices.
The conservatives, whose opinions on global warming you bemoan, do, in my experience, on occasion have a more nuanced opinion on the subject than the one you present. Such a conservative might say that no amount of theory or data justifies the attempt to ban or restrict fossil fuels or any particular environmentally harmful technology, as that would be interference with his liberty & pursuit of happiness, a quite serious thing, and your justification for impinging on that right - though I, to be clear, agree with it - is, you must admit, rather more complicated and nebulous, compared to its immediate consequences, which are often simple and concrete.
What I'm saying is, heal thyself, because you're standing on half a leg at best. Here's an interesting thought exercise: When you encounter any material on the subjects you mention at issue on the left, start by highlighting every word, notion or piece of "evidence" invented by, deriving from or related to Psychology & its variety of derivative fields of "study." Go highlighted bit by highlighted bit and look into the origins of that word, notion or piece of "evidence."
This is an important exercise that will help you understand how the purportedly pro-free-speech, pro-civil-liberties "Left" got to where it is today - that is, to direct opposition to those notions where they are perceived to impinge upon the subjects you mention. Most of the "Right" - and certainly the Trumpian "Right" - does not claim to adhere to notions of fairness, equality, or an open and free society, but the "Left" does. So how did they end up where they are? Entirely via the notion of "psychological harm." The things you say must not be said have been declared so because uttering these things "puts people at risk" and is thus "violence." These are their words - from the NYT letter in response to Cotton's editorial, for example, & as I think we've seen, it's the same whenever someone tries to say any of the inconvenient truths you mention.
> get these folks to support tax cuts that will grow the economy
Whether it does that or not, the rich folks primary concern is of course that it cuts _their_ taxes.
Well written good sir
It's interesting that Democrats are apparently "expected to say" something that squarely contradicts (checks notes) the public position of the Biden DoEd.