Bus With Anti-Transgender Message Banned

[Luminesa]

Kids aren't smart enough to make medical decisions for themselves. Their parents shouldn't decide this for them either.

definitely, that's why adults should be involed, like always.

tho, it isn't uncommon for kids to be in bad environment. whatever big problem they have combined with ahwatever abuse they may be receiving may cause need for placement in better household, tho if that can happen, life becomes about survival... which negativly impacts their education and brain chemistry or summat like that.

worst i've seen is a kid who was sexually abused most of his life by relativ, and developed other big problems. he was branded as inhuman once he confided in his sister and his little brother overhead him, going on to tell everyone.. Fro mthat point onward, that's 15-year-ol d boy's teachers and anyone who knew of him in his town seen him as garbage. He was begging for help and genuinely wanted to lvie a nromal life when I last talked to him ,btu he was murdered before he could escape his situation.

i suppose this can apply for transsexual/transgender people too, dependingo n their envronment and past. but aving people who intensely hate them for something the kid can't control can lead to some pretty horrible tings. which is why it's prefferable, even if one doesn't like it, to just ignore the trans person or whatever, instead of being aggresiv.

conservatism to a point is fine, but it and ignorance can lead to ugly things if taken too far.

i dont know if any of this makes sense tho.

Did anyone call the police in this situation?

[Mechanisburg]

And you'll surely be able to back this opinion up with a plethora of studies showing it is accurate, thus leading to the major medical organizations in the world to overthrow their consensus on treatment that works in improving quality of life and well being to agree with you, despite repeated observation not supporting this as of 2017.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/06/17166/

Lessee. I asked you to back your opinion with a plethora of studies showing it is accurate, enough to overthrow current consensus based on observation of current treatment being effective in improving both quality of life and well being.

You linked me an article, that has the following to say.

Regret Isn’t Rare: The Dangerous Lie of Sex Change Surgery’s Success

Aaaaand it starts with an outright lie - see Dhejne, 2014, which analyzed every application for sex change surgery in Sweden over the 1960-2010 period, and which found that "There were 15 (5 MF and 10 MF) regret applications corresponding to a 2.2% regret rate for both sexes. There was a significant decline of regrets over the time period."

We have been told sex reassignment surgery is successful. The advocates say that regret is rare, and that 98 percent of surgeries are successful. While that figure might be true for surgical complications, before we accept a narrative of surgical success we should consider the evidence. To evaluate success or failure, we need to go beyond the mechanical skill of the surgeon to examine the emotional and psychological wholeness of the patient afterwards—and not just in the first few months, but in the years to come.

The regret rates are, in fact, rare. See what Dhejne, 2014 found. It is not simply "surgical success": those regret rates are patient who regretted their original surgery so deeply they asked for it to be reversed.

Transgender advocates have worked to create a false narrative, hoodwinking the world into believing that no one ever has regrets from a surgical change of gender. They say the transgender ideology they promote is harmless, safe, even beneficial. But what happens when we dismiss the rhetoric, look at the research, and apply basic critical thinking? We see the reports of success fade and those of regret rise.

How delightful! A false narrative, and hoodwinking the world! Loaded language in an article supposedly being able to overthrow current consensus. No way this one can be biased. Also, an unsupported lie.

Twelve years ago, The Guardian reported that a review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transgender patients by the University of Birmingham Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility found “no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective . . . Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex.”

Shortly after undergoing sex change surgery, most people report feeling better. Over time, however, the initial euphoria wears off. The distress returns, but this time it is exacerbated by having a body that is irrevocably molded to look like the opposite gender. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what the people with regret who write to me say happened to them.

Support, apparently, comes from a 12-years old Guardian article that reported on a review of 100 studies, which is not linked in the linked article, the latter including speculation over high drop-out rates. The same linked articles, though, includes the following:

Dr Wylie added that it was difficult to conduct research on the outcome of gender reassignment, or to compare its effects with alternative treatments, because transsexualism was such a "rare experience". Urological surgeon James Bellringer, who has performed more than 200 sex changes over the past four years, claimed that trying to carry out research that involves studying a control group of transsexual patients who were denied hormones and surgery would be unethical.

Mr Bellringer, who works at the main NHS gender identity clinic at Charing Cross hospital in west London, said: "I don't think that any research that denied transsexual patients treatment would get past an ethics committee. There's no other treatment that works. You either have an operation or suffer a miserable life. A fifth of those who don't get treatment commit suicide."

