Gender affirming care, does it help or hurt children?

[CountValentine]

If they are a no, why the age restriction? Either you're not including all treatments in "GAC", or you are not entirely a yes or no. Hence my point above:
For the billionth time, you can't have a discussion about if GAC is harmful or helpful without a clear definition of what it is.

Age restrictions are used all the time and are appropriate. Nothing they have said comes remotely close to a yes to the current question.

All I did was post the question someone suggested. I did not have any input. What question would you want?

The article in the BMJ says doctors are violating their oath to do no harm? LOL!!!

[Yehuda57]

Age restrictions are used all the time and are appropriate.

The article in the BMJ says doctors are violating their oath to do no harm? LOL!!!

Do you see the issue?

Age restrictions are used all the time and are appropriate. Nothing they have said comes remotely close to a yes to the current question.

Again, and I'll repeat it until you can answer the question, if surgeries are included in "GAC", why not provide them to minors? Either they are a YES on at least some parts of GAC, or GAC doesn't include those surgeries.

[CountValentine]

Again, and I'll repeat it until you can answer the question, if surgeries are included in "GAC", why not provide them to minors? Either they are a YES on at least some parts of GAC, or GAC doesn't include those surgeries.

You are making false assumptions. Why the age is at 17 and another at 18 and another at say 21, you would need at ask them. To claim that having an age restriction means they feel the doctors or hospital is doing harm is crazy talk.

[bochur22]

You are making false assumptions. Why the age is at 17 and another at 18 and another at say 21, you would need at ask them. To claim that having an age restriction means they feel the doctors or hospital is doing harm is crazy talk.

When the claim is the reason they need surgeries is because otherwise they'll become suicidal, then if there's the evidence, we don't have time to waste. If the condition sets in as early as 3 years old, can we really afford to wait until 18 to complete this necessary affirmation to prevent them from suicide?

[Yehuda57]

You are making false assumptions. Why the age is at 17 and another at 18 and another at say 21, you would need at ask them. To claim that having an age restriction means they feel the doctors or hospital is doing harm is crazy talk.

I don't have to ask them anything. If the hospital decided the age is 18, that means under 18 they decided it is not appropriate, in other words, GAC is not appropriate for under 18! They are saying that by virtue of their rules. So AGAIN, either the surgery is not part of GAC, or if it is, they believe GAC is harmful to under 18s.

To claim that having an age restriction means they feel the doctors or hospital is doing harm is crazy talk.

That is not even remotely close to anything anyone has said

[bochur22]

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-reinforces-opposition-restrictions-transgender-medical-care
 “Gender-affirming care is evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people.”

From the Duke University gender clinic website: Participate in Research to Help Future Generations
Because gender-affirming hormone therapy is a relatively new treatment, research is needed to study its long-term effects. As a Duke patient, you can choose to participate anonymously in research that is studying the long-term risks of hormone-affirming therapy. The information, which is collected anonymously, will help doctors better understand how to treat future generations safely and effectively with hormone therapy.

[CountValentine]

When the claim is the reason they need surgeries is because otherwise they'll become suicidal, then if there's the evidence, we don't have time to waste. If the condition sets in as early as 3 years old, can we really afford to wait until 18 to complete this necessary affirmation to prevent them from suicide?

Nobody mentioned suicide.

[bochur22]

Nobody mentioned suicide.

Educate me. What's the justification for the need for affirmation? I mean, d.ysphoria was a diagnosed condition for 40 years, but it wasn't treated with affirmation, hormones, or surgeries until about the last 5-10 years.

[CountValentine]

Educate me. What's the justification for the need for affirmation?

Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.

[zh cohen]

I don't have to ask them anything. If the hospital decided the age is 18, that means under 18 they decided it is not appropriate, in other words, GAC is not appropriate for under 18!

It is also significant that some hospitals lied and claimed not to be doing surgeries for minors when they actually were.

Apparently they recognized that what they were doing didn't look good and we're trying to hide it.

[CountValentine]

Current question: Does gender affirming care breach the doctrine of do no harm?
Current results: 8-0 yes
Supporting evidence ZERO!!!

[bochur22]

Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.

Ok. If it's evidence based, let's see side-by-side evidence comparing the way we treated this condition for 30 years with the way some changed in the last 5-10. Because just saying it helps on its own isn't a reason to change from the proven, standard methods we've always used. I mean, if you could solve these poor peoples issues without them possibly winding up with major side effects from hormones, sterilized, and missing body parts, shouldn't we do that?  I'd love to know why it's medically necessary. Because googling seems to bring up a lot about... Suicidal ideation?

[Yehuda57]

Current question: Does gender affirming care breach the doctrine of do no harm?
Current results: 8-0 yes
Supporting evidence ZERO!!!

You STILL have not defined GAC, despite me asking you to about 50 times.

[CountValentine]

Ok. If it's evidence based, let's see side-by-side evidence comparing the way we treated this condition for 30 years with the way some changed in the last 5-10. Because just saying it helps on its own isn't a reason to change from the proven, standard methods we've always used. I mean, if you could solve these poor peoples issues without them possibly winding up with major side effects from hormones, sterilized, and missing body parts, shouldn't we do that?  I'd love to know why it's medically necessary. Because googling seems to bring up a lot about... Suicidal ideation?

You are outspoken on this. You have researched it. Do you know of any major organization that says a doctor is violating their oath to do no harm by offering GAC?

[zh cohen]

Current question: Does gender affirming care breach the doctrine of do no harm?
Current results: 8-0 yes
Supporting evidence ZERO!!!

You know how little kids cover their eyes and think that means you can't see them? I'm getting that type of vibe here...

The question was not "does any major organization say that gender affirming care breach the doctrine of do no harm?"

The question was if it does.

I think that the evidence I provided to show that these permanent alterations to a person's body are being done based on little to no evidence is very good supporting evidence for the claim that it violates the doctrine of 'do no harm.'

If you disagree, please explain why.

[CountValentine]

You STILL have not defined GAC, despite me asking you to about 50 times.

I have answered it many times but you refuse to accept it.
ETA: Just one of the many times I answered it.

It is a multidisciplinary approach. It can be but limited to social affirmation, puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries. Just within those 4 categories there are sub-categories.

[bochur22]

You are outspoken on this. You have researched it. Do you know of any major organization that says a doctor is violating their oath to do no harm by offering GAC?

EVIDENCE PLEASE?

[CountValentine]

You know how little kids cover their eyes and think that means you can't see them? I'm getting that type of vibe here...

Now we agree.

[CountValentine]

EVIDENCE PLEASE?

Evidence you are outspoken on this? Other than me you probably posted the most.
Evidence on research on this? You have posted numerous sources for your different opinions.
Am I missing something?

[bochur22]

Am I missing something?

Evidence for this "evidence- based" position of all these associations. With these conditions:
If it's evidence based, let's see side-by-side evidence comparing the way we treated this condition for 30 years with the way some changed in the last 5-10. Because just saying it helps on its own isn't a reason to change from the proven, standard methods we've always used. I mean, if you could solve these poor peoples issues without them possibly winding up with major side effects from hormones, sterilized, and missing body parts, shouldn't we do that?