Red Mosquito

Matters wrote:Penn to erase Lia Thomas records, ban transgender athletes from women's sports in Title IX agreement

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/c ... 438014007/

Peeps wrote:it is amazing to me that there are people who are shouting from the rooftops that we need to protect women in sports from trans-athletes and are at times the same people who dont give a rats ass about school shootings

spike wrote:

Peeps wrote:it is amazing to me that there are people who are shouting from the rooftops that we need to protect women in sports from trans-athletes and are at times the same people who dont give a rats ass about school shootings

straight white dudes can get away with anything

VinylGuy wrote:

spike wrote:

Peeps wrote:it is amazing to me that there are people who are shouting from the rooftops that we need to protect women in sports from trans-athletes and are at times the same people who dont give a rats ass about school shootings

straight white dudes can get away with anything

Maybe they hate kids?

Matters wrote:Penn to erase Lia Thomas records, ban transgender athletes from women's sports in Title IX agreement

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/c ... 438014007/

Bi_3 wrote:Good article. This should be the moment we move away from leading with activism and empathy, and start leading with evidence. It's too complex and too many people's lives are at risk to not take a scientific and objective approach to determining criteria for when and if medical transition is appropriate for minors.

VinylGuy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Good article. This should be the moment we move away from leading with activism and empathy, and start leading with evidence. It's too complex and too many people's lives are at risk to not take a scientific and objective approach to determining criteria for when and if medical transition is appropriate for minors.

yeah, fuck empathy!!

Bi_3 wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Good article. This should be the moment we move away from leading with activism and empathy, and start leading with evidence. It's too complex and too many people's lives are at risk to not take a scientific and objective approach to determining criteria for when and if medical transition is appropriate for minors.

yeah, fuck empathy!!

These are irreversible and potentially dangerous changes to a child's body before they can understand or consent, so yeah, objective analysis over empathy. If the evidence points to allowing medical transition as the right path, then policy should reflect that. If not, then policy should reject it. Just like we do with every other decision point in medical science. But allowing empathy or fear or shame to dictate the outcome of scientific analysis is not... wise. But allowing lack empathy or fear or shame to dictate the outcome of scientific analysis is not... wise.

Bi_3 wrote:Good article. This should be the moment we move away from leading with activism and empathy, and start leading with evidence. It's too complex and too many people's lives are at risk to not take a scientific and objective approach to determining criteria for when and if medical transition is appropriate for minors.

spike wrote:that piece kicks off with a breathtaking straw man fallacy. naturally, bi eats it up in the name of he knows what's best.

lvc wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Good article. This should be the moment we move away from leading with activism and empathy, and start leading with evidence. It's too complex and too many people's lives are at risk to not take a scientific and objective approach to determining criteria for when and if medical transition is appropriate for minors.

In my ongoing campaign to read stories before I talk bollocks, I read this and found it interesting for a lot of reasons. Not least of which is that the journalist who wrote it says (pretty near the end) that she has actually changed her thinking based on the evidence (she used to call transition a "life saving" thing). In other words, it's not a partisan hack job. So I respect that.

It would seem that the scientific studies at the heart of the debate are finding little to no evidence at all that suicide rates (and possibly even ideation) change at all pre- to post-transition treatment. So it seems at least reasonably logical to have the hypothesis that gender dysphoria is a psychological condition that arises to resolve some kind of pre-existing mental distress rather than a biological condition that is the root of mental distress and can be repaired via biological means (transition therapy). You may not agree with that hypothesis and subsequent research may invalidate it. But if we're committed to following the science, you can't say that the current state of the research invalidates the hypothesis outright.

And here's where empathy kicks in: if indeed it's possible that the mental distress in question might not be resolvable with "permanent, irreversible" biological interventions, the any empathic person should be the loudest voice for maximum research with maximum transparency on the issue. Instead, this article makes a convincing case that proponents of gender transition are trying to stifle unfavorable research by weaponizing emotion (which is not empathy, it's manipulation).

The thing I'm really mulling over is the qui bono in all of this. If there is indeed a strong motivation to make gender transition the norm (and possibly even something the state could force on the family of a minor child), why? What drives that motivation? What would make someone want to mandate transition therapy even at the cost of stifling countervailing research? What do they gain?

lvc wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Good article. This should be the moment we move away from leading with activism and empathy, and start leading with evidence. It's too complex and too many people's lives are at risk to not take a scientific and objective approach to determining criteria for when and if medical transition is appropriate for minors.

In my ongoing campaign to read stories before I talk bollocks, I read this and found it interesting for a lot of reasons. Not least of which is that the journalist who wrote it says (pretty near the end) that she has actually changed her thinking based on the evidence (she used to call transition a "life saving" thing). In other words, it's not a partisan hack job. So I respect that.

It would seem that the scientific studies at the heart of the debate are finding little to no evidence at all that suicide rates (and possibly even ideation) change at all pre- to post-transition treatment. So it seems at least reasonably logical to have the hypothesis that gender dysphoria is a psychological condition that arises to resolve some kind of pre-existing mental distress rather than a biological condition that is the root of mental distress and can be repaired via biological means (transition therapy). You may not agree with that hypothesis and subsequent research may invalidate it. But if we're committed to following the science, you can't say that the current state of the research invalidates the hypothesis outright.

And here's where empathy kicks in: if indeed it's possible that the mental distress in question might not be resolvable with "permanent, irreversible" biological interventions, the any empathic person should be the loudest voice for maximum research with maximum transparency on the issue. Instead, this article makes a convincing case that proponents of gender transition are trying to stifle unfavorable research by weaponizing emotion (which is not empathy, it's manipulation).

The thing I'm really mulling over is the qui bono in all of this. If there is indeed a strong motivation to make gender transition the norm (and possibly even something the state could force on the family of a minor child), why? What drives that motivation? What would make someone want to mandate transition therapy even at the cost of stifling countervailing research? What do they gain?