Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Senkaku]

They may be preferable in some cases. But they are not without risks, and anyone saying so is just flatly lying.

Hispida didn’t say “these medications are totally without risks,” did they? You’re hanging this entire pathetic fit of concern-trolling off their use of the word “entirely” when they said reversible, because there are some studies which have received an unusual amount of attention suggesting that some of the side effects may not be fully reversible (although problems with bone density is something that we have therapies and medications to address if it’s actually a problem for any individual patient— osteoporosis isn’t a terminal incurable disease). Forget where those studies came from or who’s giving them attention or why, or what providers and patients who’ve prescribed or used these drugs successfully for years think— the important thing here to you is the “misinformation” being spread that might imply that they’re safe! If you can transition this sort of content to Reddit or Twitter and get some reach, you might have an NYT opinion column in your future, so congrats on that in advance.

[Galloism]

They may be preferable in some cases. But they are not without risks, and anyone saying so is just flatly lying.

Hispida didn’t say “these medications are totally without risks,” did they?

Yes.

i mean, why not? puberty blockers are entirely reversible, and sometimes medically necessary.

[Senkaku]

Hispida didn’t say “these medications are totally without risks,” did they?

Yes.

i mean, why not? puberty blockers are entirely reversible, and sometimes medically necessary.

I’m not seeing the words “these medications are totally without risks” there!

You’re hanging this entire pathetic fit of concern-trolling off their use of the word “entirely” when they said reversible, because there are some studies which have received an unusual amount of attention suggesting that some of the side effects may not be fully reversible (although problems with bone density is something that we have therapies and medications to address if it’s actually a problem for any individual patient— osteoporosis isn’t a terminal incurable disease). Forget where those studies came from or who’s giving them attention or why, or what providers and patients who’ve prescribed or used these drugs successfully for years think— the important thing here to you is the “misinformation” being spread that might imply that they’re safe! If you can transition this sort of content to Reddit or Twitter and get some reach, you might have an NYT opinion column in your future, so congrats on that in advance.

[Page]

On the other hand, they might get osteoporosis or whatever from eating our shitty food and breathing our shitty air anyways, and it’s better than having them slit their own throats because of gender dysphoria, so I still see no reason to trust some fucking accountant with a pocket full of fearmongering NYT articles over tens of thousands of seasoned medical professionals who care deeply about their patients and are fully aware of the risks involved in the care they provide. If you’re too credulous to have noticed or too motivated to care about NYT’s extensive anti-trans campaign over the past several years, I see no reason to believe that you’re intellectually capable of taking down the boys and girls at the Mayo Clinic.

Slit their own throats? I'm still confused as to whether or not gender dysphoria is a mental disorder or not, since I have seen people say that it is and that it isn't. However, I'm leaning towards the mental disorder option since like you said transgender people become so distressed when they can't transition that they harm themselves.

However, if it is a mental disorder, then why would we want to say that they are in fact not their biological gender? That seems similar to telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head are real.

How many times do I have to explain this? SIGH.

Trans people are not making claims about biological reality. There isn't a single trans woman in the universe who says and believes that she has functioning ovaries inside her body. A trans woman doesn't say and believe "I have two X chromosomes." She knows she has a penis, okay? She knows that.

Trans people are talking about gender, not sex, gender being an exclusively human phenomenon. There are female snakes, but no snakes are women. There are male raccoons, but no raccoons are men.

"I am a woman" is not the same kind of statement as "I have two kidneys." "I am a woman" is analagous to saying "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist", it's not a statement that can be refuted by any observation of the material world. It's an identity statement.

Telling a trans woman "But you're biologically male" is a non-sequitir.

[Galloism]

Yes.

I’m not seeing the words “these medications are totally without risks” there!

