If genitalia doesn't assign gender, how does removing genitalia affirm gender?
Adults are adults. Most minors can not comprehend the impact a decision of this magnitude will have on the rest of their lives. There are many things minors can not do that adults can, and for good reason.
The results of Littman's survey of 100 detransitioners are consistent with your arguments - it shows that the median time to point of decision to detransition was 4 years, and that 75% of them never informed their clinic that they detransitioned.
There needs to be studies from non biased sources. Any woman who undergoes a double mastectomy is bound to have regrets. I would throw this study in the circular file!
Further, influential "gender" psychologist, Diane Ehrensaft recently invented 4 more categories: "gender Prius, gender minotaur, gender by season, gender by location." Does this indicate hedging on the "pervasive, insistent and persistent" belief that one's body is wrong? An analysis of Ehrensaft's nonsensical non-science of ideation:
This study is absolutely consistent with the behavior of the medical profession: claim the ethical high ground while doing whatever pays the best. They're just using a flawed study to support their actions, and of course sticking together like glue.
It amazes me to compare how transgender studies in general are being drafted and reported versus medical studies related to the other big medically-related event of our time - covid.
During year one of the recent pandemic, if a possible treatment regimine had a small sample size and the former President merely said, "I hear that the Germans have found bat poop derived drugs are helpful managing some of the symptoms, so that's a hopeful sign.". We were quickly lectured, using some of the standards referenced above, usually small sample sizes with certain other common sense limiting factors, about what was wrong with the bat poop drugs situation referenced. Forget whether or not there was validity to the Germans initially determining that the bat poop drugs in the smaller sample actually did reduce certain complicating symptoms, and further study was needed in order to determine if this was a helpful treatment during the interim for a novel disease. The fact that the former President dared to utter an opinion made the possible treatment non verboten (?) until it was determined otherwise. And how dare a doctor express concerns in usually far leftist governed states for expressing concerns over aspects of how public health officials were managing the pandemic.
But now, turn the tables on transgender matters and if the sample size is small and there are basic common sense flaws that even my great-grandparents (I was blessed to have three in my life well past early childhood) could understand why there is a problem either on their own or when simply explained, these same qualification issues during covid do not matter to these people. These issues are to be ignored and if you dare raise them, the usual far leftist epithet charges of bigotry, anti this and that, etc. are raised. And of course, if you are a medical or scientific research professional who raises questions about these studies, same applies over covid public policy - you should be barred from the profession for not touting the party line.
As someone who has been both on a giving and receiving (ouch) end of peer review process, I am completely appalled that this article is published in any journal, much less a high-ranking one like JAMA. Shame on everyone - the authors, the editors, the reviewers. It shows that they care nothing about scientific truth or real well-being of their patients.
The fact that nearly every academic and journalistic institution in the world has been infiltrated by gender ideologues should be terrifying to humanity. JAMA is publishing quackery to push the mutilation and sterilization of children. Why? Who at the editorial board is compromised? These people need to be ferreted out and removed from their positions so our world can return to normalcy.
I was very sad to hear a recent episode of the 'Skeptics Guide to the Universe' (Stephen Novella) fully endorse the JAMA article and mock any criticism of it....
The podcast "Skeptic's guide to the Universe", which used to be dedicated to science, praise this article in episode 495. They call it "rigorous", and say it confirms other studies showing low regret. They do mention that all it's subjects are adults, but say that's because noone does this surgery on children ....
They even repeat the imbecile argument about surgical regret. "Even mastectomy for breast cancer have much higher regret rates.
I shouldn't be surprised, or disappointed, but I am. I used to listen to them all the time.
Nothin' like a guy walkin' into a McGender clinic carrying a big confederate flag, notifying them that he fiiiiiinally realized he was on the wrong side after all, and is really a Union fem/trans-womany-thingy-whatever it is after all!
Well, at least that's how he feels now after being shot In the head, and buried for quite a long time, before Matt Walsh dug him up!
If genitalia doesn't assign gender, how does removing genitalia affirm gender?
Adults are adults. Most minors can not comprehend the impact a decision of this magnitude will have on the rest of their lives. There are many things minors can not do that adults can, and for good reason.
Great points!