But let's continue with the original article, shall we? "Euphoria and distress return, and that's what happened do me" - I'll dismiss this one as anecdotal and unsupported. Skipping a I'm sure very touching tale about medical error, let's get straight to the meat.

This young man’s story could have been foreseen and prevented if only transgender advocates had embraced the early findings of Dr. Charles Ihlenfeld. In 1979, Dr. Ihlenfeld warned his colleagues about unsuccessful outcomes. Based on six years of experience treating over 500 people with cross-gender hormones, Dr. Ihlenfeld sounded a warning on gender transition. He found that there was simply too much unhappiness among patients after changing genders, and that too many people who had sex change surgery later took their own lives. In his medical opinion, 80 percent of those who want a sex change should not do it. And for the remaining 20 percent, he found that that the sex change would only provide a temporary reprieve, not a lifelong solution.

When so many post-operative transgender individuals remain distressed, even suicidal, then a reasonable conclusion is that surgery is not sufficient to eliminate the depression.

The opinion of one doctor, in 1979, should be considered more highly than actual studies on well-being and suicidality? He found out there was simply too much unhappiness, but why? Because if, and only if, he could find out and prove that the unhappiness stems from transition and surgery, maybe he could have a case. The doctor himself has this to say:

Even for that 20 percent, Ihlenfeld feels, sex change is by no means a solution to life's problems. He thinks of it more as a kind of reprieve. "It buys maybe 10 or 15 years of a happier life," he said, "and it's worth it for that."

But statistics on postsurgical transsexuals are hard to come by, Ihlenfeld admitted. "People who have had the operation tend to disappear in their effort to be accepted in the world as women or men, rather than as transsexuals."

And as neither hormone therapy nor surgery purport to be a solution to life's problems, this is irrelevant. They still work - he himself said they buy "10 to 15 years of a happier life and it's worth it for that." He also offers a likely explanation for the high drop-out rates: why participate in follow-up studies, having to remember what one had to do, when one can just try to forget the whole thing and life life as they should have been living it?

The article then goes on about talking about high level of comorbidities in the transgender population, but protocol is that comorbidities, unless they are dangerously unmanaged, cannot be considered absolute contraindications for transition. Also, transition only purports to fix gender dysphoria, and does so egregiously. Anything it can do about depression or anxiety is the therapy going above and beyond what was asked of it. It also says "as the work of Dr. Ihlenfeld attests, sex change surgery is not the way to help keep them safe" - which is false.

Sex change surgery improves well-being and decreases symptoms of depression, anxiety and suicidality - it just cannot bring them down to 0. It would be a bit like saying "chemo does not help people with cancer because they still have problems after chemo," when in fact chemo works in improving well-being of cancer patients, even if their friends left them because they can't face something like that.

Today, we are told that those with gender dysphoria—whether they are four-year-old children or Olympic athletes—are better off living as the opposite sex. Putting blind trust in those who use bullying tactics to discourage debate or scientific challenge has traumatic and sometimes deadly consequences for the innocent victims. Consider the harm that occurs today as a result of this propaganda:

• Unbiased medical information and treatment is simply not available to those considering sex change. Only one course of treatment is provided: hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery.
• Hurting people who regret transitioning are bullied into silence.
• Researchers can be run out of their profession if their results challenge the transgender activists’ narrative. The freedom to pursue scientific evidence is in jeopardy.

Let’s stop enabling the delusion that transition is the only answer. Let’s allow scientific research to flourish, no matter what the results show. Let’s look at the evidence and facts and encourage treatment options that address dangerous psychiatric conditions first. In that way, we can ensure the best outcomes for those who have gender dysphoria.

Oh, this is hilarious.

"Putting blind trust in those who use bullying tactics to discourage debate or scientific challenge" - loaded language and appeal to emotion to stir shit. Who would have thought that an article with so flimsy support would have to resort to these tactics?

"Unbiased medical information and treatment is simply not available to those considering sex change" - it is actually available, as PubMed can be freely accessed and there are ways to get the documents given a DOI, but as "Only one course of treatment is provided: hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery." follows I'm going to think they'd like to propose "alternative" treatments, which do not exist. Hormone treatment and SRS are provided because they are effective, and alternative "reparative" therapy or homeopathic remedies not provided because they are not effective.

"Researchers can be run out of their profession if their results challenge the transgender activists’ narrative" - only those researchers who ignore the available body of research and try to push their agenda under the guise of "providing alternatives to the current narrative".

