Let people understand something about trans people

Post Reply New Topic

Again, you're missing the fact that the suicide rate is still high after surgery. While everyone is free to do what they want with their bodies, it does not mean that the government should pay for it.

I do not miss that point. I actually explicitly responded to it - and even included a recent scientific study when doing so. And I can add multiple examples (surgery for spinal disk hernation for instance - a commonly accepted surgical procedure for a much less serious illness), where the therapeutic effect of treatment is disputed. I haven't seen any posts made by you on WP condemning this particular treatment...

So, once again. Why are you singling out gender dysphoria?

And these are ilnesses that are just that: ilnesses. Saying that gender dysphoria is a fatal disease because of high suicide rate, is a false analogy. Someone who is born as and raised as a boy does not know what it means to be a woman--and likewise someone born as and raised as a girl does not know what it means to be a man. Again, do what you want with your body ... just don't feel that the government owes you to use tax money on whatever it is you're doing.



A red herring is something that's irrelevant to the debate. When the US government DOES NOT fund cancer treatment or AIDS treatment (and basically leaves you at the mercy of the insurance company), but funds cosmetic surgery, something is clearly f*cked up. Likewise, when the clinics in Europe are underfunded and there are months to wait for cancer treatment, cosmetic surgery should not be top priority. When healthcare is completely free in the US, when everyone has HIV medicines and when public clinics no longer have people dying in the waiting line, we can talk about funding cosmetic surgery.



But it's not an insignificant variable.



Plenty of personality disorders, bipolar type I, social anxiety, drug/alcohol abuse etc.


Please provide sources for both these claims. And peer reviewed science only, please... Your record of scientific integrity on WP is *extremely* poor.[/quote]

So far, I've never made a statement that I've never been able to back up. The perfect example would probably be someone who was convinced he was a woman trapped in a man's body, only to find himself genuinely trapped after the surgery:

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

The most famous transgender regret, Danielle Berry:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/ ... .html#Dani

Another famous example, UK's youngest post op transwoman:

http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012 ... ex-change/

I'm not condemning any treatment. As long as I pay taxes, I have the right to voice my opinion on how the tax money is spent. Again you're coming up with a false analogy. Therapy for hernia has a documented effect--and above all, it's not cosmetic surgery, but treatment for a physical damage to your body.

Didn't you just say something about quoting from pro-sex-reassignment websites after I corrected your figures before...?

These sites typically (but not always) ignore the higher statistics and only focus on the lower statistics.

Highest I've seen from the 90s and later is 8%. If you've seen any higher, then I'd like to see your source.

Here is the American Psychiatric Assocation's report on gender dysphoria, in which they recommend treatment guidelines to be published. This report was essentially one big review of the literature. Everyone in this topic should read it:

http://tinyurl.com/mpptdxz

Gender dysphoria *is* an illness. Are you claiming otherwise? Are you a medical doctor? What medical credentials do you have for dismissing gender dysphoria as an illness?

Furthermore - from a scientific perspective (a perspective you are clearly unfamiliar with) - the evidence clearly supports that people born with gender dysphoria *do not* have the brain of their biological sex.


Gender reassignment surgery is not cosmetic. Is is performed on the basis of medical indication (unless contraindication is present).

If you are so unfamiliar with the basic concepts of medicine, perhaps you should leave this discussion to more qualified individuals.


Of course it's not an insignificant variable. If it was, it wouldn't be confounding.

Seriously, did you get an F in Statistics?


How many of those (and drug/alcohol deaths are usually not psychiatric. Suicide deaths are, by definition) have case fatality rates comparable to the 30+ percent suicide rate of gender dysphoria?


You deny anthropogenic climate change. You are the very *definition* of someone who cannot back up your statements...

Remember this?: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt212411.html

I reiterate: And peer reviewed science only, please... Your record of scientific integrity on WP is *extremely* poor.

As a result, I will ignore your subsequent (n=3) anecdotes without comment.

An ilness far less severe than cancer--and roughly on par with anorexia or borderline personality disorder in terms of severity. Should anorectic people get T3 hormones for free to stay very lean?



Roughly ten percent of all men have brains that are structuraly female, but this just means that they're feminine men, not that they're women.



You basically make a man look like a woman or a woman look like a man. It's purely cosmetic, even though an INDIRECT consequence is that the person feels better about themself. The people from Extreme Makeover also felt better about themselves after the surgery--does this mean that the government should pay for it?