You’re hanging this entire pathetic fit of concern-trolling off their use of the word “entirely” when they said reversible, because there are some studies which have received an unusual amount of attention suggesting that some of the side effects may not be fully reversible (although problems with bone density is something that we have therapies and medications to address if it’s actually a problem for any individual patient— osteoporosis isn’t a terminal incurable disease). Forget where those studies came from or who’s giving them attention or why, or what providers and patients who’ve prescribed or used these drugs successfully for years think— the important thing here to you is the “misinformation” being spread that might imply that they’re safe! If you can transition this sort of content to Reddit or Twitter and get some reach, you might have an NYT opinion column in your future, so congrats on that in advance.

So, yes.

When something is entirely reversible, it means it is entirely reversible, as in, it can be completely reversed. If it's not entirely reversible, it's not entirely reversible.

And saying so is flatly lying, no matter how many sentences of justification and equivocation you put behind it.

[Aggicificicerous]

So both credulous and motivated, what an unfortunate yet common combination— at least one of us learned to read a study properly, instead of just assuming anything that manages to worm its way through a journal and thence to a media outlet has been effectively declared canon law by the entire scientific establishment. If you want to throw your lot in with the Pamela Pauls and the Sais of the world, be my fucking guest, but don’t expect plaudits from anyone with a brain for your even-handed rigor or whatever.

Indeed. Many medical professionals are both credulous and motivated. Like a lot of people really.

Look, don't disregard the science. It was specifically false when the claim was made that they are completely reversible, they aren't.

They may be preferable in some cases. But they are not without risks, and anyone saying so is just flatly lying.

When it comes to trans teens using puberty blockers, there is no "The Science" to fall back on. We don't have long term studies on the matter, and instead there are a variety of doctors speculating or drawing weak hypotheses on very limited data. Several media outlets have run with the story that blockers cause a loss of bone density, based on a study that instead showed teens on blockers have lower bone density than their cis counterparts after a year or two. It's extremely tricky to measure because hormones also affect bone density, and these studies never take into account that everyone begins puberty at a slightly different time. Bottom line is, we don't know yet, but outlets like the NYT do a piss poor job on trans matters, and articles by them should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

[Galloism]

Indeed. Many medical professionals are both credulous and motivated. Like a lot of people really.

Look, don't disregard the science. It was specifically false when the claim was made that they are completely reversible, they aren't.

They may be preferable in some cases. But they are not without risks, and anyone saying so is just flatly lying.

When it comes to trans teens using puberty blockers, there is no "The Science" to fall back on. We don't have long term studies on the matter, and instead there are a variety of doctors speculating or drawing weak hypotheses on very limited data. Several media outlets have run with the story that blockers cause a loss of bone density, based on a study that instead showed teens on blockers have lower bone density than their cis counterparts after a year or two. It's extremely tricky to measure because hormones also affect bone density, and these studies never take into account that everyone begins puberty at a slightly different time. Bottom line is, we don't know yet, but outlets like the NYT do a piss poor job on trans matters, and articles by them should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

Well, the cited studies one went through age 18 and the other went through age 22 and tracked people who were given hormones to see if they "caught up". So they do have several years of data behind them.

Long term studies are hard for lots of reasons (largely due to time involved), but the data we have suggests the strong claim of being "entirely reversible" is likely false. There's a reason i said likely instead of certain.

[Senkaku]

When something is entirely reversible, it means it is entirely reversible, as in, it can be completely reversed. If it's not entirely reversible, it's not entirely reversible.

And saying so is flatly lying, no matter how many sentences of justification an equivocation you put behind it.

“…according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects. Many doctors treating trans patients believe they will recover that loss when they go off blockers. But two studies from the analysis…”

“That could lead to heightened risk of debilitating fractures earlier than would be expected from normal aging — in their 50s instead of 60s…”

Your deep and serious concern is noted, fucking give us a break now please lol— this article, like pretty much all of NYT’s coverage of trans issues, is a fucking grab-bag of carefully-couched conditionals, cherry-picked or generalized quotes from experts, hacky self-selected data, and subjects and experts specifically targeted by a journalist who had a narrative in mind before they ever started writing the story. I would think anyone who takes themselves as seriously as you do would be embarrassed to have been taken in by such transparent propaganda, but if it already lines up with what you thought anyways, then I suppose it’s nice to feel like someone’s fighting the good fight and giving you ammunition, right?

