The Gender Debate

[Wee Bully]

11 hours ago, Thorongil said:

No, I’m not. You just see it that way because you are a narcissist and this causes you to become angry to the very core of your being when you encounter a view that is not in accordance with yours. 

I don’t lie down to narcissists.

What makes me angry is bigoted discrimination. 

[f_c_dundee]

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

So the kids that want to delay puberty so as to be able to investigate their feelings and concerns, shouldn’t be able to so they can decide later, but should go through puberty and decide after 18?

With regard to your poo-pooing the suicide statistics, bullshit. Hedegaard, Curtin, & Warner, 2018 was a near 20 year study of youth suicides and risks, covering suicide risks and occurrences within the U.S. teen population during this period (millions), and identifying risk factors and modalities. With a four times risk of suicide, the youth trans population is uniquely vulnerable to your kind of bigoted bullshit camouflaged as “caring” and “science”.

I know you feel you are somehow “helping” by taking over this thread and trying to make it clear we’re all wrong, but you are the problem here.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db309.htm?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=in-text-link

 

Haud on. There's no mention at all of the specific rates for trans people in the article you cited? It's just about rates in different demographics? Sorted by ages, males/females and references to methods used.

 

Where's the evidence of the 4 times greater risk again?

 

I'd prefer to go with the Samaritans guidelines which recommend that media speculation, for example on causes of suicide is not at all helpful as there is rarely a single cause.

 

The scaremongering towards young trans identifying people and their parents has been completely careless.

 

The rates in studies actually seemed to show that there wasn't a significantly greater risk of self harm or suicide than you'd find in any group of troubled teenagers suffering from mental health difficulties like depression and anxiety. Also similar to young people anxious and worried about their sexuality. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by f_c_dundee

[carpetmonster]

58 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db309.htm?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=in-text-link

 

Haud on. There's no mention at all of the specific rates for trans people in the article you cited? It's just about rates in different demographics? Sorted by ages, males/females and references to methods used.

 

Where's the evidence of the 4 times greater risk again?

 

I'd prefer to go with the Samaritans guidelines which recommend that media speculation, for example on causes of suicide is not at all helpful as there is rarely a single cause.

 

The scaremongering towards young trans identifying people and their parents has been completely careless.

 

The rates in studies actually seemed to show that there wasn't a significantly greater risk of self harm or suicide than you'd find in any group of troubled teenagers suffering from mental health difficulties like depression and anxiety. Also similar to young people anxious and worried about their sexuality. 

7.6 times, according to the University of Ottawa last year - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transgender-teens-7-6-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

7.6 times, according to the University of Ottawa last year - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transgender-teens-7-6-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide

There's no way of arriving at that degree of specificity, given the parameters of their study group:

Quote

For this study, researchers conducted a population-based study analyzing data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth. The sample included 6,800 teens ages 15 to 17 with 99.4% identifying as cisgender and 0.6% transgender.

A grand total of, err, 41 transgender teens were in the sample group then!

While it's a pretty straightforward assumption that transgender individuals will be more likely to consider/attempt suicide than their peer group as a whole (although whether they're more likely to do so than other minority or vulnerable categories is an open question), that article's conclusion is a classic misuse of statistics to produce crap 'science'. 

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

There's no way of arriving at that degree of specificity, given the parameters of their study group:

A grand total of, err, 41 transgender teens were in the sample group then!

While it's a pretty straightforward assumption that transgender individuals will be more likely to consider/attempt suicide than their peer group as a whole (although whether they're more likely to do so than other minority or vulnerable categories is an open question), that article's conclusion is a classic misuse of statistics to produce crap 'science'. 

Given the amount of trans folks overall is estimated to be somewhere around that percentage of the populace, I'd imagine that's why the group was composed in that manner. 

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:

Given the amount of trans folks overall is estimated to be somewhere around that percentage of the populace, I'd imagine that's why the group was composed in that manner. 

But it's not a statistically significant sample size of the subject group, so the published claim that they are 7.1 times more likely to commit suicide is demonstrable nonsense. The error bars are so large for a group of 41 as to make the general finding itself almost meaningless. 

