CEB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 10:41 am
The guardian has for some reason completely thrown its lot in with trans activism, and despite that is still called transphobic by trans activists. They’ve so far dealt with the slow car crash of trans ideology coming into contact with reality by looking the other way wherever possible
Why is it a trans ideology if it was approved and supported by NHS medical practitioners.
Has a different set of medical practitioners taken over and imposed a new ideology on tbe NHS?
Your first question A: doesn’t make sense B: demonstrates your ignorance of the fact that one of the most important reasons for this practice being stopped is that practitioners and whistleblowers inside gender clinics raised concerns and were demonised for doing so.
Your second question is answered by the fact that the interim Cass report uncovered the fact there is scant evidence base for prescribing puberty blockers as a “pause button”, and the final review is due any time now.
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:35 am
Your first question A: doesn’t make sense B: demonstrates your ignorance of the fact that one of the most important reasons for this practice being stopped is that practitioners and whistleblowers inside gender clinics raised concerns and were demonised for doing so.
Your second question is answered by the fact that the interim Cass report uncovered the fact there is scant evidence base for prescribing puberty blockers as a “pause button”, and the final review is due any time now.
Anything else?
Yes. How long have doctors been such ideologues?
If the previous medical practice was an ideology why isn't the new practice ideological? Is medicine just an ideology controlled by whoever wins control of the levers of power within the NHS?
1: gender medicine has been ideological in basis since the adoption of an “affirmation only” model highly influenced by lobby groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids successfully sought to cast concerns about “gender identity” as a modern equivalent of homophobia, framing “the best outcome for a dysphoric child is reconciliation with their healthy body” as conversion therapy.
2. “Why isn’t the new practice ideological?” Is a bizarre question, fundamentally ignorant of what is actually happening, but the reason that the decision to stop giving puberty blockers to young people as a treatment for dysphoria is clearly not ideological is because
* the decision is based on the demonstrable fact that there is an absence of evidence to support it
* the decision is grounded in the principle “first do no harm”
* the decision is moderate in that it is allowing existing treatment to continue
* there is a clear roadmap towards there being clinical trials to try to establish the evidence base that is lacking, after which an informed decision could be made
Man, I can see why you prefer just telling me that I’m drifting to the right.
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:49 am
1: gender medicine has been ideological in basis since the adoption of an “affirmation only” model highly influenced by lobby groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids successfully sought to cast concerns about “gender identity” as a modern equivalent of homophobia, framing “the best outcome for a dysphoric child is reconciliation with their healthy body” as conversion therapy.
2. “Why isn’t the new practice ideological?” Is a bizarre question, fundamentally ignorant of what is actually happening, but the reason that the decision to stop giving puberty blockers to young people as a treatment for dysphoria is clearly not ideological is because
* the decision is based on the demonstrable fact that there is an absence of evidence to support it
* the decision is grounded in the principle “first do no harm”
* the decision is moderate in that it is allowing existing treatment to continue
* there is a clear roadmap towards there being clinical trials to try to establish the evidence base that is lacking, after which an informed decision could be made
Man, I can see why you prefer just telling me that I’m drifting to the right.
What you say in 2 contradicts the opening sentence in 1.
Medicine it appears is ruled by ideology and not scientific enquiry. It just depends on which ideologues are in charge of medical practice at any one time.
That’s an assertion without basis. Just repeating “it’s all ideologues” is nonsensical, unless you can actually give a substantial account of what is ideological about pausing a treatment until there is an evidence base to support its safe and effective use.
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:07 pm
That’s an assertion without basis. Just repeating “it’s all ideologues” is nonsensical, unless you can actually give a substantial account of what is ideological about pausing a treatment until there is an evidence base to support its safe and effective use.
If the treatment has been stopped due to lack of evidence, surely it must have been medical practitioner led ideology that initiated it?
If, when collected, the evidence base supports the treatment I'm assuming you will be fully on board with the science.
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:07 pm
That’s an assertion without basis. Just repeating “it’s all ideologues” is nonsensical, unless you can actually give a substantial account of what is ideological about pausing a treatment until there is an evidence base to support its safe and effective use.
