They put so much emphasis on being a doctor, that when a self-described doctor makes completely bogus statement, that is contradicted by significantly more experienced and distinguished doctors...they've effectively ceded the debate. That's not even the important part...there are children who will be adversely affected by this stuff, and this treatment is based on theory, not science. The best answer when it comes to risk from the doctor here is, it's relatively safe, and little downside, and other doctors who specialize in it say it's safe, but it's too complicated to explain how I came to that conclusion, and you have to be a doctor to really understand how to read the research (that does not exist). Imagine that answer going to the parent of a 12 year old, if they asked what led them to that conclusion.

The "experts" are simply not characterizing the risk, appropriately. You do not have to be a doctor to realize this. When an expert declines to address a proof of knowledge question, you know they are full of ****.

You've never been a boy, so you wouldn't know. You are, however, on the evidence of this post, an abusive and bigoted personality who can safely be ignored.

And your post makes it clear you’re too generally stupid to parse a basic point. You fit right in here.

If I can assist, the point is that there are typically some sexist premises involved in thinking that "looking like a girl" means "looking foolish" -- i.e. it tends to involve some underlying idea that boys are better than girls, so why would you want to look like a girl if you're a boy?

You can see this play out in the fact that we've tended to have stricter social norms against men wearing feminine clothes than against women wearing masculine clothes. People don't tend to consider it foolish for a woman to wear a suit, for example, in the same way that they object to a man wearing a dress.

Hard to explain the downside risk? This is not physics. Do you know if these doctors have been attacked by the public? Also, I don't think you even need to be educated on the science to understand that giving puberty blockers will have health risks, if you want to debate how serious the health risks are that's fine, but to say there is little downside risk is just un-ethical and any doctor that tells that to there patient should have there license revoked. Public opinion should never trump science/reality.

If he said "I really don't know the risk, it's experimental, but I think it's worth trying due to the potential benefits to the mental health of trans kids, instead of saying "little downside", and "relatively safe, I would have a lot more respect for his title, and consequently his perspective on theories related to the downsides, but he stated them in a matter of fact way. All I can picture is a little kid and parents getting those two lines, and deciding to go with it, simply becasue he is a doctor, and people trust doctors to be the experts.

Agreed, uninformed consent is unfortunately not uncommon in the medical industry.

He snipped out a link in my post to a similar study I showed him then responded with some general comment that makes it sound like researchers are tossing bannanas around with primates and making random gender observations. It seems the whole thing is going over his head and in the grand tradition of the internet, he's had it all figured out the whole time

https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/sta...548790274?s=20


The problem with these posts is that evidence points towards a majority of kids with gender identity issues actually end up sorting themselves out and not requiring any transition. They are confused. Adding to, enabling, encouraging, or administering life altering decisions based on that fact alone seems very reckless at this stage of the game. There is so much that isn't understood. With what is known at this point, everything points towards caution. The reason sensible voices aren't all that prominent is because activism and ideology dominates the conversation. There is terrible backlash aimed at actual experts that don't conform. The actual conversation on this forum is shaped in a way that we cannot cite experts explaining mental health problems in regards to certain issues.

Notice that they are also talking about a lot of confused kids actually end up just being gay. Think it through. Why is that the case? There is a big difference here. Being gay doesn't require a whole new gender identity, hormone blockers, exogenous hormones, surgery, or your own unique pronouns that must be used or else there will be face melting rage. There is now a large number of people coming forward that want to detransition

https://twitter.com/DailySignal/stat...570889216?s=20

https://psmag.com/social-justice/why...-to-transition

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...mpression=true




Even fully transitioned members of the trans community aren't on board with much of what's going on



Does anyone think this child has come up with their persona on their own? an original? They look completely influenced and synthesizing behavior to me



https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...-sft071619.php

FYP (while understanding what the number one predictor of suicide is).

If anyone is interested, here is the actual research on the autism:

https://www.europsy-journal.com/arti...101-4/fulltext

and about the link in the tweet:

https://bjgp.org/content/69/681/170/tab-figures-data

Observations this obvious have been dismissed and are off the table. Case closed. Move on. Nothing to see here. You realize that wrongthink could seriously hurt someones feelings don't you?

Meh, it's more about pragmatism. It's not a secret which way the frequent posters lean, and they can derail things quickly (self-included). I do not think anyone could buy the" respect others" argument, anyways, not with the former fearless leader doing what he does. I'm still perplexed by the motives of the frequent posters, as their positions are not based on the information available.

Exactly, and thanks for the assist.

You’ll have to forgive me for having less patience explaining the same simple premises over and over to the same dumb ****s.

I think it's greeat that Juan is so deeply and sincerely worried about the well-being of LGBT kids.

It’s fun to watch Juan repost trash talking points of the alt-right ad nauseum, especially when he’s using that line to mock innocent children.

Desmond is a little gay boy who likes to do kid drag and loves RuPauls drag race.

The constant objections to non-heteronormative kids is based on the assumption that queerness is inherently sexual, (It isn’t.) and is the thinnest of veils masking blatant homophobia and transphobia directed at those individuals least equipped to defend themselves.

I don't even get it.

Literally lol'd. I'm saving this one.

I suspect that Juan is more worried about the well-being of kids than the reprobate perverts who are working hard to destroy the soul of that poor little boy.

Ok boomer

We can acknowledge that the kid is authentically not hetero and still not be so dishonest as to pretend that his personality/mannerisms aren't heavily shaped by parents and the media they expose them to.

It's not like it's not like concerns of shitty parenting are uniquely targeted at people who let their 8 year old watch rupauls drag race obsessively. It IS a clear step up from letting your kid watch movies that glorify gangsterism and encouraging their joe pesci mannerisms.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/07/texas-...school-as-boy/

Oh look, the NY Post, another Rupert Murdoch 'news' entertainment comedy outlet. Should we pay close attention to that?


You have chosen to help smear a woman with some of the worst kind of lies.

i don't think it's fair to compare a suit to a dress in the sense that a suit is not as overtly masculine as a dress is overtly feminine. you could say that i only feel that way because we as a society accept women wearing male dress, but i think the reason for why we accept it isn't because we accept non-gender conforming women to a greater extent - it's because male style is more utilitarian. A woman who grew out a mustache would get the same kind of looks in an office as a man who wore a dress. These are making a very different statement than a woman wearing a suit to work.

I think a better comparison is a man having long hair vs a woman having an extremely short haircut.

yeah its definitely interesting to observe the morally superior manipulate and sexualize small children. In the other transgender thread I posted the same kid performing at a strip club and having $'s thrown at them. Then taking pictures with naked men with their junk tucked between their legs. There is just something weird about this. Pay attention to the rabid defense of reckless transformation and the vitriol and hatred the sjw's direct at critics. Then observe in contrast how they view the exploitation, manipulation, and sexualization of children. They either yawn or get defensive. Just oozing moral superiority... or something