Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[Punished UMN]

So how do you justify imprisoning a woman for six months for attending college? What about members of the CHP physically assaulting a woman for wearing a headscarf? Or denying women medical care for wearing the headscarf?

This topic is about trans people, please don't try to change the subject. What is done to headscarved girls never legitimizes transphobia.Stop speaking from the mouths of political Islamists, my side is the Great Leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Social Democracy and the freedom of trans people to make love.

What about the banning of religious higher education, which has completely destroyed any hope for the survival of the 1700-year old Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, one of the most historically important religious groups in the country? It's not the Islamists who did that, it was the Secularists. Turkey under the secularists simply didn't have religious freedom, it wasn't a better state of affairs.

If you want sects and religious organizations so much, you can go back to the Tired Man Ottoman Empire. There is no place for transphobic political Islamists in the new Rome!

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

[Lady Victory]

This topic is about trans people, please don't try to change the subject. What is done to headscarved girls never legitimizes transphobia.Stop speaking from the mouths of political Islamists, my side is the Great Leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Social Democracy and the freedom of trans people to make love.

If you want sects and religious organizations so much, you can go back to the Tired Man Ottoman Empire. There is no place for transphobic political Islamists in the new Rome!

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

I'll happily root for anyone willing and able to confront Hakinda on his hypocritical double-standards, thinly-veiled neo-imperialism, and faux progressivism but if you're gonna do that can you at least stay on topic? And if not, please take it to a more relevant thread.

[Proctopeo]

They're not as reversible as typically advertised, given that puberty is a complicated process that can't effectively be replicated with drugs.

Well, that and the severe bone issues.

Actually, any link between puberty blockers and bone density issues is unclear:

In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression. There was no loss of bone density over the study period and the expectation is that the resumption of growth on both counts would be achieved when puberty resumed either naturally or via cross-sex hormones administered from 16. Further papers on bone strength have been published (inc. by some of the authors) supporting this hypothesis though research into long-term bone mass density recovery on this treatment pathway is underway.

https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/abou ... -patients/

So the bone density effects appear to be temporary. On the basis of what that is saying, it'd likely only become an issue if a person transitioning was permanently on puberty blockers, but that's something that doesn't happen, as it'd be nonsensical.

I'd seen this study mentioned while I was looking up the topic; specifically that Tavistock was slow to release the data.

I'd also like to point out two things here:
1.

As anticipated, pubertal suppression reduced growth affecting both height and bone mass density. In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression.

Puberty is a period of significant bone density increase; this suggests that while absolute bone density didn't decrease, relative bone density (that is, compared to peers) did. Since bone density growth is by far the most efficient during periods of rapid growth, this realistically cannot be fully compensated for; this is why the answer to any sort of bone atrophy disease (such as osteoporosis, which this is increased risk factor for!) isn't megadoses of calcium. It's notable that this result is expected; they knew they would find that bone mass density doesn't increase as quickly with puberty suppressed.
They also mention reduced height gain. While even less reversible, it's much more an annoyance than it is any sort of health risk.

2.
I can't help but feel as if there's a conflict of interest in this study. The NHS Gender Identity Development Service has been experiencing several particular problems in the past few years, much of it connected to the use of this specific drug. After parents expressed concern with the incredible rate at which diagnoses were given and drugs were administered, an internal review was commissioned and finalized in February 2019. The report echoed the same concerns, and went further to state that this irresponsible expediency was the product of extreme pressure from transgender rights groups, and that experimental hormone therapy (such as puberty blockers) should be suspended until the outcomes are better understood. Since the report, 35 psychologists have resigned, including six who cited an "over-diagnosis" of gender dysphoria. And this is then compounded by a lawsuit that actually suspended the prescription of said drugs to under-16s (which is the one that got overturned literally yesterday, potentially influenced by this very study).

