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

‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#91

Post by sudosysgen »

lockhouse wrote: post #71
mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puberty blockers are not permanent [1] they're taken until people start hormone therapy at which point they go through normal puberty [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...

Hormone treatments can result in permanent irreversible changes, such as sterility. Surgeries are also not completely reversible.

Yes, the point is that you wait until the subject is sufficiently competent to be able to make those medical decisions for themselves, which in most jurisdictions is 14 to 16. The entire point of puberty blockers is to delay permanent sexual changes until the subject can make their own decisions.

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#92

Post by glimshe »

Georgelemental wrote: post #17

Puberty is an incredibly complicated process, involving innumerable intertwined signaling pathways, gene expression changes, physical and mental changes, etc. We are only beginning to understand it all; to think we can just "pause" it like an MP3 player is the height of hubris. These experimental treatments have many potential negative side effects, including osteoporosis and infertility. Teenagers who feel insecure…

Agreed. We've created societal structures and cultural norms that have survived thousands of years to deal with teenagers, which have existed and behaved like teenagers since the dawn of humankind. Our civilization exists because of the systems that we put in place, good or bad, and they allowed us to not only survive, but also thrive. Our thriving included getting rid of many bad ideas and norms along the way.

Whenever we want to experiment with radical changes in our systems, we need to be very careful. New radical approaches lack the test of time, and should be introduced carefully when there is potential for widespread negative impact.

Today we're saying that a large number of teenagers actually would be better off with a permanent change in gender. This extraordinary claim, which goes against biology and our established cultural norms, could be true but we have to recognize it as extraordinary and approach with extreme care. Maybe one day we'll figure out how many teenagers actually would benefit from this, but right now it's clear to me that we're just going all-in on an untested paradigm with great potential for irreversible pain and suffering.

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#93

Post by peanutcrisis »

anaisbetts wrote: post #81
peanutcrisis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd strongly recommend anyone interested in this topic to find sources outside of the US. The foundation of these studies are largely dubious, consistent with the kind of replication crisis you see in the medical field. Throw activism into the mix and these sources are now biased towards certain outcomes. For those who lean left, I strongly recommend reading up on Hannah Barnes' book, "Time to Think". The UK and the…

> EU have deemed "gender-affirming care" experimental This is a lie that Gender Critical people keep repeating, it is simply untrue. The EU continues to treat transgender children according to the same scientifically studied standards of care that they have in the past

For those reading, comments are an unreliable proxy for politicised topics such as this. As such, if you want to be certain about what your beliefs are (as opposed to blindly inheriting the opinions held by your bubble), always go to the original sources.

For those who wish to validate the claims of my original comment and that of the person replying me, you can check out sources outside of the US, especially Sweden and the UK (i.e. The Cass Report, Hannah Barnes of the BBC), and comments by progenitors of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM).

A good place to start is an investigative feature published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ): https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#94

Post by peanutcrisis »

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #87
peanutcrisis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology. That much is obvious to someone who does not live in the anglo-sphere. To address your claims,…

Thanks for bringing this to attention. This book review seems like a good place to start: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/19/time-to-think-...

Indeed. The Guardian is a source I consider to be fairly ideological on certain topics, and belongs to the camp that would largely be in support of gender-affirming care. Yet despite their bias, even they gave a decent review of the book.

For those who are earnest about understanding what's up, the last thing you should do when evaluating the comments of a particularly politicised topic is to automatically deem a downvoted comment as being on the "wrong" side. This is how you inherit opinions that you were never truly convinced of in the first place. Always go to the original sources, and given how politicised this is in the US, it's ideal to see how the UK and EU are handling this. It can't harm to look outside of the bubble you're in, you own your opinions afterall.

