Dylan Mulvaney

[TexasTiger 12,947]

8 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

All valid questions. 

Still, you only present one side.  What about those who are now happy?  Do you consider those people?

I don’t exactly see many folks here laying out both the point & the counterpoint, but rather responding to another’s point. For example, I don’t see many folks who disagree with me recognizing the experimental nature of most of these medical treatments.
 

But certainly I consider the folks who believe they ultimately benefit, although with young people it’s challenging to determine what the time window should be for that assessment. Up until fairly recently (10-15 or more years ago) most minors receiving any medical treatment met a prior definition and process before receiving such medication or surgeries. For people who transitioned 15 or more years ago, I suspect there is a far lower incidence of regret. That appears to be the population Norway is continuing to provide medical interventions to, still recognizing it’s experimental. I’m more comfortable with that approach.

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Are you genuinely unaware of the huge spike in adolescents identifying as transgender?

 

But that's not what you said, which was:

"Experimental drugs & surgeries, particularly when there’s been a huge spike, on children don’t require hysteria to illicit concerns."

... which is not very clear, but it suggests you were saying a big spike (in the use of) experimental drugs and surgeries which is not the same thing.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

1) Do you have data on the long-term impact of puberty blockers? Cross sex hormones? Surgery? It’s too soon to have it. It’s experimental by definition.

No I don't.  Not my field and I don't care to research it.  But I wouldn't call any of these "experimental" from a scientific (medical) standpoint.  Again not my field and not particularly interested in it as it's never affected me personally.  I am willing to leave such matters up to the professionals in that field.

I do have a pretty good appreciation for the long term effects of suicide though.

Edited June 5, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,947]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No I don't.  Not my field and I don't care to research it.  But I wouldn't call any of these "experimental" from a scientific (medical) standpoint.  Again not my field and not particularly interested in it as it's never affected me personally.  I am willing to leave such matters up to the professional in that field.

I do have a pretty good appreciation for the long term effects of suicide though.

Would you consider drugs used off label for purposes not approved by the FDA experimental?

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

You can choose to support experimental treatment of minors, but don’t fool yourself into believing you’re supporting something with scientifically vetted long-term outcomes.

You're "begging the question". 

First, I don't "support" anything, certainly not "experimental treatment of minors".  

Again, for reason of my lack of expertise in the matter, I don't have standing to support - or oppose - any sort of treatment for these patients.  But I have read the various guidelines published by the experts through their associated organizations and they seem reasonable to me.

If that's "fooling myself" so be it.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Would you consider drugs used off label for purposes not approved by the FDA experimental?

For myself?  It depends.   I've done it.

Happens all the time so it's not uncommon.  So it would be up to me and my doctor.

Edited June 5, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,947]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

For myself?  It depends. 

Happens all the time so it's not uncommon.  That would be up to me and my doctor.

Is that experimental?

[homersapien 11,385]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Is that experimental?

Well, I suppose one could say it (off label use) probably started that way.  Many psychiatric drugs were established on such "try it out and see what happens" basis.

But I would presume in most cases there was an initiating rationale based on the known mechanism of action of the drug.

 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, I suppose one could say it (off label use) probably started that way.  Many psychiatric drugs were established on such "try it out and see what happens" basis.

But I would presume in most cases there was an initiating rationale based on the known mechanism of action of the drug.

 

It’s legal, but not regulated. And certainly not tested for the use being applied. 

[homersapien 11,385]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s legal, but not regulated. And certainly not tested for the use being applied. 

Sorry, but what's "it"?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Just now, homersapien said:

Sorry, but what's "it"?

Off label usage.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sorry but I don't rely on medical information from some opinion writer for the Heritage organization.   

 

Regarding the NIH article:

Abstract

"Gender-affirming treatment remains a topic of controversy; of particular concern is whether gender-affirming treatment reduces suicidality. A narrative review was undertaken evaluating suicide-related outcomes following gender-affirming surgery, hormones, and/or puberty blockers. Of the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the majority indicated a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment; however, the literature to date suffers from a lack of methodological rigor that increases the risk of type I error. There is a need for continued research in suicidality outcomes following gender-affirming treatment that adequately controls for the presence of psychiatric comorbidity and treatment, substance use, and other suicide risk-enhancing and reducing factors. There is also a need for future systematic reviews given the inherent limitations of a narrative review. There may be implications on the informed consent process of gender-affirming treatment given the current lack of methodological robustness of the literature reviewed."