The results of Littman's survey of 100 detransitioners are consistent with your arguments - it shows that the median time to point of decision to detransition was 4 years, and that 75% of them never informed their clinic that they detransitioned.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w
There needs to be studies from non biased sources. Any woman who undergoes a double mastectomy is bound to have regrets. I would throw this study in the circular file!
Further, influential "gender" psychologist, Diane Ehrensaft recently invented 4 more categories: "gender Prius, gender minotaur, gender by season, gender by location." Does this indicate hedging on the "pervasive, insistent and persistent" belief that one's body is wrong? An analysis of Ehrensaft's nonsensical non-science of ideation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sW89rFdrik
OMG. This sounds like a comics episode.
Pathetically stupid!
This is a very thorough and sound analysis of the scientific data.
This study is absolutely consistent with the behavior of the medical profession: claim the ethical high ground while doing whatever pays the best. They're just using a flawed study to support their actions, and of course sticking together like glue.
Also, breast reduction surgery already has an extremely high rate of satisfaction https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22964671/
Cosmetic surgery won’t change your sex though.
Or, lesss charitably, using statistics to market lies to confused and vulnerable populations.
It amazes me to compare how transgender studies in general are being drafted and reported versus medical studies related to the other big medically-related event of our time - covid.
During year one of the recent pandemic, if a possible treatment regimine had a small sample size and the former President merely said, "I hear that the Germans have found bat poop derived drugs are helpful managing some of the symptoms, so that's a hopeful sign.". We were quickly lectured, using some of the standards referenced above, usually small sample sizes with certain other common sense limiting factors, about what was wrong with the bat poop drugs situation referenced. Forget whether or not there was validity to the Germans initially determining that the bat poop drugs in the smaller sample actually did reduce certain complicating symptoms, and further study was needed in order to determine if this was a helpful treatment during the interim for a novel disease. The fact that the former President dared to utter an opinion made the possible treatment non verboten (?) until it was determined otherwise. And how dare a doctor express concerns in usually far leftist governed states for expressing concerns over aspects of how public health officials were managing the pandemic.
But now, turn the tables on transgender matters and if the sample size is small and there are basic common sense flaws that even my great-grandparents (I was blessed to have three in my life well past early childhood) could understand why there is a problem either on their own or when simply explained, these same qualification issues during covid do not matter to these people. These issues are to be ignored and if you dare raise them, the usual far leftist epithet charges of bigotry, anti this and that, etc. are raised. And of course, if you are a medical or scientific research professional who raises questions about these studies, same applies over covid public policy - you should be barred from the profession for not touting the party line.
As someone who has been both on a giving and receiving (ouch) end of peer review process, I am completely appalled that this article is published in any journal, much less a high-ranking one like JAMA. Shame on everyone - the authors, the editors, the reviewers. It shows that they care nothing about scientific truth or real well-being of their patients.
The fact that nearly every academic and journalistic institution in the world has been infiltrated by gender ideologues should be terrifying to humanity. JAMA is publishing quackery to push the mutilation and sterilization of children. Why? Who at the editorial board is compromised? These people need to be ferreted out and removed from their positions so our world can return to normalcy.
The Rainbow Hitler Youth movement needs to end.
I was very sad to hear a recent episode of the 'Skeptics Guide to the Universe' (Stephen Novella) fully endorse the JAMA article and mock any criticism of it....
The podcast "Skeptic's guide to the Universe", which used to be dedicated to science, praise this article in episode 495. They call it "rigorous", and say it confirms other studies showing low regret. They do mention that all it's subjects are adults, but say that's because noone does this surgery on children ....
They even repeat the imbecile argument about surgical regret. "Even mastectomy for breast cancer have much higher regret rates.
I shouldn't be surprised, or disappointed, but I am. I used to listen to them all the time.
https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcasts/episode-945
All of those surgeons should lose their licenses and they should serve jail time.
Of course!$$$$$$$! Double mastectomies of healthy breasts in those under 28 or more should be illegal !
"McGender clinic". HA!
I am going to steal/use that!
Did Walsh really do that? A "Confederate"?
Dang, I would have loved to have seen that!
Nothin' like a guy walkin' into a McGender clinic carrying a big confederate flag, notifying them that he fiiiiiinally realized he was on the wrong side after all, and is really a Union fem/trans-womany-thingy-whatever it is after all!
Well, at least that's how he feels now after being shot In the head, and buried for quite a long time, before Matt Walsh dug him up!
🤪
I absolutely agree with you.