I shall stop here, frankly irritated at having wasted twenty minutes of my life on this load of crap, and leave you with the table regarding regret rates pulled from Dhejne, 2014.

Time period	Number of sex reassigned individuals at the time period when they did their first application that will later apply for reversal to the original sex/total number of individuals who did their first applications at this time period who received a new legal sex (%)	Number of regret applications, during that time period
1960–1971	4/15 (27 %)	0
1972–1980	6/103 (5.8 %)	5
1981–1990	1/76 (1.3 %)	3
1991–2000	3/127 (2.4 %)	3
2001–2010	1/360 (0.3 %)	4
1960–2010	15/681 (2.2 %)	15

[Khalisako]

definitely, that's why adults should be involed, like always.

tho, it isn't uncommon for kids to be in bad environment. whatever big problem they have combined with ahwatever abuse they may be receiving may cause need for placement in better household, tho if that can happen, life becomes about survival... which negativly impacts their education and brain chemistry or summat like that.

worst i've seen is a kid who was sexually abused most of his life by relativ, and developed other big problems. he was branded as inhuman once he confided in his sister and his little brother overhead him, going on to tell everyone.. Fro mthat point onward, that's 15-year-ol d boy's teachers and anyone who knew of him in his town seen him as garbage. He was begging for help and genuinely wanted to lvie a nromal life when I last talked to him ,btu he was murdered before he could escape his situation.

i suppose this can apply for transsexual/transgender people too, dependingo n their envronment and past. but aving people who intensely hate them for something the kid can't control can lead to some pretty horrible tings. which is why it's prefferable, even if one doesn't like it, to just ignore the trans person or whatever, instead of being aggresiv.

conservatism to a point is fine, but it and ignorance can lead to ugly things if taken too far.

i dont know if any of this makes sense tho.

Did anyone call the police in this situation?

I don't know. Hopefully, but I don't know if they'd have been sympathetic to him, considering what people were saying about him.

[Mechanisburg]

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/06/17166/

One op-ed is not a peer reviewed academic study. Try again.

I went through it all the same. To say it was written on shaky grounds does not do swamps justice.

[Walrusvylon]

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/06/17166/

One op-ed is not a peer reviewed academic study. Try again.

Peer review doesn't work. It suppresses dissent and promotes dogma.

[Raszezsar]

One op-ed is not a peer reviewed academic study. Try again.

Peer review doesn't work. It suppresses dissent and promotes dogma.

That's rich, broski.

[Vassenor]

One op-ed is not a peer reviewed academic study. Try again.

Peer review doesn't work. It suppresses dissent and promotes dogma.

[citation needed]

[Hashirajima]

Peer review doesn't work. It suppresses dissent and promotes dogma.

[citation needed]

Wouldn't that be [citation needed]²? Since his citation has, by precedence, not been up to scratch in the first place?

[Walrusvylon]

You can find any number of sources on why peer review is corrupt and ineffective. Here are two good ones:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/fe ... r-received
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ew-science

[Vassenor]

You can find any number of sources on why peer review is corrupt and ineffective. Here are two good ones:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/fe ... r-received
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ew-science

Neither of which talks about the suppression you claimed was rife.

[Raszezsar]

Peer review doesn't work. It suppresses dissent and promotes dogma.

[citation needed]

You can find any number of sources on this. Here are two good ones:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/fe ... r-received
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ew-science

"Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed"

Your source directly contradicts your assertion that peer review suppresses dissent. Do you even read your own sources?

[Walrusvylon]

You can find any number of sources on this. Here are two good ones:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/fe ... r-received
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ew-science

"Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed"

Your source directly contradicts your assertion that peer review suppresses dissent. Do you even read your own sources?

Yes, actually. Both of the sources show why peer review is ineffective.

[Vassenor]

"Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed"

Your source directly contradicts your assertion that peer review suppresses dissent. Do you even read your own sources?

Yes, actually. Both of the sources show why peer review is ineffective.

An article of lecturers talking about bad articles sent to them for review shows the system is ineffective?

[Walrusvylon]

You can find any number of sources on why peer review is corrupt and ineffective. Here are two good ones:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/fe ... r-received
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ew-science

Neither of which talks about the suppression you claimed was rife.

Did you even read them?
"Can peer review become a blockage rather than a filter, encouraging uniformity of expression, discouraging diversity? As a young editor, I was forced by a reader’s report to drop a contributor from a collection on what I felt were political rather than scholarly grounds. If peer review is open to abuse, then anonymity is part of the problem. Pre-publication peer review raises issues not found in the reviewing of published work.