That all sounds reasonable to me.  What's your point?

My point(s) really aren’t that complicated:

1) Sexuality, in any form, is not a topic for schools to address.  Much like faith, and should be left to the family

2) As many people like to point out, the brain is not done developing in children, and therefore taking medical steps that are irreversible or can result in lasting damage should not be taken - ESPECIALLY in states that want it to do so without parental consent.  

3) Biological males should not, in any circumstances, compete athletically against biological females.  

4) If someone wants to dress as the opposite sex, I have no issue with that and can agree that is their “right”, but to try and force others to agree with it is equally wrong.  I’m not giving anyone a license to be nasty, disrespectful or violent but forcing people to agree with something that isn’t true is just wrong.  

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

What makes you believe that is actually happening?  Do you think these individuals are not vetted, emotionally, psychologically?  Do you think this is like getting a nose job?

Are you actually asking whether or not children are being subjected to permanent gender mutilation and hormones that can have irreversible consequences?   

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

And "most people" are laymen who are virtually ignorant regarding the issues.  In other words they have no idea of what they are talking about.  

They have latched on to the narrative that puberty blockers and surgery are being prescribed inappropriately on large numbers of patients, only because that's a narrative they can easily understand and react to regardless of the actual facts.

It's politically-based hysteria.

 

I agree - the left is making an issue of something that absolutely should not be an issue.   This is akin to trying to normalize child abuse.  

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) Of course that's the issue.  Duuuuuh! 

It's obvious.  It's just as obvious that is the primary risk issue for the patients, their parents, and professionals treating those patients.  I am confident that all parties concerned recognize that.

My point is it's not the business of state governments. If they want to commission a study to determine the facts, fine.  But until then, it's not something for those governments to be regulating. 

2) Good question.  I don't know.  But I am pretty sure it likely varies from individual to individual.  There are a lot of factors in that decision and the only ones in a position to assess those factors are the patient, their parents and the professionals treating them.

3) I don't know what you mean by "rushing to affirming care".  Are you referring to hormones or surgery?  Or are you referring to any therapy that facilitates the patient's living with their self identification?

Regardless, therapy is the first step in care. Presumably, that therapy first explores the possibility of simply accommodating or attenuating the gender dysphoria until such a point the patient can make a mature decision about how they want - or must - live the rest of their life. 

If the therapy is designed to attenuate the patient's self identity, the dysphoria goes away. (Presumably, this is what happens to the casual or "faddist" transsexuals.)

If it's accommodating or supporting, that is inherently affirming the patients self identification, with or without medical treatment.

In any case "rushing" is a generalized accusation that means nothing without supporting context.  I don't think a professional therapists or psychologist would condone "rushing".

Duhh?  Nice response.  A lot of words to summarize what you typed in bold - that you don’t know.  
 

My point is really simple, as I highlighted above - we don’t let children get tattoos or fake breasts - why would we allow them to take puberty blockers, hormones and have irreversible surgery until their hormones and brains have a chance to fully develop?   
 

No issue at all with therapy, but rushing to “affirm” rather than “treat” seems “bass ackwards”.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Are you actually asking whether or not children are being subjected to permanent gender mutilation and hormones that can have irreversible consequences?   

I understand puberty blockers are being administered.  I understand that some are given hormone treatment.  However, mutilation of genitalia (I have no idea what "permanent gender mutilation is) is absolutely not happening in this country.

[GoAU 1,600]

16 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I understand puberty blockers are being administered.  I understand that some are given hormone treatment.  However, mutilation of genitalia (I have no idea what "permanent gender mutilation is) is absolutely not happening in this country.

Just a couple of examples:

 

Top surgeries

U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis

2019: 238

 

238

2020: 256

 

256

2021: 282

 

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

 

Gender-affirming surgery includes a wide range of procedures, from plastic surgery to change facial features to so-called “top surgery” to change the chest or torso and so-called “bottom surgery” to make changes to genitals. 

