No problem with that. Plainly domething is wrong, though clearly we don’t know what. I take the same view about homosexuality - something is wrong. In both cases, not knowing the cause restricts our capacity to offer treatments. I believe surgical “treatments” are offered largely on the belief that they bring some relief to those suffering with the status quo. I presume it is great suffering if one is prepared to undergo such serious procedures.Its a mental disorder, just like the numerous other mental disorders many people suffer with, we dont around justifying their disorders and having them believe nothing is wrong, would this be done to a person with schizophrenia, constantly tell them, what they are feeling in their head is real and they should not think its a disorder?
The first step is to recognize there IS a disorder present, that has to happen before they can attempt to ‘treat it’.
The suicide rate among the so-called transgenders alone would support their contention.In other words, the American College of Pediatricians can declare transgenderism a mental illness all it wants, but few besides themselves are going to give it any credibility.
Suicide ratte massively goes down after going on HRT and having SRSThe suicide rate among the so-called transgenders alone would support their contention.
It does?Suicide ratte massively goes down after going on HRT and having SRS
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
It seems that study only compares suicide rates with the general population, not with those suffering dysphoria but not treated with SRS.It does?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
I also remember a WSJ article about high post op suicide rate, but it will not link.
I agree with all that. The only query is whether or not SRS actually relieves suffering, and whether there are alternatives that also bring relief.Some things to think about:
The transgendered person does NOT have transgendered DNA. Every cell of their body still has 100% either male or female DNA - whatever they were born with.
The transgendered person does NOT have new sex organs.
The transgendered person does NOT have and can never recover their old sex organs.
The transgendered person is incapable of being a biological mother or biological father, thus making a Catholic marriage impossible.
You don’t solve mental problems with bodily mutilations.
By insisting on only this “solution” - why is that?
To perform irreversible bodily mutilations on children (or adults for that matter) because they don’t “feel” right doesn’t seem to me to be what doctors should be doing with their time, no matter how much money they make doing it.
IMHO.
Within the last 2-3 days I saw a statistic that stated that 40% of post transgendered individuals eventually commit suicide. I’ll post it if I can find it again.I agree with all that. The only query is whether or not SRS actually relieves suffering, and whether there are alternatives that also bring relief.
I share those concerns. Though I’m not sure what “full Speed” entails with a 4 year old.Within the last 2-3 days I saw a statistic that stated that 40% of post transgendered individuals eventually commit suicide. I’ll post it if I can find it again.
With children, why not wait? I saw a news article with some parents of a 3-4 year old boy who wants to be a girl. They’re going full speed ahead and are so proud of themselves. I suppose they’re proud of their commitment to the LGBT cause or something. God help them and us and especially that boy.
Yes it does, the attempted suicide rate is far higher before SRS than after even if the rate after is still higher than the general population.It does?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
I also remember a WSJ article about high post op suicide rate, but it will not link.
There is the US national trans survey which showed people much happier after starting hormones and also after SRS of course some here would dismiss it on the grounds of bias.It seems that study only compares suicide rates with the general population, not with those suffering dysphoria but not treated with SRS.
If there is s comparison of divide rates between dysphoria sufferers pre and post SRS, could you quote it?
That number is attempted rate and applies to all transgender people not just those who transitioned.Within the last 2-3 days I saw a statistic that stated that 40% of post transgendered individuals eventually commit suicide. I’ll post it if I can find it again.
With children, why not wait? I saw a news article with some parents of a 3-4 year old boy who wants to be a girl. They’re going full speed ahead and are so proud of themselves. I suppose they’re proud of their commitment to the LGBT cause or something. God help them and us and especially that boy.
If people are going to quote an organisation that has 60 members (maybe a few more) who are in direct conflict with not just one, but multiple organisations, not just in the US but worldwide, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, then good luck to them. Smacks of desperation to me. But hey, just because my running club has more members doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to put forward their views.In other words, the American College of Pediatricians can declare transgenderism a mental illness all it wants, but few besides themselves are going to give it any credibility.