[carpetmonster]

28 minutes ago, virginton said:

But it's not a statistically significant sample size of the subject group, so the published claim that they are 7.1 times more likely to commit suicide is demonstrable nonsense. The error bars are so large for a group of 41 as to make the general finding itself almost meaningless. 

Attempt, not commit. 
 

ETA - and 50 kids, from the actual paper. It does reference this - https://apsc-saravyc.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2020/03/Being-Safe-Being-Me-2019_SARAVYC_ENG.pdf

which is a survey of 1519 Canadian trans/NB people aged 15-25 and the headline on that is that 64% had seriously considered suicide in the prior 12 months. There’s 98 pages to hack thru tho, so I’m sure someone will be along to say it’s all bollocks before anyone’s finished reading it. 
 

ETA - 21% of that survey reported an attempt within the prior 12 months with 64% also being the number who had reported self-harming. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by carpetmonster

[carpetmonster]

13 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

No you named a hospital and said it had been targeted. I can only see that there was a lot of chat about it online and they felt harassed by phone calls. Zero actual violence. 

 

 

Aye, as long as Boston Children’s Hospital only got bomb *threats* then that’s fine. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:

Attempt, not commit. 
 

ETA - and 50 kids, from the actual paper. It does reference this - https://apsc-saravyc.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2020/03/Being-Safe-Being-Me-2019_SARAVYC_ENG.pdf

which is a survey of 1519 Canadian trans/NB people aged 15-25 and the headline on that is that 64% had seriously considered suicide in the prior 12 months. There’s 98 pages to hack thru tho, so I’m sure someone will be along to say it’s all bollocks before anyone’s finished reading it. 
 

ETA - 21% of that survey reported an attempt within the prior 12 months with 64% also being the number who had reported self-harming. 

It doesn't matter whether it's 41 or 50, it cannot establish an increased rate of suicide attempts - to a single decimal place - based on such a nonsense sample size. That is not a replicable finding and so is bad science.

To make the analogy straightforward for you to follow, it would be like a pollster asking 500 people who they would vote for in a UK election, and then using the 40 people who responded from Scotland to produce the current level of support for the SNP. Anyone who published polling 'results' for Scotland based on a sample size of 40 would have their 'findings' filed in the bin where they belong, by anyone with even a competent understanding of how statistical analysis works (and when it doesn't). 

NB: And self-reporting (and usually self-selecting) survey is barely one step above that in terms of credibility. 

It is absolutely worth investigating the issue, but the results that you're using simply underline the limited and/or flawed data that is actually being used to 'inform' the current debate. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by vikingTON

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Puberty blocking medication is not some magical delay button - it has significant health and reproductive consequences on the patient. 

The idea that 12 year olds or any other legal child is automatically in a position to know what they want and should be given a highly consequential medical intervention based on that is utter folly. We rightly recognise that they are not fully capable of making legally responsible decisions - yet the Mermaids crew argue that they're inherently knowledgeable about their own body transition because reasons. That is an ideology of harm, right there. 

Any PB intervention should require the consent of the child's legal guardian and, much more importantly, an independent psychological assessment of the child's situation:

https://acpuk.org.uk/the-cass-review-and-its-implications-psychologically-informed-considerations-for-the-future/

Didn’t disagree with any of that, just the idea they shouldn’t be allowed access to such treatment…which is as harmful as access can be if done incorrectly. No suggestion of handing out blockers like candy, but there are certainly uses.

[TxRover]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

It doesn't matter whether it's 41 or 50, it cannot establish an increased rate of suicide attempts - to a single decimal place - based on such a nonsense sample size.

A statistics expert now, eh? Sure you can, if you also provide a plus/minus range…which, just to clarify, is generally not mentioned in discussion, but is annotated. You mistake a small sample for bad science, you’ll find many subjects of scientific studies begin with small scale studies and then get developed from there. Careful where you toss the shade, history of all studies is a bit wobbly on hard facts…after all, we know who writes history.