All the motivation to find beneficial results existed; the methods are well-documented, and certainly well-known to anyone involved in statistics. Scruples and ethics are both spooks, and easily set aside in the case of personal gain, or mounting pressure from interest groups. While the data was collected before GIDS fell under intense scrutiny, the study being published well afterwards makes this irrelevant. It is peer-reviewed, but as it seems likely that there's not too many difference between America and Britain in terms of colleges and related institutions, they're likely in a similar sorry state (t. Sokal Squared) and thus their rubber-stamp is irrelevant as well.

I'd like to see Tavistock's raw, unmolested data as well as their exact results, so I can figure out what they did to get from point A to B. I'll try and look for that material tomorrow, maybe, if I decide to care.

[The New California Republic]

Actually, any link between puberty blockers and bone density issues is unclear:

In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression. There was no loss of bone density over the study period and the expectation is that the resumption of growth on both counts would be achieved when puberty resumed either naturally or via cross-sex hormones administered from 16. Further papers on bone strength have been published (inc. by some of the authors) supporting this hypothesis though research into long-term bone mass density recovery on this treatment pathway is underway.

https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/abou ... -patients/

So the bone density effects appear to be temporary. On the basis of what that is saying, it'd likely only become an issue if a person transitioning was permanently on puberty blockers, but that's something that doesn't happen, as it'd be nonsensical.

Snip

It goes against your assertion that puberty blockers cause "severe bone issues", so yes you absolutely will need to provide data if you want to maintain that assertion.

[Ifreann]

No one cares about bone density, they just hate the idea of trans children. No medicine ever developed is an unqualified good, they all have side effects and the potential to do harm. The focus on the possible downsides of puberty blockers is entirely ideological. If aspirin were being given to trans children we'd see the same fuss being kicked up about possible liver damage.

[The New California Republic]

No one cares about bone density, they just hate the idea of trans children. No medicine ever developed is an unqualified good, they all have side effects and the potential to do harm. The focus on the possible downsides of puberty blockers is entirely ideological. If aspirin were being given to trans children we'd see the same fuss being kicked up about possible liver damage.

Oh absolutely, I have no doubt that the song and dance about bone density is for ideological point scoring rather than any actual concern for the persons involved.

[The Serbian Empire]

No one cares about bone density, they just hate the idea of trans children. No medicine ever developed is an unqualified good, they all have side effects and the potential to do harm. The focus on the possible downsides of puberty blockers is entirely ideological. If aspirin were being given to trans children we'd see the same fuss being kicked up about possible liver damage.

The transphobes don't really want trans adults either if the chud memes are anything to go by.

[Imperial States of Duotona]

Hey, found this thread on accident, I'm not gonna try to pretend like I'm an expert on trans issues (I'm cishet, so yeah) but all I can say is trans rights!

[Michel Meilleur]

No one cares about bone density, they just hate the idea of trans children. No medicine ever developed is an unqualified good, they all have side effects and the potential to do harm. The focus on the possible downsides of puberty blockers is entirely ideological. If aspirin were being given to trans children we'd see the same fuss being kicked up about possible liver damage.

"Peoples who think it's a bad idea to use drugs to artificially stop one of the most crucial part of human development that can not be properly restarted nor reproduced leading to dramatic effects for the body don't actually care about the well-being of the children!"

That's... Not a really compelling argument you're making, not at all. And your comparison to aspirin as an attempt to frame it as "opposition only for ideological reasons" only serves to make your position of "support only for ideological reasons" all the clearer.

I'd seen this study mentioned while I was looking up the topic; specifically that Tavistock was slow to release the data.

I'd also like to point out two things here:
1.
As anticipated, pubertal suppression reduced growth affecting both height and bone mass density. In both cases (height and bone strength) there was some growth but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression.

Puberty is a period of significant bone density increase; this suggests that while absolute bone density didn't decrease, relative bone density (that is, compared to peers) did. Since bone density growth is by far the most efficient during periods of rapid growth, this realistically cannot be fully compensated for; this is why the answer to any sort of bone atrophy disease (such as osteoporosis, which this is increased risk factor for!) isn't megadoses of calcium. It's notable that this result is expected; they knew they would find that bone mass density doesn't increase as quickly with puberty suppressed.
They also mention reduced height gain. While even less reversible, it's much more an annoyance than it is any sort of health risk.