It is a very limited survey, and to my knowledge is not replicated. However, it is the only one posted here. It is better than statements about suicide rates without any evidence. I do not believe happiness surveys to be relative. They are too subjective. Yes this survey is old. You do not see it relevant because it is old. This is a good argument that transgenderism is a new phenomena. If not, something 27 years ago would not already be consider useless. However, only studies done over time would be relative. The happiness of a change in life state for a year is not relevant to what can happen as reality sets in. As any couple who hastily married for “love”.Yes it does, the attempted suicide rate is far higher before SRS than after even if the rate after is still higher than the general population.
That data is only relevant to those who had SRS before 1989 so is it really relevant to people who are going to have SRS now?
Hey, it worked for Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Newton – quacks, every one of them according to the scientific experts . They were all very very wrong. Until their views were gradually accepted.If people are going to quote an organisation that has 60 members (maybe a few more) who are in direct conflict with not just one, but multiple organisations, not just in the US but worldwide, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, then good luck to them. Smacks of desperation to me.
I thought that a club with only 1 member “should be allowed to put forward their views.” In fact, it doesn’t even need to be a club, it could just be anyone.But hey, just because my running club has more members doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to put forward their views.
See my paragraph directly above this one. Thank you for making my point for me.Incidentally, did you know that the Flat Earth Society had 3,500 members at one point. They have a lot of interesting stuff that we should discuss as well.
The study isn’t actually that old, what I mean is that of the study there are two groups, the ones before 1989 and the ones after, the higher rate is only applicable for the group before 1989. For the group after that a higher mortality rate is not statistically significant and when you look at the higher mortality rate than general population it appears to be mostly cancer.It is a very limited survey, and to my knowledge is not replicated. However, it is the only one posted here. It is better than statements about suicide rates without any evidence. I do not believe happiness surveys to be relative. They are too subjective. Yes this survey is old. You do not see it relevant because it is old. This is a good argument that transgenderism is a new phenomena. If not, something 27 years ago would not already be consider useless. However, only studies done over time would be relative. The happiness of a change in life state for a year is not relevant to what can happen as reality sets in. As any couple who hastily married for “love”.
No, the ACP is on the right track, though I think calling transgenderism a mental illness is too far. I would rather say it is a step sideways, addressing the label and not the person. The real crime is that a girl (a real girl) cannot be comfortable and accepted with 80% masculine characteristics, and a boy will be even more ridiculed for be effeminate. I would rather have seen history go down the path of addressing the damage that rigid gender roles do to those outside the norm than the attempt to relabel and mutilate people to be other than the way they were made. Where is the acceptance in that?
Actually they weren’t considered quacksHey, it worked for Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Newton – quacks, every one of them according to the scientific experts . They were all very very wrong. Until their views were gradually accepted.
I thought that a club with only 1 member “should be allowed to put forward their views.” In fact, it doesn’t even need to be a club, it could just be anyone.
Your statement illustrates to perfection what is wrong with being politically correct. Even when someone stumbles across an actual truth contrary to political correctness, it gets torpedoed by ridicule, or non-related, non-sensical strawman arguments.
See my paragraph directly above this one. Thank you for making my point for me.
1a) After the fact - yes.Actually they weren’t considered quacks
1a) Everyone around Copernicus was very supportive of him and urged him to publish
1b) Galileo was an incredibly pretentious jerk whose proof for the Heliocentric model was in fact wrong
1c) Einstein’s peers thought him brilliant
1d) Newton was considered quite intelligent, even knighted for his brilliance, but his personality was insufferable
Their peers, the people around at the time, didn’t consider them quacks.1a) After the fact - yes.
1b) After the fact - yes.
1c) After the fact - yes.
1d) After the fact - yes.
Of course they are now considered brilliant. They turned out to be right. But before they turned out to be right - they were considered quacks. THAT’S THE WAY SCIENCE IS.
Galileo’s & Copernicus’s biggest critics were not in the church. They were his fellow “scientists” - they were called astrologers. If G & C were correct, then the astrologers would be out of business. So they had the most to lose.Their peers, the people around at the time, didn’t consider them quacks.
No, that isn’t how science works, scientists are often skeptical of new theories, but skepticism and thinking someone a quack are far different as the latter is thinking someone a fraud.