[Galloism]

When something is entirely reversible, it means it is entirely reversible, as in, it can be completely reversed. If it's not entirely reversible, it's not entirely reversible.

And saying so is flatly lying, no matter how many sentences of justification an equivocation you put behind it.

“…according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects. Many doctors treating trans patients believe they will recover that loss when they go off blockers. But two studies from the analysis…”

“That could lead to heightened risk of debilitating fractures earlier than would be expected from normal aging — in their 50s instead of 60s…”

Your deep and serious concern is noted, fucking give us a break now please lol

So yes, the studies indicate that the claim I said it likely false is, in fact, likely false.

The fact that some no doubt well-intentioned people believe otherwise without data to back it doesn't really help your case.

[Aggicificicerous]

When it comes to trans teens using puberty blockers, there is no "The Science" to fall back on. We don't have long term studies on the matter, and instead there are a variety of doctors speculating or drawing weak hypotheses on very limited data. Several media outlets have run with the story that blockers cause a loss of bone density, based on a study that instead showed teens on blockers have lower bone density than their cis counterparts after a year or two. It's extremely tricky to measure because hormones also affect bone density, and these studies never take into account that everyone begins puberty at a slightly different time. Bottom line is, we don't know yet, but outlets like the NYT do a piss poor job on trans matters, and articles by them should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

Well, the cited studies one went through age 18 and the other went through age 22 and tracked people who were given hormones to see if they "caught up". So they do have several years of data behind them.

Long term studies are hard for lots of reasons (largely due to time involved), but the data we have suggests the strong claim of being "entirely reversible" is likely false. There's a reason i said likely instead of certain.

I can't verify that as the article is paywalled (another reason to cite studies directly and bypass media outlets). I'd be interested in seeing those studies though.

[Galloism]

Well, the cited studies one went through age 18 and the other went through age 22 and tracked people who were given hormones to see if they "caught up". So they do have several years of data behind them.

Long term studies are hard for lots of reasons (largely due to time involved), but the data we have suggests the strong claim of being "entirely reversible" is likely false. There's a reason i said likely instead of certain.

I can't verify that as the article is paywalled (another reason to cite studies directly and bypass media outlets). I'd be interested in seeing those studies though.

I think they might not be in English (my guess) as New York Times didn't link them. They just said this:

So far, only two small studies, published by Dutch doctors, have tracked the bone development of trans patients from beginning blockers through early hormone treatment. In both studies, dozens of patients started blockers at 14 or 15, on average, and began estrogen or testosterone at 16. The participants, followed in one study through age 18, and in the other through age 22, saw their bones strengthen, on average, once on hormones. Still, most patients continued to lag behind their peers; trans men neared average levels, but trans women fell far below.

“I think there’s a false sense of security,” said Dr. Khosla, the Mayo Clinic specialist, who is skeptical that all trans patients can catch up.

Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents. But they think the risks should be factored into patient decisions and that bones should be carefully monitored.

If any harm resulted from the use of blockers, it likely would not be evident until decades later, with fractures. However, for children who already have weak bones as they start treatment, the dangers could be more immediate. While there is no systematic record-keeping of such cases, some anecdotal evidence is available.

After more than a year on blockers, a 15-year-old in Texas, who had not had a baseline scan, showed spinal bone density so low that it was below the first percentile for the teen’s age and weight, indicating osteoporosis, according to medical records from earlier this year.

A transgender adolescent in Sweden who took the drugs from age 11 to 14 with no bone scans until the last year of treatment developed osteoporosis and sustained a compression fracture in his spine, an X-ray showed in 2021, as reported earlier in a documentary on Swedish television.

“The patient now suffers from continued back pain,” medical records note, describing a “permanent disability” caused by the blockers.

Some practitioners in the United States and Australia do not provide the drugs to patients who are well into puberty, concerned that the treatment poses the greatest threat to bones in that period.

“You’re potentially taking on risks that I felt should be avoided,” said Dr. Stephen Rosenthal, medical director of the University of California, San Francisco, Child and Adolescent Gender Center.

