Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What ever happened to the transhumanists?

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–448 of 448 posts

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#441

Post by DanBC »

DanBC wrote: post #435
jl6 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anti-trans campaigners misunderstand what's meant by "low quality evidence". It just means we don't yet have double blind randomised control trials of certain treatments. No it doesn’t. The problems run far deeper. Read the interim report, pages 18-19[1]: > 1.24. A lack of a conceptual agreement about the meaning of gender dysphoria hampers research, as well as NHS clinical service provision. > 1.25. There has not…

> No it doesn’t Yes it does. You not knowing what GRADE is or how it works but insisting that you are well informed is a great example of the problem with these discussions. You dump a load of ill-informed mangled sources into a thread, and now I have to spend a few hours explaining how you're misrepresenting the sources. > Additionally, the new UK regional centers are not an expansion of gender-affirming care, they…

I mean, you're making the same three claims as if they're magic gotchas but you don't understand what you're saying.

1) Care at tavistock is bad

Yes, everyone agrees, that's why people are pleased that Cass recommends the NHS continues its long established plan to remove care from Tavi.

2) There's no evidence

There's plenty of evidence. It doesn't come from tavi, but that's because they provide so little care it's not possible to use their patients as experimental subjects. We have lots of evidence from other countries and other patient cohorts

3) Cass says...

Mostly you're misunderstanding what Cass says, or you're relying on the single source that agrees with you and ignoring international scientific and medical opinion.

4) The new centres are providing less gender affirming care than tavi

The vast majority of children attending tavi got no care at all because they were on a waiting list and then aged out of children's services. But even if they got treatment at tavi the vast majority got no meds at all but psycho-social advice. The new centres will be doing this too, but with more children and with smaller waiting lists and the shared care agreements with GPs will be clearer.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#442

Post by revolvingocelot »

nemo44x wrote: post #438
tsimionescu wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think post-modernism is actually popular in any significant population - it's only popular among some small segment of academia, one that has some influence on literature. But the vast majority of people, either on the left or right, and even of academics in general, find it pretentious and fallacious. The vast majority of people are decidedly not relativists and instead believe in certain absolutes - truth,…

Identity politics, which is about as mainstream as you can get is based entirely from post modern principals. Anything “normal” is only thought of that way due to the discourses of established power (white, heterosexual men and their paternal nuclear family structures) and not only can be replaced (everything is equally arbitrary) but *should* be dismantled and replaced because it’s oppressive. That’s literally our s…

Well, no. You're torturing definitions to fit established right-wing talking points. You affirm the consequent by suggesting that "white, heterosexual men and their paternal nuclear family structures" represent "normal"; you state that They believe "everything is equally arbitrary", but a breath later you suggest that post-modernism makes a value judgement toward an instrumental end, and results in a "*should*". How can both of those concepts be correct?

I think "post-modern", as used here, is a code word for something else that I don't understand. I think one of us must be genuinely misunderstanding something. As your definition seems to rely on the activity of "post modern principals", I think that the next step in the journey of understanding might be returning to school.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#443

Post by eoops »

DanBC wrote: post #422
jl6 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure hope you’re right, but the point is that we just don’t know. Reviews of that evidence have determined it to be low quality: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp Read Cass for more details. I also 110% oppose circumcision.

This is untrue. Puberty blockers have been in use for trans children for over 40 years now, we have lots of evidence of benefit and lots of evidence that there's not much harm. We don't have randomised controlled trials, but if you don't know why we don't have those maybe you should refrain from commenting until you understand the topic a bit more.

What about detransitioners? Most of those kids grew into adults that have been ruined for life. Knowing this, the risk of giving these drugs to kids to outright block their puberty is just too immense. Not to mention the underage surgeries some of them receive.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#444

Post by kuschku »

eoops wrote: post #443
DanBC wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is untrue. Puberty blockers have been in use for trans children for over 40 years now, we have lots of evidence of benefit and lots of evidence that there's not much harm. We don't have randomised controlled trials, but if you don't know why we don't have those maybe you should refrain from commenting until you understand the topic a bit more.

What about detransitioners? Most of those kids grew into adults that have been ruined for life. Knowing this, the risk of giving these drugs to kids to outright block their puberty is just too immense. Not to mention the underage surgeries some of them receive.

> What about detransitioners?

Detransitioners are a tragic case, but they amount of detransitioners compared to all trans people is smaller than the amount of trans people compared to the rest of the population.

If taking detransitioners into account is the primary priority of trans healthcare for you, then trans people should be an equal or larger priority in overall healthcare as well.

> Not to mention the underage surgeries some of them receive.

That's something that's questionable, but it's not that simple either. Cis people doing surgery against gynecomastia is the majority of underage surgeries of this type.

