I'm willing to bet many who get the GAC treatment don't just stop at "talking" they go full tilt, knee-deep into surgery, whenever that happens is not relevant. Foot in the door technique. Once someone has been exposed to an appealing idea, it's difficult to erase from the subconscious. You can argue ideas are irrelevant, you'd be wrong. Pen is mightier than the sword. WW2 veterans will not wake up one day and stop thinking about their dead friends.
You mean like the appealing idea that GAC is a big conspiracy?
Gender affirmation surgery is not an appealing idea. To prove this, I'd like you to consider getting surgery to change your gender. Sound appealing? Didn't think so.
So we just believe everyone who didn't get to transition is dead. got it. That'll make the parents happy to know. Good little guilt trip there. But Where are the people that didn't transition and didn't regret it. I'd love to know if those people even exist at this point in the debate. Oh right, they're happily married with 5 kids. What a story, lots of faffing about! Genetics sorts it out between those who are in it for the fad and those who no longer care about it.
It was the premise. Again I must take you back to the premise. I have no idea why you would be against GAC to save the life of a child. This does not mean that everyone who does not receive it dies. I, for example, did not receive any kind of medical GAC, and I did not die. There are people that do not transition and do not regret it. I'm one of them, I think you are as well. But there are more. There are also people that do transition and regret it. And nothing I have said suggests otherwise.
You should consider addressing the question head on instead of continually side stepping. If GAC is the best medical course to save the life of a suicidal child, why are you unwilling to support it?
Straight humans being the genetic ideal does not change whatsoever.
Ooof. BIIIIIG oof. I don't know what a genetic ideal is. Genes don't have a brain, and so they cannot abstract to an "ideal". Genes just do what genes do, propagate, mutate, propagate more if they can. Given that our own genes have been honed by millions of years of evolution, I'd say that our genes are as close to the genetic "ideal" as we have any example of. By that I mean the genes of every member of every species on the planet are at the best arrangement evolution has been capable of delivering. All of the genes of all of life must be taken in aggregate to consider this. The genes of an earthworm are as honed as they can be at this point, just like the genes of a gay human. Some number of gay members seem to be stable in the animal population - ideal in that one respect. Have you ever considered googling "what is the evolutionary function of homosexuality" it is an interesting read. I'll clue you in, the answer is not "nothing".
Not that we're talking about homosexuality here, we're talking about transgender issues. One can be trans and straight.
If Karen at walmart wants to transition, then de-transition. Who cares? Nobody should. But people do.
You apparently do since you want to stop Karen.
This is odd. I'll agree what you're recommending is odd. You'd risk giving someone enough steroids to kill them by the time they're 35 years old because "it's what they wanted"/ Whereas locking that person up for a few years in the psych ward, if necessary is all the rehabilitation they'd require. Come out after a few years, get on a normal treatment plan and live to their 70s. 35 vs 70. Go figure. You know very little about long term damage of steroid use.
And now I must bring you back to the premise of this statement as well. If steroids are for some reason needed to save the life of a child, I'm all for it, and I still do not see why you would not be. Again, you must assume the premise here to evaluate the statement. Locking someone in a padded cell is not a great treatment course, and may result in later suicide risk as well.
Don't have to dig far in search of the ex-gay and detransition movement... As usual science has failed to prove due to lack of monetary incentives , i.e. nobody will fund this. but people know by word of mouth. What really goes on is known by word of mouth. Not science. Sure it is risky to only rely on anecdotes and word of mouth regarding this topic. But it's powerful when nothing else is measured or yet to be measured. Science being born of philosophy doesn't negate the fact it's only a tool to find a direction. Sure a useful tool, the best we have but when it relies on money, and that money isn't there. Then science is no longer of use to people in that field. People will make their own decisions and inform themselves with or without science. Scientists ,Ex-scientists do not have to adhere to the scientific method in their personal life. Nobody has to and nobody does. That's the human condition. Imperfections and faults.
The funny thing is that science is about the truth rather than about money. There is a lot of money in denying science, a LOT, and people try. But they fail because science is actually a process that involves coming face to face with reality. It would be very lucrative if we can deny gravity every time we want to send something into space, but we cannot because gravity is real. So there is no getting around the theory of gravity - no matter how much money you throw at it. You can see with this simple example that your sentiment is incorrect.
What you're trying (badly) to say is that money can be a driving factor behind influence (not science). And that if enough money lines up in a particular way, word of mouth may be the only counterbalance to that influence. The early days of realizing that smoking is bad for you might be a good example. A lot of money was lined up in influencing people to continue smoking, and word-of-mouth was needed to counter that influence. Again, this is not about science, the science ultimately fought the big money rather than siding with it.
You believe that gender affirmation is influence (not science) driven by money. If this were true (see, I can actually function within your premise), it is an unusual example in a which a grass roots movement has all aligned due to similar incentives rather than big influencers doing the driving. We're not seeing the gender movement coming from big pharma, it's coming from individuals who are unhappy and connecting online and in pocket communities. I guess your idea is that it's coming from doctors who see an opportunity to sell surgery and other services. I think this cynical view of doctors doesn't jive well with the history of the trans movement.
To a certain extent I actually agree with you that some within the trans movement are over zealous and push too hard. Not scientists, not doctors, but philosophical purists. It's not a perfect fit for everyone, and the dangers, pitfalls, and failiings of gender theory should be open for discussion and embraced by people within and outside the movement as a way of reaching a truthful understanding rather than aligning in a particular direction. But it's very difficult to reach any kind of common ground in this discussion when you refuse to directly address even the most basic questions. Back to those questions then.
1) What does "woke" mean?
2) ASSUME a child needs GAC as the best medical course to prevent suicide. Are you against it in this case and if so why?
" and then when we're happy in X years you ignore it. "hundreds of thousands of dollars" not even close, and even if it's a lot of money, maybe 99% is coming from insurance.
