|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28553 Posts
Isn't gender dysphoria, much like sexual attraction and other elements of gender identity, something that exists on a spectrum? So yea, there is clearly a biological, physical component to it, but two different people who both feel some degree of gender dysphoria might feel wildly varying strengths of it?
I would think that the biological component is pretty constant in all societies, and that indeed, the left handed explanation is the primary reason why way more people identify as trans now than 20 years ago. However, I also have the impression that there are differing rates for different places that have comparable rates of tolerance/acceptance. I'm trying to find data but there really doesn't seem to be any - a reliable Norwegian site said studies showed that between 0.1% and 2.7% considered themselves gender dysphoric, depending on how strict your definition is.
To me, it then logically follows that some people might be 'borderline gender dysphoric'. I'm guessing that currently, pretty much everyone undergoing surgery is solidly placed in the 0.1% bracket, and for people whose feeling of dysphoria is that strongly felt, it is almost always a positive action to undertake. However, with a wider, 2.7% definition, I imagine that surgery would not be the right choice.
With the absence of data, personal anecdotes become a bit more meaningful. And I can say that having worked as a high school teacher for the past four years, I've yet to encounter a trans student. Now, my students express plenty of tolerance and acceptance, so I don't think this is something that really holds people back, at least not in significant numbers, yet I'm also of the impression that trans people are more common in American schools, especially urban/coastal ones. This might be right wing propaganda/ tik tok getting to me, tbh, I have no idea.
Anyway, does that mean I'm attributing the disparity to a 'social contagion'? Not really, although I'm not saying it is a non-factor either. Rather, I think there's actually more acceptance, here, for being an effeminate dude or a masculine lady, and thus, the feeling of dysphoria will be felt less strongly by people who feel like they don't live up to their idealized gender behavior. While I do think the American right is drumming up hate and making up numbers and stories to validate their bigotry, I also think that 'becoming trans' isn't necessarily the right choice for all people who experience some degree of gender dysphoria, and I certainly cannot disprove that some people might be influenced to wrongly think changing genders would improve their feeling of contentness, and that we for that reason should maintain a pretty restrictive attitude towards the irreversible actions. I read in Sweden they differentiate between people, especially girls, who experience dysphoria from childhood and ones who experience it from puberty, and that the latter group was much more likely to regret transitioning, and that makes a lot of sense to me.
|
United States41960 Posts
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs.
|
Just FYI, my sister was once in charge of screenings to determine if people were qualified for gender altering surgery/treatment or not. The interviews she ran were very thorough to make sure this was indeed a thing they always wanted and was deeply rooted in their personality. If there was suspicion this was some idea that could disappear later or a person with other personal problems, they would not get it.
Why should a politician try to influence the way she did her work, or fight "dangerous" cultural impulses which could push people into wanting such treatment? The only answer I can think of is bad faith. It is drumming up conservatives by convincing them their traditional views of gender and sexuality are under threat because of these very few people trying to sort out their lives. It is utter bullshit, of course.
|
What KwarK is saying is also important I think. The liberties that are being fought for regarding transgender people are the same liberties that cis people can also benefit from. We'd all benefit more from a society where bully behavior gets nipped in the bud early, regardless of who the victim is or what the reason is. Feminine looking boys don't have lesser value, but they're treated as if they were and this is a big problem in schools.
Regarding the question of GD being imposed or not: I'm very certain it's innate. I've only talked to one transgender woman in my life, but the statements I've read and heard are compelling. The social aspect does contribute to her mental wellness, but she said she feels this way regardless, and this is also being reflected by many others like her. Group acceptance helps, but it's only one part of the equation. The other part is gender affirming care and it can't be understated.
|
Gender dysphoria (the way you're presenting your gender is at odds with what your gender really is) and body dysmorphia (feeling like your body is partially or completely wrong) are also two distinct concepts. When you're talking about someone who feels the need to transition, they often feel both of them in tandem. When you're talking about a gay person in the closet, they feel gender dysphoria only. Gender dysphoria is not exclusive to transgender folks.
But as people are saying, everyone goes on their own personal journey, and are trying to figure everything out as they go, because it's a matter of personal growth. So like Kwark says, if we're in a society that goes Two-Gender and represses the notion of homosexuality, people who are attracted to someone of the same sex might end up feeling like that attraction comes from them being in the wrong body, rather than attraction being fluid. Everyone's figuring it out as we go, it's why a man will transition to female, but they'll be a trans-lesbian, because they still like women. Shit's complicated. We just need to trust them and listen to them as they're trying to figure it out. Not make the decision for them because we think they're too stupid to get it right.