[scottsdad]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

But it's not a statistically significant sample size of the subject group, so the published claim that they are 7.1 times more likely to commit suicide is demonstrable nonsense. The error bars are so large for a group of 41 as to make the general finding itself almost meaningless. 

There are no error bars in the paper. Data are presented as tables, not graphs.

[f_c_dundee]

20 hours ago, TxRover said:

A statistics expert now, eh? Sure you can, if you also provide a plus/minus range…which, just to clarify, is generally not mentioned in discussion, but is annotated. You mistake a small sample for bad science, you’ll find many subjects of scientific studies begin with small scale studies and then get developed from there. Careful where you toss the shade, history of all studies is a bit wobbly on hard facts…after all, we know who writes history.

But we can't legislate or make healthcare policies based on research that isn't done yet, but totally probably will be soon. Especially when people's physical and mental health is at stake. 

 

Sample size in study design*is* one of the measures of quality.

 

Along with using blinded or even better double blinded trials w/placebo controls.  

 

The Tavistock for example tried to propose their early intervention PBs study with no placebo control group. The reason for this was that they anticipated not being able to get sufficient volunteers to accept the possibility of being randomised  into a control group. Clearly blinding would only be possible at the start - it would become obvious which children's puberty had been blocked as time went on. 

 

They were told by an ethics committee that this study design was not sufficient to validate any results, and it was rejected as not ethical to commence it.  The committee gave suggestions for partial randomisation/blinding, but instead of taking advice to improve it and resubmitting it or appealing, they chose to resubmit the same design to a different ethics committee that they chose.  

 

There has to be a desire to go out and get research done to a decent standard and not over inflate or conflate existing study and survey results - surely these young people deserve it?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by f_c_dundee
Late night random extra word

[andyg83]

I am a bit like f_c_dundee in that I have thought about this issue alot as it has gained prominence in recent years. I feel duty bound to educate myself on it. 

I have also read many of the sources that have been posted on this thread and just recently finished reading "End of Gender" by Dr Debra Soh which was quite interesting. I find her quite compelling in this field as she is always well informed, prepared and cites good sources.

My main takeaway from the book was that she argues research is being suppressed by non scientific persons at Universities and quoted this open letter from 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/16/academics-are-being-harassed-over-their-research-into-transgender-issues

I would argue that it is probably more of a "closed shop" now that it was even then which isn't helping anything?

The "lobby" or "movement" however appears to be taking a life of its own though which is a bit worrying to me personally.

The science is far from settled on many aspects of this subject so we definitely need more quality research in this area. It is also worrying in the way any debate or studies are shut down in some quarters.

(sits down and waits to be called a bigot or "transphobe")

Edited April 11, 2023 by andyg83

[TxRover]

24 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

I am a bit like f_c_dundee in that I have thought about this issue alot as it has gained prominence in recent years. I feel duty bound to educate myself on it. 

I have also read many of the sources that have been posted on this thread and just recently finished reading "End of Gender" by Dr Debra Soh which was quite interesting. I find her quite compelling in this field as she is always well informed, prepared and cites good sources.

My main takeaway from the book was that she argues research is being suppressed by non scientific persons at Universities and quoted this open letter from 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/16/academics-are-being-harassed-over-their-research-into-transgender-issues

I would argue that it is probably more of a "closed shop" now that it was even then which isn't helping anything?

To be clear,  i do not believe the existence of trans people is an issue.

The "lobby" or "movement" however appears to be taking a life of its own though which is a bit worrying to me personally.

The science is far from settled on this one so we definitely need more quality research in this area. There are also worrying aspects in the way any debate or studies are shut down in some quarters.

(sits down and waits to be called a bigot or "transphobe")

The problem with this approach is research and studies have been suppressed for years, so no to argue for more delays makes people look culpable. There is plenty of data of successful usage versus a small amount of failure. It is far more ethical, in this context, to present the data to people wishing to adopt these treatments and allow them to decide themselves than to deny treatment simpleton because some standard isn’t met. Yes, there are risks, but we have clearly seen the risks of ignoring this matter too.