If the treatment has been stopped due to lack of evidence, surely it must have been medical practitioner led ideology that initiated it?
If, when collected, the evidence base supports the treatment I'm assuming you will be fully on board with the science.
You seem a bit confused.
As I already said, the ideology was led by lobby groups who had great success in calling for the introduction of an affirmation only approach, and who created a hostile atmosphere for dissenters, leading to a lot of this stuff being adopted by the back door.
Your gotcha is ridiculous; if a robust clinical trial is designed that concludes that puberty blockers do not cause physical harm to children, and that the use of them does not rail road distressed children towards surgical and hormonal “transition”, sexual disfunction and infertility, then I would of course change my view in light of new evidence.
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:07 pm
That’s an assertion without basis. Just repeating “it’s all ideologues” is nonsensical, unless you can actually give a substantial account of what is ideological about pausing a treatment until there is an evidence base to support its safe and effective use.
If the treatment has been stopped due to lack of evidence, surely it must have been medical practitioner led ideology that initiated it?
If, when collected, the evidence base supports the treatment I'm assuming you will be fully on board with the science.
You seem a bit confused.
As I already said, the ideology was led by lobby groups who had great success in calling for the introduction of an affirmation only approach, and who created a hostile atmosphere for dissenters, leading to a lot of this stuff being adopted by the back door.
Your gotcha is ridiculous; if a robust clinical trial is designed that concludes that puberty blockers do not cause physical harm to children, and that the use of them does not rail road distressed children towards surgical and hormonal “transition”, sexual disfunction and infertility, then I would of course change my view in light of new evidence.
So the ideologues won out over the medical practitioners, who were brow beaten into submission and had no real part to play in developing the treatment.
I simply don't believe your 2nd para. Your ideology won't let you accept the evidence. You are too emotionally invested in this great "cause" of yours
Well, thats a reflection on your inability to recognise that my objections to trans ideology are entirely based on its incoherence and the potential harms that may arise as a result.
I do love the sheer cheek of saying
“I don’t believe you’d change your mind if evidence was found that contradicted your opinion”
when the context we are in is that a practice has been stopped due to absence of evidence that it works, and yet Max’yyy seems unable to say “and it’s right that it’s been stopped if there’s no evidence to support its use. Let’s wait and see what the evidence shows”
I for one at definitely 100% up for basing my opinion on the evidence.
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:44 pm
So the ideologues won out over the medical practitioners, who were brow beaten into submission and had no real part to play in developing the treatment.
That's pretty much what has happened in many areas, including some instances of public policy, isn't it?
Although, I wouldn't say it's necessarily being brow beaten. More like institutions, which should know better, outsourcing their critical thinking, diligence and decision making to organisations that have positioned themselves through "progressive credentials" as credible arbitrators of policy. And as a means of avoiding the risk of doing anything that could fall foul of the mob, and result in reputational harm or a credit downgrade due to a poor ESG score.
Having read the clinical panel report it seems entirely sensible and not quite what the headline reporting is suggesting.
Happy to admit I was wrong about the Tavistock, I believed they were consistently following the best practice they claimed. I also think the Cass report was reasonable and makes sensible recommendations.
There is nothing in the Cass report or the NHS guidance that says gender dysphoria is not real or that people shouldn't get clinical support where needed. I think it is absolutely right there is very careful consideration given on the balance of risks before prescribing kids puberty blockers, my mistake was believing this was already happening consistently.
Also, 'it's almost as if....' is in my opinion the messageboard equivalent of 'That's the tweet'.
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:01 pm
Having read the clinical panel report it seems entirely sensible and not quite what the headline reporting is suggesting.
Happy to admit I was wrong about the Tavistock, I believed they were consistently following the best practice they claimed. I also think the Cass report was reasonable and makes sensible recommendations.
There is nothing in the Cass report or the NHS guidance that says gender dysphoria is not real or that people shouldn't get clinical support where needed. I think it is absolutely right there is very careful consideration given on the balance of risks before prescribing kids puberty blockers, my mistake was believing this was already happening consistently.
Also, 'it's almost as if....' is in my opinion the messageboard equivalent of 'That's the tweet'.