He won’t prescribe blockers as a stand-alone treatment to anyone over 14. That includes the growing number of nonbinary youths who don’t want to mature into either male or female bodies. “We make it very clear that no one stays on a blocker,” he said.

Again, there may be appropriate circumstances where risk is worth it. But to claim "entirely reversible" is just likely false and medical misinformation.

[Senkaku]

“…according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects. Many doctors treating trans patients believe they will recover that loss when they go off blockers. But two studies from the analysis…”

“That could lead to heightened risk of debilitating fractures earlier than would be expected from normal aging — in their 50s instead of 60s…”

Your deep and serious concern is noted, fucking give us a break now please lol

So yes, the studies indicate that the claim I said it likely false is, in fact, likely false.

The fact that some no doubt well-intentioned people believe otherwise without data to back it doesn't really help your case.

Okay, let me explain some things about journalism to you: when they use words like “could lead to,” that means “we already think this and are maybe making this up,” when they “commission” their own “analysis” it means they’re combing through terabytes of countervailing data to find something that supports their story, and when they throw in brief little sentences acknowledging “many doctors believe,” it means they’re fully aware from extensive background interviews that the story is horseshit, but they’re hoping to elide real criticism by throwing in a brief acknowledgement so they can still get into overpriced bars in Bushwick and the LES.

[Galloism]

So yes, the studies indicate that the claim I said it likely false is, in fact, likely false.

The fact that some no doubt well-intentioned people believe otherwise without data to back it doesn't really help your case.

Okay, let me explain some things about journalism to you: when they use words like “could lead to,” that means “we already think this and are maybe making this up,” when they “commission” their own “analysis” it means they’re combing through terabytes of countervailing data to find something that supports their story, and when they throw in brief little sentences acknowledging “many doctors believe,” it means they’re fully aware from extensive background interviews that the story is horseshit, but they’re hoping to elide real criticism by throwing in a brief acknowledgement so they can still get into overpriced bars in Bushwick and the LES.

You can ignore the science if you want to. You don't have to use a lot of words to say it.

[Senkaku]

Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents. But they think the risks should be factored into patient decisions and that bones should be carefully monitored.

Oh, and when they say things like this, it means they cut out a huge chunk of whatever those doctors said, which was presumably subtle and well-considered medical advice, put in the most trans-skeptical quotes they could rip out, and then paraphrased the conclusion in such a way as to support their political agenda. You are swallowing propaganda like a goat licking fucking molasses.

You can ignore the science if you want to. You don't have to use a lot of words to say it.

Two studies that the Times pored over as part of the analysis they commissioned to back up their anti-trans article are not the totality of “the science.” Who’s framing things dishonestly now?

[Cook-Out]

Slit their own throats? I'm still confused as to whether or not gender dysphoria is a mental disorder or not, since I have seen people say that it is and that it isn't. However, I'm leaning towards the mental disorder option since like you said transgender people become so distressed when they can't transition that they harm themselves.

However, if it is a mental disorder, then why would we want to say that they are in fact not their biological gender? That seems similar to telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head are real.

How many times do I have to explain this? SIGH.

Trans people are not making claims about biological reality. There isn't a single trans woman in the universe who says and believes that she has functioning ovaries inside her body. A trans woman doesn't say and believe "I have two X chromosomes." She knows she has a penis, okay? She knows that.

Trans people are talking about gender, not sex, gender being an exclusively human phenomenon. There are female snakes, but no snakes are women. There are male raccoons, but no raccoons are men.

"I am a woman" is not the same kind of statement as "I have two kidneys." "I am a woman" is analagous to saying "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist", it's not a statement that can be refuted by any observation of the material world. It's an identity statement.

Telling a trans woman "But you're biologically male" is a non-sequitir.

I still don't see how or why gender can be separated from biological sex. Also, since you equated the statement "I am a woman" (presumably from a biological male) with the statement "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist," wouldn't a transgender person who insists on using the bathroom of their "gender identity" or insists that they be referred to as their "gender identity" be forcing their views on someone else?