Teens who are 16 to 17 years old are generally limited to receiving only “top surgeries,” and they must be “consistent and persistent” in their gender identity for years, take gender-affirming hormones for some time and have approvals from both their parents and doctors, according to Aryn Fields, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

282https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-transgender-surgery-medicine-legislation-LGBTQ-491630629027

 

 

Surgery

Gender-altering surgery in teens is less common than hormone treatment, but many centers hesitate to give exact numbers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/what-medical-treatments-do-transgender-youth-get
 

I tried to pick a few left leaning sources to not be accused of cherry picking, but I think you’ll agree that there is no way you can say it is “absolutely not happening”.   In addition, it is happening at increased rates   

 

[Gowebb11 9,328]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Biological males should not, in any circumstances, compete athletically against biological females.

Amen. We have a lot of complex issues facing us currently but this one is pretty simple to me. 

[Gowebb11 9,328]

This thread made me reflect on the arbitrary age restrictions we have in their country:

*some are advocating for kids as young as 15 or 16  to have potent and potentially harmful hormone therapy

*you can buy an assault rifle at 18

*you have to be 21 to buy a beer. 
 

Just seems misaligned to me. (Somewhat off topic but the it’s how my mind works. 😅)

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Gowebb11

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I understand puberty blockers are being administered.  I understand that some are given hormone treatment.  However, mutilation of genitalia (I have no idea what "permanent gender mutilation is) is absolutely not happening in this country.

So, normally I blow off the patented “ICHY facepalm” but couldn’t help but wondering what it was you either disagreed with on this post below, or where it is you stand on the issue?  
 

I understand what you don’t agree with, but honestly want to understand what you are advocating for?  
 

 

My point(s) really aren’t that complicated:

1) Sexuality, in any form, is not a topic for schools to address.  Much like faith, and should be left to the family

2) As many people like to point out, the brain is not done developing in children, and therefore taking medical steps that are irreversible or can result in lasting damage should not be taken - ESPECIALLY in states that want it to do so without parental consent.  

3) Biological males should not, in any circumstances, compete athletically against biological females.  

4) If someone wants to dress as the opposite sex, I have no issue with that and can agree that is their “right”, but to try and force others to agree with it is equally wrong.  I’m not giving anyone a license to be nasty, disrespectful or violent but forcing people to agree with something that isn’t true is just wrong.  

[homersapien 11,385]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Off label usage.

Then, yes. 

Such "off label" use has not been specifically approved for that application, but trust me, the more relevant data - which was filed on it's original application -  on safety,  does exist.

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

(I do have a (little) experience in FDA drug approval, even if indirect.)

Edited June 6, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

My point(s) really aren’t that complicated:

1) Sexuality, in any form, is not a topic for schools to address.  Much like faith, and should be left to the family

2) As many people like to point out, the brain is not done developing in children, and therefore taking medical steps that are irreversible or can result in lasting damage should not be taken - ESPECIALLY in states that want it to do so without parental consent.  

3) Biological males should not, in any circumstances, compete athletically against biological females.  

4) If someone wants to dress as the opposite sex, I have no issue with that and can agree that is their “right”, but to try and force others to agree with it is equally wrong.  I’m not giving anyone a license to be nasty, disrespectful or violent but forcing people to agree with something that isn’t true is just wrong.  

Fine.  I acknowledge your points.

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

Amen. We have a lot of complex issues facing us currently but this one is pretty simple to me. 

Great!

Let's take that off the table and quit using it to attack Transsexuals.  Works for me! 

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

This thread made me reflect on the arbitrary age restrictions we have in their country:

*some are advocating for kids as young as 15 or 16  to have potent and potentially harmful hormone therapy

*you can buy an assault rifle at 18

*you have to be 21 to buy a beer. 
 

Just seems misaligned to me. (Somewhat off topic but the it’s how my mind works. 😅)

 

Yeah! 

You'd think actual nature (reality) would necessarily conform to our legal/political definitions of such questions (in particular)! 

Edited June 6, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,947]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Then, yes. 

Such "off label" use has not been specifically approved for that application, but trust me, the more relevant data - which was filed on it's original application -  on safety,  does exist.

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

(I do have a (little) experience in FDA drug approval, even if indirect.)

“Safety” in a broad FDA sense— ever seen a drug commercial?

But they have no way of knowing long-term consequences and yet the level of assurance constantly given is safe, reversible, etc. without strong evidence those things are true. And a side effect of Lupron is suicidal ideation.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/19844-leuprolide-depot-injection

And there are folks enduring numerous adverse effects:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/