Fair post.
All I’d take issue with is that there is no claim that gender dysphoria is not real - it’d be crazy to proclaim that.
The issue is about whether dysphoria actually means that some male children are actually female (and vice versa) and whether the best treatment model is to adapt the body to match the claim about identity, or to maintain that the best outcome is that a child with dysphoria reconciles with their sex.
(and further to that, whether the concept of gender identity should overwrite the concept of sex in law and public policy)
I (genuinely) hope you understand that the most significant issue I had with you on this was your strident certainty that this must be happening, especially as it happened in a context where the mainstream trans organisations were actively reliant on evading scrutiny, to the point where if you are on the left/progressive, you literally had to risk friendships to be able to say “there is something iffy happening here”
A question you might want to reflect on is *why* trans activism decided to go ahead of the evidence on this (and demonise those pointing it out)
And if you’re ever inclined, I’d genuinely be interested in whether you recognise that your early comment about “everything about her presents as female” was based on an ideological acceptance that a feminine male is best viewed as being actually female - those assertions are part of how trans activism has been normalised despite a very poor evidence base
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:44 pm
So the ideologues won out over the medical practitioners, who were brow beaten into submission and had no real part to play in developing the treatment.
That's pretty much what has happened in many areas, including some instances of public policy, isn't it?
Although, I wouldn't say it's necessarily being brow beaten. More like institutions, which should know better, outsourcing their critical thinking, diligence and decision making to organisations that have positioned themselves through "progressive credentials" as credible arbitrators of policy. And as a means of avoiding the risk of doing anything that could fall foul of the mob, and result in reputational harm or a credit downgrade due to a poor ESG score.
Thank you for a very clear explanation. So am I right in saying a new set of ideologues have taken over the policy reigns and that come what may they will act in accordance with the long awaited evidence?
In all seriousness Max, in the time of your little boarding sabbatical, this thread has moved on from the tedious mud slinging and has been a bit more focused on the substance. I’m not at all interested in retreading previous nonsense on this, the conversation has moved on.
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:44 pm
So the ideologues won out over the medical practitioners, who were brow beaten into submission and had no real part to play in developing the treatment.
That's pretty much what has happened in many areas, including some instances of public policy, isn't it?
Although, I wouldn't say it's necessarily being brow beaten. More like institutions, which should know better, outsourcing their critical thinking, diligence and decision making to organisations that have positioned themselves through "progressive credentials" as credible arbitrators of policy. And as a means of avoiding the risk of doing anything that could fall foul of the mob, and result in reputational harm or a credit downgrade due to a poor ESG score.
Thank you for a very clear explanation. So am I right in saying a new set of ideologues have taken over the policy reigns and that come what may they will act in accordance with the long awaited evidence?
You’re not actually making any sense here. As Mick McQuaid noted above, the actual thing that has happened is not the “yay! Instantly there is no more hormone treatment given at the behest of pedo groomers!!!” that is being claimed by actual right wing nut jobs who hate gender non conformity. It’s an eminently sensible recalibration to gather actual robust evidence about a contentious area of paediatrics.
That's pretty much what has happened in many areas, including some instances of public policy, isn't it?
Although, I wouldn't say it's necessarily being brow beaten. More like institutions, which should know better, outsourcing their critical thinking, diligence and decision making to organisations that have positioned themselves through "progressive credentials" as credible arbitrators of policy. And as a means of avoiding the risk of doing anything that could fall foul of the mob, and result in reputational harm or a credit downgrade due to a poor ESG score.
Thank you for a very clear explanation. So am I right in saying a new set of ideologues have taken over the policy reigns and that come what may they will act in accordance with the long awaited evidence?
You’re not actually making any sense here. As Mick McQuaid noted above, the actual thing that has happened is not the “yay! Instantly there is no more hormone treatment given at the behest of pedo groomers!!!” that is being claimed by actual right wing nut jobs who hate gender non conformity. It’s an eminently sensible recalibration to gather actual robust evidence about a contentious area of paediatrics.
Agreed. Progress has been made in this area of medical concern and it also appears we have all been instrumental in winning you back from your former allies.