Plus, I just have several problems with labeling transgender people a "social contagion". It implies that transitioning is being done as a social activity, it implies that it's an illness by calling it a contagion, and it implies that it's a decision that people are making lightly, on a whim. Everything I've ever seen suggests that none of this is true. It's additionally insulting to the experiences of people who grow up feeling like they're in the wrong body, or are presenting the wrong way to others, and get nothing but shit for it their whole lives. It denies their experiences. Believe me that by the time they start acting on their gender identity, they've already thought about it for years.
|
Regarding gender fairs in elementary schools - do you (BJ) honestly think that's a bad thing? Thinking back to my own past, I could see how such a thing would have been fairly life-altering for my young self, and not necessarily for the worse. I certainly grew up in communities where any non-cis gender presentation was treated as mental illness, and was railroaded into very masculine presentation because of it. If there were more education both to faculty and to students, I would have ended up a lot more neutral in my gender expression and a lot less of the bearded viking I am today. I don't think I would've volunteered to get my dick chopped off, and even if I tried to, I know it isn't an easy process to get approved for.
|
Gender dysphoria is 100% over-self-diagnosed. It is an easy cop-out for teens and early 20s folks who are kind of a mess psychologically and don't know why. Many people are legitimately trans, but some people just want to understand why they feel like an other and why they are so uncomfortable with themselves. A fresh start with a new identity is appealing to a lot of people for a lot of reasons.
Is it a huge problem? Not really. Teens and early 20s folks have always struggled with mental/social health and they will work through it. Where I do see issues is the younger folks.
I have a unique view into this due to family members who are the right age to get a view into the sociology of these ages, and it is definitely trendy right now. But also, I want every single legitimately trans person to have all the acceptance and medical care and whatever they can possibly have. But this situation is dicey right now because of folks who are looking for an escape from their current identity. Especially if they are already gay, they don't mind hopping over to trans.
I think people who are against all this trans stuff for teens and 20s are largely overstating the negative impact. It really isn't doing anything bad for most people. Yes, some people are likely going on hormones or whatever when they are actually just depressed and having identity issues. But I don't think that is common enough or a big enough issue to shut down the whole trans acceptance thing as a whole.
This is new. It is a bit messy. The internet is making it a lot worse. But it is not something we should be against.
|
Its also a prety blatant shifting of responsibility for why trans people are killing themselevs.
Its not our philosophy of hate, harassment, and denying that they're real, its your philosophy thats killing them by accepting that they're human beings that should feel comfortable being who they are.
LGBTQ people didn't exist in the past and we totaly didn't kill them or force them into suicide, its you inventing them through a "social contagion" that has created them beacuse you want society to collapse beacuse people don't make babies if they're gay magically. Its not like we have children to adopt everywhere we need every person to focus on making babies.
When getting child molestation insurance is okay but getting insurance to do drag shows is not, you can guess what they really care about. Its not like any of them went against the "eradication of transgenderism" speech.
|
On May 18 2023 22:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2023 21:59 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 21:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2023 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 21:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2023 21:15 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 20:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2023 20:11 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 10:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2023 07:40 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think? It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory. Here's a review of some studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/Spoiler is the plain language summary of the review. + Show Spoiler +Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon. Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory. Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source: However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria. Gender identity is thought to likely reflect a complex interplay of biological, environmental, and cultural factorsSee what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted. In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity. But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it? No. The verbiage I used is "social contagion aspect." Aspect meaning a part. People have come out as trans long before I would have considered a social contagion to have existed. There's an organic base rate and there's this new rate that is quite higher. The question is what's causing the difference between the rate we saw 15 years ago vs the rate we see now. See, my theory can fit NewSunshine's theory in it. I'm not saying every single new trans person is jumping on a social contagion. I would say it's a significant amount though. Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing.
Think about it:
If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general. Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this paragraph. I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme. what do you mean the cause is biological and it's undeniable and it happens from birth? Didn't I just quote your own source that says GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Are you now rejecting your own evidence? The biological aspect of this is partly genetic in nature. It happens from birth. It is already there by the time any social/environmental conditions have an effect. Therefore, as I said and you misquoted the PRIOR cause is biological. The social aspect here, in the paragraph you don't understand, is that society has become much less punishing and more accepting for those that choose to act on their gender dysphoria, so more people are coming out. You have decided to choose to characterize this as people pretending to be trans or just following a fad. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Even the wiki link you gave makes it pretty clear that the social and cultural aspects of this are related to how trans people are treated in relation to how many act on their dysphoria or report it. As for your first paragraph, you'd have to provide some evidence that the 'organic base rate' of people coming out as trans is somehow innate to every society and not a function of the number of trans people being suppressed by harsh societal conditions. Can you clarify what specifically "happens from birth" The genetic factors that lead to the brain structure being mismatched with the assigned gender, as detailed in the study review i linked. Now I just have so many more questions though. Is this also true for genderfluid people whose identity shifts back and forth? Does the brain structure change back and forth? How about non-binary people that don't identify as either male or female? Do they have their own brain structure as well? Or what about two-spirit people which the Cleveland Clinic defines as A Native American, First Nations or Alaska Natives person who identifies as a third gender who has a male spirit and female spirit. Is there something unique about the biology of Native American, First Nations, or Alaska Natives that genetically predisposes them to becoming two-spirit assuming that society doesn't sufficiently repress them? No need to throw in some light racism while using sarcasm around spirituality. Sadly not out of character when you start lashing out when people do not treat your assumptions as facts the way you do.
