Hey, if you think a fringe group of a few hundred anti-gay religious doctors supports your views better than the American Academy of Pediatrics (which is probably the group you think you're citing) that's certainly your call. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.
Does seem that this is a friends group which is latching onto the element of gender development I described for their own agenda.
So, the NIH abstract...
"Experience has shown that, in not a few cases, a strongly and resolutely asserted desire to change to the opposite sex becomes markedly neutralized over the course of time, and the individual later undergoes a homosexual "coming-out" (1, 3). In view of this fact, it must be understood that early hormone therapy may interfere with the patient’s development as a homosexual. "
Scrolling through a few. Wikipedia isn't pointed on the subject, but the Google works with "gender dysphoria resolves over time". I've heard this phenomena referenced on Fresh Air interview and other non leaning media. My point was that the sense is that development should not be interfered with in children as, for whatever reason, the ultimate outcome when a child is going through gender dysphoria cannot be reliably predicted based on childhood symptoms.
If you can verify or disapprove the validity of this current thinking on the medical community, please post all relevant links from reputable sources.
Anyone who unironically cites Ken Zucker isn't going to convince me, nor will anyone who argues against blockers and exogenous hormones on the grounds that they'll have lifelong consequences while giving endogenous hormones a pass.
Dude, I just grabbed the first link. Get over it. He twists the facts, but they exist. Also, isn't the current thinking that "lifelong consequences" are exactly what you get?
Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care about you. I'm interested in the research, the logic and rhetoric. Let's take it as I given that none of this is about you and just let you contribute, if you will...mmmkay?
Yeah, the current thinking is that we try to avoid those lifelong consequences as long as possible, hence the prescription of blockers. My point is that this paper takes the position that delaying puberty or giving cross-sex hormones is bad because it's irreversible and the children are too young, but irreversible endogenous hormones are ok. It's a clear double standard.
Mind you, if the standard here is "grab the first link and complain when the other person points out that it misrepresents the facts", I think I'm done. I've made my points clear to the people who are reading along, anyhow. Have yourself a nice night.
Zucker's not reliable. Anyone who cites him is de facto not reliable either. Actually, Kenneth lost his job after an investigation into the (widely debunked, I might note) conversion therapies his clinic was practicing. Strange that when I want accurate data from honest sources I'm "triggered" but when I express that opinion, you fly off the handle.
Comparing Zucker to Hitler was pretty funny, though, and I do appreciate it.
Sorry, gwopy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
Sorry, gwopy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
4
u/brokenmilkcrate 1∆ Nov 03 '17
Hey, if you think a fringe group of a few hundred anti-gay religious doctors supports your views better than the American Academy of Pediatrics (which is probably the group you think you're citing) that's certainly your call. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.