I take it from your commentary you do not know anyone in this realm directly.

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, TxRover said:

The problem with this approach is research and studies have been suppressed for years, so no to argue for more delays makes people look culpable. There is plenty of data of successful usage versus a small amount of failure. It is far more ethical, in this context, to present the data to people wishing to adopt these treatments and allow them to decide themselves than to deny treatment simpleton because some standard isn’t met. 

If an adult wishes to undergo treatment (including surgery) to transition gender, then that's not an issue. 

You're discussing children being given puberty blockers without the need for their legal guardian's consent or any serious psychological scrutiny into the case first to approve their suitability for use. That's not ethical - that is tantamount to child abuse for the inevitable set of cases where the patient recognises at a later date that they have made a terrible mistake and have had consequential damage done to their lives. 

Your 'two wrongs make a right - fight suppression!' approach to ethical medicine is utter nonsense. 

[f_c_dundee]

They're really isn't plenty of good evidence though. What there is really doesn't point to successful usage.

 

Knowing someone directly in this situation is unfortunately irrelevant to the quality of evidence and research, even though it hurts to see them unhappy and wishing for change. 

 

In any other field of medicine I can think of, if other scientists questioned the safety of a treatment, research to validate it or to prove that the concern isn't valid would be welcomed. 

 

That's not what's happened here. Scientists proposing studies have had the applications rejected and blocked, they have been called transphobes and even lost their job if they spoke out.

 

That's not good practice and not good for the patients.

 

It's not delay for the sake of it, it's holding off on an unproven treatment until proper evidence is available in order to avoid further harm. So I don't understand how you think that makes people "look culpable". Culpable of what?

 

The full risks and potential problems with medical treatment is not always shared either. Both here and in the US, getting proper consent - especially for children and young people - has been a particular problem. It's clear that they can't make the decision at 14 or even 19 that they'll never want to have breasts, or to risk never having children. 

 

"Bottom surgery" is quite frankly a dangerous and surely unethical horror for both sexes. Such high risk of it going wrong  and of the patient being unhappy with results. Huge risk of infection due to the areas being operated on.

 

So for both medication and surgery, the benefit to the patient really has to be clear imo.

 

[f_c_dundee]

10 hours ago, TxRover said:

The problem with this approach is research and studies have been suppressed for years, so no to argue for more delays makes people look culpable. There is plenty of data of successful usage versus a small amount of failure. It is far more ethical, in this context, to present the data to people wishing to adopt these treatments and allow them to decide themselves than to deny treatment simpleton because some standard isn’t met. Yes, there are risks, but we have clearly seen the risks of ignoring this matter too.

I take it from your commentary you do not know anyone in this realm directly.

Doh, was meant to be a response to this, sorry. 

[andyg83]

The "debate" is a mess in my opinion. 

It feels like modern day Mccarthyism to an extent where any dissent, caution or questions are greeted as transphobic. That's not helping anyone. 

Transgenderism is a very nuanced umbrella with lots of things going on but as folk have stated on this thread it's the stuff concerning kids that is my main concern.

[carpetmonster]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

If an adult wishes to undergo treatment (including surgery) to transition gender, then that's not an issue. 

You're discussing children being given puberty blockers without the need for their legal guardian's consent or any serious psychological scrutiny into the case first to approve their suitability for use.

I don't think he is - he'd already said 'Didn’t disagree with any of that, just the idea they shouldn’t be allowed access to such treatment…which is as harmful as access can be if done incorrectly. No suggestion of handing out blockers like candy, but there are certainly uses.' in a prior post. Regardless, puberty blockers have been widely prescribed for precocious puberty since the 1980s and were FDA approved for such in the 1990s. The rationale being that going thru puberty too early would be mentally damaging for kids. 

1 hour ago, virginton said:

That's not ethical - that is tantamount to child abuse for the inevitable set of cases where the patient recognises at a later date that they have made a terrible mistake and have had consequential damage done to their lives. 

Your 'two wrongs make a right - fight suppression!' approach to ethical medicine is utter nonsense.