I know you’re not the brightest crayon in the box but that’s really not a valid reason to accuse someone of racism. If someone is making the argument that gender identity has a primarily biological underpinning and some groups of people have a gender identity that is unique to them then it’s a legitimate question to ask if those groups have a unique biology to create the unique gender identity. It’s actually extremely easy to see how I got from A to B there if you attempt to employ the smallest bit of rational thought.
|
|
|
On May 18 2023 23:26 Slydie wrote:
Just FYI, my sister was once in charge of screenings to determine if people were qualified for gender altering surgery/treatment or not. The interviews she ran were very thorough to make sure this was indeed a thing they always wanted and was deeply rooted in their personality. If there was suspicion this was some idea that could disappear later or a person with other personal problems, they would not get it.
Why should a politician try to influence the way she did her work, or fight "dangerous" cultural impulses which could push people into wanting such treatment? The only answer I can think of is bad faith. It is drumming up conservatives by convincing them their traditional views of gender and sexuality are under threat because of these very few people trying to sort out their lives. It is utter bullshit, of course.
So my question is do you think all clinicians should be left to govern themselves and the patient-doctor relationship should be unfettered by political influences? Or is this a view you have specifically for people that diagnose and treat gender dysphoria?
|
that seems like such a softball question im left a little dumbfounded. the answer is yes, of course, i would prefer unqualified politicians leave the doctoring to doctors and medical professionals, right?
there should be boards, standards, and qualifications but under no circumstances should politicians participate in dictating actual care? they should participate in the governance of these bodies but not their decisions on care.
|
On May 19 2023 07:04 brian wrote:
that seems like such a softball question im left a little dumbfounded. the answer is yes, of course, i would prefer unqualified politicians leave the doctoring to doctors and medical professionals, right?
there should be boards, standards, and qualifications but under no circumstances should politicians participate in dictating actual care? they should participate in the governance of these bodies but not their decisions on care.
So in the other example I've cited - the significant increase in the diagnosis of ADHD and the prescribing of Adderall. Should prescribers be allowed to prescribe as they see fit without meddling from government? One provider bragged that she makes $20k a month refilling the prescriptions as fast as 2 per minute for her 2,300 patients.
Done was a company that basically jumped into this business by working with a whole bunch of nurse practitioners as contractors. They set up the platform. They'll advertise on social media. They'll draw you to their website where you answer a few questions, and then they assign you to a nurse practitioner who will see you for they say 30 minutes, but in our reporting, we found often sometimes 10 minutes or less, who will then diagnose ADHD and write you a prescription. They will charge you 80 bucks a month to continually write you your Adderall prescription.
The DEA, which is an arm of government and not a medical oversight board, is quite literally getting between doctors and their patients by creating a barrier to receiving Adderall by capping the production. This company is also under federal investigation. I take it you find this highly objectionable and we should cede to the judgement of the providers that want to diagnose people with ADHD after a 10 minute visit and refill their adderall prescription so long as they pay $80/month?
|
On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs.
Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up.
|
Opposite sex, not gender. And there's nothing wrong either with someone who's assigned male at birth growing up and realizing being a man is not the identity they need to feel like themselves. Part of the dysphoria is a product of our twisted social norms that attempt to fit people into small boxes. But it's also a product of people having to figure it out as they go, and until they kinda "figure it out" their existing gender identity still feels wrong. There's still some aspect to it that will always exist, but it's how people respond to it and care for it that really affirms these people.
|
On May 19 2023 08:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs. Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up.
Who do you think is telling them they're going to hell and telling them that it's not okay for boys to like dolls and enforcing bullshit gender norms at the threat of imprisonment and execution?
Who do you think has based his entire platform on enforcing these gender norms and going to war on anyone anything or any company who advocates that there is nothing wrong with boys liking dolls?
|
On May 19 2023 10:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 08:56 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs. Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up. Who do you think is telling them they're going to hell and telling them that it's not okay for boys to like dolls and enforcing bullshit gender norms at the threat of imprisonment and execution? Who do you think has based his entire platform on enforcing these gender norms and going to war on anyone anything or any company who advocates that there is nothing wrong with boys liking dolls?