2.
I can't help but feel as if there's a conflict of interest in this study. The NHS Gender Identity Development Service has been experiencing several particular problems in the past few years, much of it connected to the use of this specific drug. After parents expressed concern with the incredible rate at which diagnoses were given and drugs were administered, an internal review was commissioned and finalized in February 2019. The report echoed the same concerns, and went further to state that this irresponsible expediency was the product of extreme pressure from transgender rights groups, and that experimental hormone therapy (such as puberty blockers) should be suspended until the outcomes are better understood. Since the report, 35 psychologists have resigned, including six who cited an "over-diagnosis" of gender dysphoria. And this is then compounded by a lawsuit that actually suspended the prescription of said drugs to under-16s (which is the one that got overturned literally yesterday, potentially influenced by this very study).

All the motivation to find beneficial results existed; the methods are well-documented, and certainly well-known to anyone involved in statistics. Scruples and ethics are both spooks, and easily set aside in the case of personal gain, or mounting pressure from interest groups. While the data was collected before GIDS fell under intense scrutiny, the study being published well afterwards makes this irrelevant. It is peer-reviewed, but as it seems likely that there's not too many difference between America and Britain in terms of colleges and related institutions, they're likely in a similar sorry state (t. Sokal Squared) and thus their rubber-stamp is irrelevant as well.

I'd like to see Tavistock's raw, unmolested data as well as their exact results, so I can figure out what they did to get from point A to B. I'll try and look for that material tomorrow, maybe, if I decide to care.

It goes against your assertion that puberty blockers cause "severe bone issues", so yes you absolutely will need to provide data if you want to maintain that assertion.

Un-"sniping" the very good post you refused to answer and providing some sources in the (far-fetched) hope that you will actually respond to the points made rather than look for a way to avoid needing to actually face the justness of his arguments.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pube ... -tlv8qmdcd
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7433770/
https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5647/rr-0

[The New California Republic]

Un-"sniping" the very good post you refused to answer and providing some sources in the (far-fetched) hope that you will actually respond to the points made rather than look for a way to avoid needing to actually face the justness of his arguments.

I snipped it because it was a long post, so don't try to turn it into something that it's not for fuck's sake.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7433770/

Conclusion for this one:

In early-pubertal transgender youth, BMD was lower than reference standards for sex designated at birth. This lower BMD may be explained, in part, by suboptimal calcium intake and decreased physical activity–potential targets for intervention. Our results suggest a potential need for assessment of BMD in prepubertal gender-diverse youth and continued monitoring of BMD throughout the pubertal period of gender-affirming therapy.

https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5647/rr-0

Not peer reviewed, and is more a commentary piece.

[Vassenor]

So we're desperately trying to fuck over trans kids because of edge cases again and this is totally not motivated by bigotry in any way I take it?

[Caturn]

This topic is about trans people, please don't try to change the subject. What is done to headscarved girls never legitimizes transphobia.Stop speaking from the mouths of political Islamists, my side is the Great Leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Social Democracy and the freedom of trans people to make love.

If you want sects and religious organizations so much, you can go back to the Tired Man Ottoman Empire. There is no place for transphobic political Islamists in the new Rome!

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

[The New California Republic]

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image.

Or they perhaps aren't saying anything to god/gods at all, on account of being nonreligious or of a faith where such an issue is irrelevant.

It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

Yes, emphasis on "imagine", as we need to imagine it due to it being fiction.

[Philjia]

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

I was born with eyes that don't properly, am I sinning by correcting my vision with spectacles?

[The Serbian Empire]

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

What if I told you that even the most holy of holymen commits sins? If everyone sins then doesn't it make sin meaningless?

[Esalia]

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image.

Therefore, people who wear glasses, people who take any medication for any inherited medical condition, and people who remove parts of their body temporarily or permanently are all committing terrible sins.

It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

This depends on the person in question believing in God. Otherwise, it holds no weight.

[Honeydewistania]

they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image.

Yes.

[Necroghastia]

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

Who are you to say that God didn't plan for them? What if the Creator who we were supposedly modeled after also wanted us to partake in creation, in the divine alchemy of the self?