[Galloism]

Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents. But they think the risks should be factored into patient decisions and that bones should be carefully monitored.

Oh, and when they say things like this, it means they cut out a huge chunk of whatever those doctors said, which was presumably subtle and well-considered medical advice, put in the most trans-skeptical quotes they could rip out, and then paraphrased the conclusion in such a way as to support their political agenda. You are swallowing propaganda like a goat licking fucking molasses.

You can ignore the science if you want to. You don't have to use a lot of words to say it.

Two studies that the Times pored over as part of the analysis they commissioned to back up their anti-trans article are not the totality of “the science.” Who’s framing things dishonestly now?

Yes, the New York Times is very well known for being a right wing anti-trans rag.

Look man. I've brought references to studies contradicting an unsourced and very likely a false claim. Put your ideology to the side and engage with the science.

Or don't. Your choice.

[Galloism]

How many times do I have to explain this? SIGH.

Trans people are not making claims about biological reality. There isn't a single trans woman in the universe who says and believes that she has functioning ovaries inside her body. A trans woman doesn't say and believe "I have two X chromosomes." She knows she has a penis, okay? She knows that.

Trans people are talking about gender, not sex, gender being an exclusively human phenomenon. There are female snakes, but no snakes are women. There are male raccoons, but no raccoons are men.

"I am a woman" is not the same kind of statement as "I have two kidneys." "I am a woman" is analagous to saying "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist", it's not a statement that can be refuted by any observation of the material world. It's an identity statement.

Telling a trans woman "But you're biologically male" is a non-sequitir.

I still don't see how or why gender can be separated from biological sex. Also, since you equated the statement "I am a woman" (presumably from a biological male) with the statement "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist," wouldn't a transgender person who insists on using the bathroom of their "gender identity" or insists that they be referred to as their "gender identity" be forcing their views on someone else?

Gender is largely a social construct. I don't think if a person says "I am a Christian" is forcing their views on somebody else, and I don't see that asking people to refer to them as a Christian is forcing their views on that person.

Not sure why gender would not be the same.

Also: While I wouldn't compel someone to refer to someone in the manner in which they've requested (compelled speech is bad), you're probably an asshole if you don't. Hell, I refer to people by requested nicknames even if it has no relation to their actual name. Why? They asked, and it's a reasonable request.

[Neu California]

Oh, and when they say things like this, it means they cut out a huge chunk of whatever those doctors said, which was presumably subtle and well-considered medical advice, put in the most trans-skeptical quotes they could rip out, and then paraphrased the conclusion in such a way as to support their political agenda. You are swallowing propaganda like a goat licking fucking molasses.


Two studies that the Times pored over as part of the analysis they commissioned to back up their anti-trans article are not the totality of “the science.” Who’s framing things dishonestly now?

Yes, the New York Times is very well known for being a right wing anti-trans rag.

Look man. I've brought references to studies contradicting an unsourced and very likely a false claim. Put your ideology to the side and engage with the science.

Or don't. Your choice.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/15/11571811 ... tter-trans

Edit: https://www.glaad.org/blog/new-york-tim ... ransgender

and there's more where that came from

[Galloism]

Yes, the New York Times is very well known for being a right wing anti-trans rag.

Look man. I've brought references to studies contradicting an unsourced and very likely a false claim. Put your ideology to the side and engage with the science.

Or don't. Your choice.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/15/11571811 ... tter-trans

Huh.

Well there are claims along those lines I guess. That doesn't really change the results or what we were discussing, but that is interesting. Didn't know that, so thanks.

[Senkaku]

Yes, the New York Times is very well known for being a right wing anti-trans rag.

We agree, so why do you bother consulting their transparently motivated reasoning for your guidance on issues relating to trans medicine? You’re concerned about the science, why not link to the studies, rather than a long politicized essay that carefully explains to readers how to interpret those studies in the most fearful way possible?

Look man. I've brought references to studies contradicting an unsourced and very likely a false claim. Put your ideology to the side and engage with the science.

Or don't. Your choice.

