There is a lot of discourse about "conversion therapy" floating around. To what extent does research actually support the claim that gender-affirming healthcare could be a form of conversion therapy?
Strawmanning. All you do, in classic pomo style, is show that the rules are not absolute, that there are exceptions. But you don't dare touch the question why we should ever medicalise identities (fluid or not, queer or not) in the first place. The only half-decent point in here is that most trans people identify as something other than hetero. But it's kind of hard not to, when you've complicated things that way. You'd have to ask about actual orientation, not sexual identity.
You’re ignorant about this. There are gay transgender people just as there are heterosexual transgender people. Most of you folks who are anti-trans don’t know any real transgender people.
Those people are statistical outliers. Look up the word “correlation” if you’re not familiar with it. For the vast majority of people, “gender identity” and sexual orientation conform to a predictable pattern.
There is no agreed standard within each state about how gender affirming care should be done. Jack Turban sees no problem with this as he sees the threat of medical malpractice lawsuits as the appropriate regulator. Well that and state sanctioned medical boards.
I still believe, as Chase Strangio answered to Alitos question of 'how would you remedy this' that West Virginia provides a decent model.
But the problem with Gender Affirming Care is two fold: 1. the default is affirming the declared gender, which then clinically and socially elevates gender identity to a 'most important thing ' status. 2. It's self declared / self identified.
So you have a minor 'patient' who effectively self diagnoses themselves and then this drives everything.....puberty blockers , identity in school, etc.
There is no biological test for 'transgenderism'. With respect to Joannie Wilmer, perhaps an epigenetics blood test will someday provide such a test.
I'm looking for a different standard that acknowledges that young people like the three plaintiffs in Skrmetti do exist, and their suffering is real, and they should have a right to consider medical options, even risky, experimental ones.
And yet I can't abide by a system where a minor can say 'i am trans ' and an endocrine can say 'thats good enough for me, here are your puberty blockers / hormones '
This is just transhumanism, reverses a real biological phenomenon, sex and sexual orientation with a constructed subjective concept of gender identity. Gender identity depends on sex to make sense but also undermines it's priority so is parasitic on sex, philosophically speaking.
One study you guys didn't cite from 2024 also concurs with the idea that most patients in gender clinics are not exclusively attracted to their birth sex.
McKenna, J. L., Vu, A., McGregor, K., Williams, C. R., Rana, V., & Boskey, E. R. (2024). Sexual Orientation Labels Used by Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents and Young Adults Seeking Gender Affirming Hormones. Sexuality & Culture, 1-10.
The above study found 89.8% of assigned males did not describe as attracted only to birth sex (53/59) whilst for assigned females 19.7% of them were exclusively gynephiliac (25/127).
Strawmanning. All you do, in classic pomo style, is show that the rules are not absolute, that there are exceptions. But you don't dare touch the question why we should ever medicalise identities (fluid or not, queer or not) in the first place. The only half-decent point in here is that most trans people identify as something other than hetero. But it's kind of hard not to, when you've complicated things that way. You'd have to ask about actual orientation, not sexual identity.
This was so laden with cultural sub-group jargon as to be unreadable.
I transitioned from male to female, and I have always been sexually attracted to women. Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Well, that’s a nonsense statement. “Gender identity” and sexual orientation are obviously extremely highly correlated.
You’re ignorant about this. There are gay transgender people just as there are heterosexual transgender people. Most of you folks who are anti-trans don’t know any real transgender people.
Those people are statistical outliers. Look up the word “correlation” if you’re not familiar with it. For the vast majority of people, “gender identity” and sexual orientation conform to a predictable pattern.
Yes. Most people, cis-gender or transgender, are heterosexual. What’s your point?
You're full of it, you're hurting kids, and increasingly, everyone sees it. Stop digging.
There is no agreed standard within each state about how gender affirming care should be done. Jack Turban sees no problem with this as he sees the threat of medical malpractice lawsuits as the appropriate regulator. Well that and state sanctioned medical boards.
I still believe, as Chase Strangio answered to Alitos question of 'how would you remedy this' that West Virginia provides a decent model.
But the problem with Gender Affirming Care is two fold: 1. the default is affirming the declared gender, which then clinically and socially elevates gender identity to a 'most important thing ' status. 2. It's self declared / self identified.
So you have a minor 'patient' who effectively self diagnoses themselves and then this drives everything.....puberty blockers , identity in school, etc.
There is no biological test for 'transgenderism'. With respect to Joannie Wilmer, perhaps an epigenetics blood test will someday provide such a test.
I'm looking for a different standard that acknowledges that young people like the three plaintiffs in Skrmetti do exist, and their suffering is real, and they should have a right to consider medical options, even risky, experimental ones.
And yet I can't abide by a system where a minor can say 'i am trans ' and an endocrine can say 'thats good enough for me, here are your puberty blockers / hormones '
This is just transhumanism, reverses a real biological phenomenon, sex and sexual orientation with a constructed subjective concept of gender identity. Gender identity depends on sex to make sense but also undermines it's priority so is parasitic on sex, philosophically speaking.
One study you guys didn't cite from 2024 also concurs with the idea that most patients in gender clinics are not exclusively attracted to their birth sex.
McKenna, J. L., Vu, A., McGregor, K., Williams, C. R., Rana, V., & Boskey, E. R. (2024). Sexual Orientation Labels Used by Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents and Young Adults Seeking Gender Affirming Hormones. Sexuality & Culture, 1-10.
The above study found 89.8% of assigned males did not describe as attracted only to birth sex (53/59) whilst for assigned females 19.7% of them were exclusively gynephiliac (25/127).
See https://imgur.com/a/ejQKoYF for table...
Which still shows a substantial overrepresentation of lesbians compared to the general population so there you go.