> to outright block their puberty

It's just paused. It continues as if nothing had happened the moment you stop, with no risk to the patient. Even the Cass Review argues that blockers are entirely safe for AMAB trans people. It also argues that AMAB trans people have such a small percentage of detransitioners that it's basically disregardable.

If the Cass Review, a paper that was commissioned to find a way to reject healthcare for trans people, argues it's safe, you can trust it is safe.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#445

Post by eoops »

kuschku wrote: post #444
eoops wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about detransitioners? Most of those kids grew into adults that have been ruined for life. Knowing this, the risk of giving these drugs to kids to outright block their puberty is just too immense. Not to mention the underage surgeries some of them receive.

> What about detransitioners? Detransitioners are a tragic case, but they amount of detransitioners compared to all trans people is smaller than the amount of trans people compared to the rest of the population. If taking detransitioners into account is the primary priority of trans healthcare for you, then trans people should be an equal or larger priority in overall healthcare as well. > Not to mention the underage…

> Even the Cass Review argues that blockers are entirely safe for AMAB trans people. It also argues that AMAB trans people have such a small percentage of detransitioners that it's basically disregardable.

I've read the Interim Report, it asserts neither of these points.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#446

Post by kuschku »

eoops wrote: post #445
kuschku wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about detransitioners? Detransitioners are a tragic case, but they amount of detransitioners compared to all trans people is smaller than the amount of trans people compared to the rest of the population. If taking detransitioners into account is the primary priority of trans healthcare for you, then trans people should be an equal or larger priority in overall healthcare as well. > Not to mention the underage…

> Even the Cass Review argues that blockers are entirely safe for AMAB trans people. It also argues that AMAB trans people have such a small percentage of detransitioners that it's basically disregardable. I've read the Interim Report, it asserts neither of these points.

the Cass Review explicitly says "The rationale for use of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 of development was based on data that demonstrated that children, particularly birth-registered boys who had early gender incongruence, were unlikely to desist once they reached early puberty" and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#447

Post by eoops »

kuschku wrote: post #446
eoops wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the Cass Review argues that blockers are entirely safe for AMAB trans people. It also argues that AMAB trans people have such a small percentage of detransitioners that it's basically disregardable. I've read the Interim Report, it asserts neither of these points.

the Cass Review explicitly says "The rationale for use of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 of development was based on data that demonstrated that children, particularly birth-registered boys who had early gender incongruence, were unlikely to desist once they reached early puberty" and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people.

Your quote misses out the part of the sentence immediately following:

"this rationale does not necessarily apply to later-presenting young people, including the predominant referral group of birth-registered girls"

The group referred to here is defined by being later-presenting. Female is only a subset of this.

Also, Cass is just describing the rationale, not endorsing it. This is implied by the paragraph immediately following, where she discusses the paucity of data regarding potential negative effects of puberty blockers on brain maturation:

"A further concern is that adolescent sex hormone surges may trigger the opening of a critical period for experience-dependent rewiring of neural circuits underlying executive function (i.e. maturation of the part of the brain concerned with planning, decision making and judgement). If this is the case, brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by puberty blockers, which could have significant impact on the ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as possible longer-term neuropsychological consequences. To date, there has been very limited research on the short-, medium- or longer-term impact of puberty-blockers on neurocognitive development."

> and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people

Cass does not make this recommendation.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#448

Post by fastball »

kuschku wrote: post #436
fastball wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We literally do not give 99% of the population any sort of hormonal treatment in order to ensure they match their "assigned gender". For the overwhelming majority of people we say "wow this looks like a boy" and that person ends up a boy with no intervention and no gender identity issues. Yes, there are intersex people and they are a special case that need to be handled differently than the rest of the population. An…

What do you mean "of course"? Children have a right to take part in their own medical decisions as early as 7 years old, and teens make the majority of the decisions themselves after 14yo. If teens can get tattoos (16+), can drink alcohol (16+), can work part time jobs (14+), under conditions (12+) and can get jail time (14+), then they can just as well make at least part of their own medical decisions. Delaying perm…

> Children have a right to take part in their own medical decisions as early as 7 years old

Where is this right enshrined?

> and teens make the majority of the decisions themselves after 14yo

Do you have a source for this claim? Where in particular is this the case? You say 14 but then most of the examples you give about choices with long-term consequences are at 16, since I wouldn't really include part-time jobs (not really a major life decision to bus tables or whatever) and jail time at 14 is the exception not the rule. We default to not putting 14 year olds in jail because again, we assume children are not entirely culpable for their actions at that age. Jail is reserved for particularly egregious infractions that we otherwise don't have a better social response for.

> Delaying permanent changes to a point in time where they can decide for themselves is the perfect solution

Right but isn't part of maturing going through puberty? If we block puberty, what is the point at which you can decide for yourself? Where do you draw the line?

Post reply on HN