Richard Smith suggests that “‘top journals’ select studies that are new and sexy rather than reliable”, before declaring that “peer review is anti-innovatory because it […] depends on approval by exponents of the current orthodoxy”. By contrast, a letter in The Spectator in 1996 declared that “this process of peer review is designed to weed out glitchy papers and it generally works rather well”. But what if Smith is right? What if the weeding goes too far? What if it pulls up some of the flowers, too, so that instead of a hundred of them blooming, only a handful can?"

[Neutraligon]

12 is about when many people start entering puberty. This does seem sensible.

Kids aren't mature enough to make medical decisions for themselves. Their parents shouldn't decide this for them either.

Which is why puberty blockers are given to those possibly trans children. It puts off puberty until they are old-enough to make this medical decision for themself.

[Walrusvylon]

Kids aren't mature enough to make medical decisions for themselves. Their parents shouldn't decide this for them either.

Which is why puberty blockers are given to those possibly trans children. It puts off puberty until they are old-enough to make this medical decision for themself.

That is a self-defeating claim.
Puberty isn't a medical decision. It's a part of growing up.
Also, if puberty is a medical decision, everyone should be given puberty blockers, not just trans kids.

[Neutraligon]

Which is why puberty blockers are given to those possibly trans children. It puts off puberty until they are old-enough to make this medical decision for themself.

Puberty isn't a medical decision. It's a part of growing up.

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

[Vassenor]

Also I find all this talk about dogmatic suppression kind of hypocritical considering that's basically what you're doing here.

Like it or not the preponderance of evidence is that trans people are real, and that properly supported transition is the most effective means of helping them.

[Walrusvylon]

Also I find all this talk about dogmatic suppression kind of hypocritical considering that's basically what you're doing here.

Like it or not the preponderance of evidence is that trans people are real, and that properly supported transition is the most effective means of helping them.

When did I say trans people weren't real? Strawman much?

[Walrusvylon]

Puberty isn't a medical decision. It's a part of growing up.

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

If puberty is a medical decision, by your faulty logic, everyone should be put on puberty blockers, not just trans kids. But that doesn't seem like a good idea, does it?

Taking puberty blockers is in itself a medical decision, and a poor one at that.

[Mechanisburg]

Puberty isn't a medical decision. It's a part of growing up.

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

A lot of people seem to think inaction in preventing something is not the same in action to bring that about. They are equivalent: the event happened, either because it wasn't stopped or because it was brought about willingly.

Also, when talking about outliers, whose puberty has the potential to do them enormous amounts of harm, puberty becomes a medical decision.

[Neutraligon]

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

If puberty is a medical decision, everyone should be put on puberty blockers, not just trans kids.

Unless they show signs of distress as per gender dysphoria there is no reason to do so.

Taking puberty blockers is in itself a medical decision, and a poor one at that.

Why is it a poor one?

[Mechanisburg]

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

If puberty is a medical decision, by your faulty logic, everyone should be put on puberty blockers, not just trans kids. But that doesn't seem like a good idea, does it?

Taking puberty blockers is in itself a medical decision, and a poor one at that.

You have not supported your opinion "puberty blockers are a poor medical decision" yet.

[Walrusvylon]

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

A lot of people seem to think inaction in preventing something is not the same in action to bring that about. They are equivalent: the event happened, either because it wasn't stopped or because it was brought about willingly.

Also, when talking about outliers, whose puberty has the potential to do them enormous amounts of harm, puberty becomes a medical decision.

So you're saying that growing up causes enourmous amounts of harm to trans people?

[Neutraligon]

Sure it is, when you can decide to prevent puberty as we can. Especially when that decision can help ensure the mental health of the child.

A lot of people seem to think inaction in preventing something is not the same in action to bring that about. They are equivalent: the event happened, either because it wasn't stopped or because it was brought about willingly.

Also, when talking about outliers, whose puberty has the potential to do them enormous amounts of harm, puberty becomes a medical decision.

Exactly. The fact of the matter is, going though puberty has the potential to do enormous amounts of mental harm to those who experience gender dysphoria. They may be too young to decide to go through the puberty of the opposite sex, but putting that decision off until they are older allows them the time they need to come to the decision while preventing the harm of going through the wrong puberty. I fail to see why a young person should not be put on preventative drugs to prevent future mental harm.