There’s lots of people that fit in either of these groups. Do you want me to list them all? Or maybe you can just say what you think instead of posting in moronic riddles? Here’s the answers I think best fit your questions: 1) Islamic extremists and 2) Jerry Falwell. But let me guess, you were looking for Evangelicals and Trump.
|
|
|
Rate of diagnosis and use of medication to treat ADHD have both increased over the years but question isn't really about why its happening. No, I do not think non-American countries are also rorting the system given that most other countries have health care systems significantly less hostile towards preventative medicine yet have similar increases in ADHD diagnosis. Your local general practitioner in Australia isn't getting a kickback for referring some ADHD kid to a specialist.
If American medical professionals want to rort the American personal profit medical system, that's an American problem and I have no doubt they're doing that with every other drug out there from painkillers to proton pump inhibitors. A lot of polypharmacy amongst the over 65s isn't actually needed according to a lot of studies. You can find case studies of people making a whole load of money from people in a country that is hostile towards common sense preventative medicine. The fact this happens in America doesn't invalidate the fact that a lot of patients do actually benefit from this medication.
The current debate (example: regarding Luise Kazda's paper that is often poorly cited by debatelords and media outlets) regarding overdiagnosis of ADHD isn't whether or not a kid has ADHD. No researcher actually disagrees that us being less pieces of shit with regards of mental health means we're actually able to diagnose people previously undiagnosed with ADHD and have just been suffering with its effects the whole time. Studies have shown that kids and adults are showing similar rates of ADHD within the population, its just that a lot of adults have gone on without knowing they have had mental issues.
The real question is how we place people with ADHD on the continuum. And that's the debate: what exactly do you do with borderline or mild cases? They have ADHD but what is the effective way of actually treating these patients? Do we need to adjust how we place people on the ADHD sliding scale giving the questionable efficacy of of certain ADHD treatments on these type of patients? None of this is a surprise considering we're only starting to talk about these issues without the stigma of talking about mental health issues - a lot of people are not exactly showing a consistent application of beliefs here.
To all of this, I have no real opinion except that I will leave it to the medical professionals...just like medical professionals are the ones best suited to talk about gender issues. Not someone like Joe Rogan who, funnily enough, is using more gender affirming HRT than a lot of trans people while talking a whole load of stuff about gender issues. Its only been a very recent issue, its no surprise that none of us really know what to do with it. People are totally OK with Lionel Messi, possibly the GOAT, taking growth hormones but are simultaneously up in arms when a very average transgender athlete incapable of winning anything participating in female events.
|
On May 19 2023 10:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 07:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 19 2023 07:04 brian wrote:
that seems like such a softball question im left a little dumbfounded. the answer is yes, of course, i would prefer unqualified politicians leave the doctoring to doctors and medical professionals, right?
there should be boards, standards, and qualifications but under no circumstances should politicians participate in dictating actual care? they should participate in the governance of these bodies but not their decisions on care. So in the other example I've cited - the significant increase in the diagnosis of ADHD and the prescribing of Adderall. Should prescribers be allowed to prescribe as they see fit without meddling from government? One provider bragged that she makes $20k a month refilling the prescriptions as fast as 2 per minute for her 2,300 patients.Done was a company that basically jumped into this business by working with a whole bunch of nurse practitioners as contractors. They set up the platform. They'll advertise on social media. They'll draw you to their website where you answer a few questions, and then they assign you to a nurse practitioner who will see you for they say 30 minutes, but in our reporting, we found often sometimes 10 minutes or less, who will then diagnose ADHD and write you a prescription. They will charge you 80 bucks a month to continually write you your Adderall prescription. The DEA, which is an arm of government and not a medical oversight board, is quite literally getting between doctors and their patients by creating a barrier to receiving Adderall by capping the production. This company is also under federal investigation. I take it you find this highly objectionable and we should cede to the judgement of the providers that want to diagnose people with ADHD after a 10 minute visit and refill their adderall prescription so long as they pay $80/month? This is an embarrassing bad false equivalence, which you are known for, why not go all the way with opiates? Unless you are trying to say that gender affirmative health options are profit driven and can start brining up the billions of profit. You are going to need a new gotcha, preferably one you have critically thought about instead of fancying up a meme you saw on social media. Complaining about other posters “moronic riddles” while you are purposefully posting lame set ups for nonsensical gotchas, grab some self awareness please!
To offer an analogy, if I said I believe I should be allowed to say hate speech because I’m a free speech absolutist and I think people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and someone said “what about yelling fire in a theater or slander?” I might say “oh I forgot about that, maybe I don’t think people should say whatever they want.” I wouldn’t whine about “gotchas” or the “false equivalence” of comparing words that offend with words that can cause a stampede.
I know you struggle with analogies too so I’m sure you’ll call this post another false equivalence.
If you want to refine your argument, you can. So now you’re saying the government shouldn’t come between a patient and their doctor unless the doctors care is “profit driven”? Because guess what I have some news for you about the American healthcare system…
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