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#95

Post by mckern »

theprincess wrote: post #84
peanutcrisis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology. That much is obvious to someone who does not live in the anglo-sphere. To address your claims,…

> If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology. You've really been running wild in this comments section, as have I. I can see that we're bo…

I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I spent two years outside of the US witnessing the idiocy of Trump, and another three witnessing the idiocy and regressiveness of the "progressives". As such, I don't take sides in your politics; both your left and right are a disaster to me.

I am not an activist, but I do care about causes that most on the left would empathise with, which is ironic given that gender-affirming care is one heralded by the "progressives" on the left. To the best of my ability, my commitment is to reason, which is something the right clearly lacked during (and after) the Trump administration, and something the left has been lacking for quite some time now.

This much should establish that I'm not some garden-variety "right-winger". Now that signalling my "creds" is out of the way (and it should never have mattered anyway), I think I have a unique perspective as an outsider. Because I have no commitment to US' abysmal politics and since I am not in the anglosphere, I'm not immersed in the local narratives that are happening on the ground. This lets me compare (much fairly) the US and UK + EU's approach to gender-affirming care, and how it's reported. So perhaps while I'm not an unbiased observer as you would put it (I have an opinion on this matter), I do think I've a much better view of what's going on than someone in a country who's narratives are dominated by their political extremes.

So here you are, making a bunch of accusations about me which you can't even bother to back up. To counter that, here's something of substance; for those who think there are no credible claims to the contrary, you can check out this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[0], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet.

[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#96

Post by mckern »

theprincess wrote: post #82
peanutcrisis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the situation is like now concerning prejudice towards trans people in the US, but looking from the outside, I'm aware of the incredible amount of bad faith coming from medical and activist organisations from within the US. For instance, any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers (confounded by…

I think you're ideologically motivated, and arguing from a position of emotional distaste for trans people rather than unbiased concern about medical practice. Here's why: > any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers Trans-identified is a term created by anti-trans activists initially as an "in joke" because call…

I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I'm not the "activist" you accused me of being, or the conspiracy theorist/covert "right winger" you're trying to paint me as. I clarify my position here [0].

>Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.

I don't see how I acted in bad faith. However, it appears that your comment is an odd interpretation of the additional remarks I added to my original comment. Perhaps my command of english isn't as good as I thought (I'm not in the anglosphere), or perhaps, you're the one acting in bad faith and giving a convoluted take on my remarks. Regardless, allow me to clarify; "Feggal" replied to my original comment, accusing me of being a "transphobe" and claims that he's going to tattle to Dang for my alleged transgressions. The additional remark I added to my original comment was meant to extend the original points I made about how a particular group of ideologically motivated people are contaminating the conversation, and how "Feggal"'s ad-hominem reply is an example of that. I hope this clarifies things.

Lastly, I'm not interested in entertaining any more ad-hominem attacks. For anyone reading this thread, allow me to point you to this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[1], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet. You figure out the discrepancy in claims between the BMJ and that of the medical associations and activist organisations in the US, and decide which of the both is the conspiratorial one.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36684221

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

Re: ‘Gay furries’ group hacks agencies in US states attacking gender-affirming care

#97

Post by peanutcrisis »

theprincess wrote: post #79
mckern wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puberty blockers are claimed to be non-permanent. However, that can't be verified at present [0]. In light of that, such a claim being made in the first place is definitely medical malpractice of some sorts. Also, I do not think medical sources from America are reliable for this topic. The UK and the EU have moved away from gender-affirming care and designated it an experimental treatment. Medical and psychological a…

> The UK and the EU have moved away from gender-affirming care and designated it an experimental treatment. The UK and EU are hardly a paradise for trans people. Until recently they even REQUIRED trans people to be sterilized, I suppose under the dual assumptions that 1.) they weren't fit to have children and 2.) if there's a genetic component to being transgender it's best to weed it out. https://www.nytimes.com/201…

I think the issue is more technically dubious than political. I'd refer to this investigative feature by The British Medical Journal (BMJ)[0], as well as the follow up[1] of clinicians and researchers alike.

[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382/rapid-responses

Post reply on HN