[Lady Victory]

Transgenderism is a terrible sin,

No it isn't.

they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect

God doesn't make people "perfect"; perfection is attained, it isn't something you're born into. Only the Virgin Mary was without sin.

and in his image.

"In the image of God" does not mean an actual, physical image. God has no natural physical form, He is an entity beyond comprehension.

It's a total distortion of his intent,

Don't presume to know the mind of God when you clearly don't.

imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

And what you "believe" is heresy. God knows everyone; He is all-knowing and all-seeing. The only people God doesn't know (and this is according to Christ Himself) are those who profess to be pious while living impious lives. Wicked and evil people who claim to be Christian while living in direct defiance of Christ's words.

Don't come in here and lecture people on something you don't understand.

[Suriyanakhon]

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible, and the idea that you know God's Judgement is so blasphemous from a Christian perspective that it's ironic to accuse someone else of it.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

I plan to get laser eye surgery because I'm myopic, by your logic is that not a sin as well? If it is, why the fuck did god make me nearsighted to begin with

[Kowani]

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image.

Therefore, people who wear glasses, people who take any medication for any inherited medical condition, and people who remove parts of their body temporarily or permanently are all committing terrible sins.

Man leviticus is fucking whack

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Transgenderism is a terrible sin, they're basically saying that God didn't make them perfect and in his image. It's a total distortion of his intent, imagine dying and facing God's judgment and being told "I do not know you", that is what I believe happens to these people once they pass away.

Gender dysphoria is a medical ailment, and most studies seem to prove that transition is a necessary component the most effective way to treat that ailment.

By the logic of "god made you this way, so don't attempt to modify it," you could argue that people born with severe visible deformities can't have surgeries to correct their appearance otherwise that would be "sinful." You could go even further an argue that any body modifying procedures, no matter now beneficial or essential, are sinful. Where does it start, and where does it end?

[Ifreann]

No one cares about bone density, they just hate the idea of trans children. No medicine ever developed is an unqualified good, they all have side effects and the potential to do harm. The focus on the possible downsides of puberty blockers is entirely ideological. If aspirin were being given to trans children we'd see the same fuss being kicked up about possible liver damage.

"Peoples who think it's a bad idea to use drugs to artificially stop one of the most crucial part of human development that can not be properly restarted nor reproduced leading to dramatic effects for the body don't actually care about the well-being of the children!"

That's... Not a really compelling argument you're making, not at all.

Whether you feel compelled by it or not, it is true. The concerns expressed are insincere. Obviously so, because gender affirming care for trans children can be life saving, and no one who cares about the welfare of a child would prefer to see that child dead by suicide than to risk the density of their bones.

And your comparison to aspirin as an attempt to frame it as "opposition only for ideological reasons" only serves to make your position of "support only for ideological reasons" all the clearer.

How's that?

[Vassenor]

No one cares about bone density, they just hate the idea of trans children. No medicine ever developed is an unqualified good, they all have side effects and the potential to do harm. The focus on the possible downsides of puberty blockers is entirely ideological. If aspirin were being given to trans children we'd see the same fuss being kicked up about possible liver damage.

"Peoples who think it's a bad idea to use drugs to artificially stop one of the most crucial part of human development that can not be properly restarted nor reproduced leading to dramatic effects for the body don't actually care about the well-being of the children!"

That's... Not a really compelling argument you're making, not at all. And your comparison to aspirin as an attempt to frame it as "opposition only for ideological reasons" only serves to make your position of "support only for ideological reasons" all the clearer.

It goes against your assertion that puberty blockers cause "severe bone issues", so yes you absolutely will need to provide data if you want to maintain that assertion.

Un-"sniping" the very good post you refused to answer and providing some sources in the (far-fetched) hope that you will actually respond to the points made rather than look for a way to avoid needing to actually face the justness of his arguments.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pube ... -tlv8qmdcd
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7433770/
https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5647/rr-0

So you agree then that we need to stop treating early puberty? Given that uses the same drugs but no-one ever has an issue with it.