My point here is that neither you nor the NYT are reading or writing at length about the bone density side effects of puberty blockers because you have any interest in the advancement of medicine. If either of you did, the article would stop when it noted “neither of these highly qualified bone doctors think this is a reason not to prescribe these medications to adolescents,” and maybe put a sentence in about how the next step is to research better puberty blockers or something. But is that what’s happening? No, instead they’re using a whole lot of implication and innuendo to basically popularize something very adjacent to blood libel— irresponsible/evil parents and doctors are poisoning kids and forever ruining their bones! We don’t know how many could be at risk, but we put the number 300,000 earlier in the article so maybe it could be that! Hey, this one guy at the end (who has access to just as little actual evidentiary basis as we here at the NYT) won’t give them to anyone under 14— be frightened, America!

My “ideology” hasn’t even entered the room. Doctors are perfectly capable of assessing their own patients privately on an individual basis and keeping themselves up to date on the latest science for managing medication side effects; they do not need you or the NYT screaming from the rooftops about it. Doxycycline isn’t awesome for your bones or a whole bunch of other things, are you going to start primly reminding us to “follow the science” on it while linking to deranged naturopathic screeds against antibiotics? I’m sure you could find an article that cites two small observational studies and some anecdotes that would support such a campaign.

[Fractalnavel]

I'll just drop this here. It at least indicates that there may be more to the story to look for.

[Galloism]

My “ideology” hasn’t even entered the room. Doctors are perfectly capable of assessing their own patients privately on an individual basis and keeping themselves up to date on the latest science for managing medication side effects;

So, just to be clear, we should never question a doctor's treatment methodology based on actual studies, because they can assess their own patients privately on an individual basis and can keep up to date on the latest science?

[Cook-Out]

I still don't see how or why gender can be separated from biological sex. Also, since you equated the statement "I am a woman" (presumably from a biological male) with the statement "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist," wouldn't a transgender person who insists on using the bathroom of their "gender identity" or insists that they be referred to as their "gender identity" be forcing their views on someone else?

Gender is largely a social construct. I don't think if a person says "I am a Christian" is forcing their views on somebody else, and I don't see that asking people to refer to them as a Christian is forcing their views on that person.

Not sure why gender would not be the same.

Also: While I wouldn't compel someone to refer to someone in the manner in which they've requested (compelled speech is bad), you're probably an asshole if you don't. Hell, I refer to people by requested nicknames even if it has no relation to their actual name. Why? They asked, and it's a reasonable request.

To be clear, IRL and in online conversations I refer to people as their preferred gender. However, I don't think that transgender people's views of their own gender should entitle them to be treated as though they were a member of the biological sex that pertains to the gender they identify as, especially in public and government matters.

[Galloism]

Gender is largely a social construct. I don't think if a person says "I am a Christian" is forcing their views on somebody else, and I don't see that asking people to refer to them as a Christian is forcing their views on that person.

Not sure why gender would not be the same.

Also: While I wouldn't compel someone to refer to someone in the manner in which they've requested (compelled speech is bad), you're probably an asshole if you don't. Hell, I refer to people by requested nicknames even if it has no relation to their actual name. Why? They asked, and it's a reasonable request.

To be clear, IRL and in online conversations I refer to people as their preferred gender. However, I don't think that transgender people's views of their own gender should entitle them to be treated as though they were a member of the biological sex that pertains to the gender they identify as, especially in public and government matters.

Why?

Especially in government matters, the government shouldn't be treating the genders differently at all *anyway* (equality before the law should be a primary value). And public matters likely we should have the same paradigm.

[Cook-Out]

To be clear, IRL and in online conversations I refer to people as their preferred gender. However, I don't think that transgender people's views of their own gender should entitle them to be treated as though they were a member of the biological sex that pertains to the gender they identify as, especially in public and government matters.

Why?

Especially in government matters, the government shouldn't be treating the genders differently at all *anyway* (equality before the law should be a primary value). And public matters likely we should have the same paradigm.

I'm talking about the bathrooms, prisons, sports, etc discussions. Things that are separated by sex.