What are your medical credentials, then?



So why do you deliberately choose to ignore the suicide rates AFTER surgery?



I was among the top computer science students in both calculus, physics, statistics and discrete maths. What's your point? If believe that the suicide rates after surgery are irrelevant, you fail at even basic arithmetics.




25% of all completed suicides are done by people with drug or alcohol problems. You're flaunting your false analogies again; you need to look at the ratio of suicide rates before treatment vs. suicide rates after treatment. Suicide rates of transgendered people could be managed by therapy, a more including society and help coming to terms with one's birth gender. If changing genders makes you feel better about yourself, then go ahead. Surgery should not be a given right from the government, though.



http://www.petitionproject.org/

The whole global warming thing has been blown out of proportion to cover up more severe environmental disasters--and to harvest votes by politicians. If I remember correctly, you claimed that nobody deserved the Peace Prize more than Al Gore, which shows just how critical you are of scientific sources. 13% of all third world deaths in 2012 were caused by manmade polution NOT related to CO2. That's far worse than baby seals having to live with a two degree temperature increase.



So words by people who regretted their surgeries are anecdotes, then?

Evidence?

He didn't though, did he?

Those who actually get reassignment are those who have taken the most psychological damage. It should not be surprising that many of them still die- but not as many as if they hadn't had the operation.

Look up what a "confounding variable" is.


That doesn't mean that climate change isn't a serious issue. If you really think a 2 degree temperature rise will just affect seals, then you're wrong.

There are other environmental issues, of course, but climate change is the one that is going to screw us over long term if we don't do something about it.

He acts as if it somehow magically removes the suicide attempts (25-40%) of transgendered people, but as if therapy for more serious disorders does nothing with the attempted suicide rate.



Actually, in many countries there are no requirements to get the procedure done, which is why so many of the surgeries are done abroad.



I know what it is. It doesn't make his points valid.



NOX, pesticides, SO2, mercury, cadmium, uranium and so on are screwing over billions of people as we speak. The temperature will rise by two degrees within 2100. Whatever small changes are manmade, could be eliminated by phasing out coal.

Hyperbole. It's this sort of thing that makes people suspicious of the environmental movement.

Take NOx and SO2. Both have long been established as polluters, and in the west they are highly regulated and the issues associated with them are in decline. They are both minor greenhouse gases, but their effects pale in comparison to CO2 and methane. CFCs are a similar story (although pound for pound they are more potent greenhouse gases than methane). The worst pesticides are being banned, if they haven't already- see DDT and neonicotinoids. Obviously bioaccumulation is still an issue in places with lax regulation but it's not like this is an issue no-one is aware of.

Uranium mines aren't screwing over nearly as many people as coal mines.

I don't really know about cadmium but a quick Google tells me 512,000 people in the USA *may* be exposed to it at work, out of 233 million working Americans. Even if that rate is double worldwide, that's nowhere near "billions".

Could I have next week's lottery numbers please?

As I understand it, the range of predicted changes is 1-6 degrees, with somewhere in the region of 2.5-3.5 being most likely.


Not if we burn more oil and gas. Phase out all three (except for in jet fuel) quickly and we'll be fine.

Anorexia and BPD are severe illnesses, much more severe than hundreds of somatic illnesses. Why are you singling out a specific single illness for exclusion?


They should receive whatever treatment that is medically indicated in order to treat their serious illness. Just as people with gender dysphoria should. Why are you singling out a specific single illness for exclusion?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195418
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562024
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23724358
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21467211
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19751389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23923023
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761592
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056697
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224294

Next.


Therapeutic vs. cosmetic has a very specific meaning in medicine. You clearly have no concept of when to draw this distinction. Like I said previously: If you are so unfamiliar with the basic concepts of medicine, perhaps you should leave this discussion to more qualified individuals.


My medical credentials are - pay close attention, now - this will be epic:

None whatsoever... Which is why I stick to the knowledge of *actual* medical professionals when discussing medical topics instead of inventing my own views from scratch.

(This parenthesis is added for the sole purpose of mocking your attempt to cherry-pick the "None whatsoever" portion of the above post.)



I do not. As previously said, I actually posted a study sceptical about the therapeutic effect of sexual reassignment surgery with regards to the suicide rate among individuals. Last time I checked, you haven't posted a single word in this thread backed by scientific evidence.


If you are so smart, then why can't you comprehend something as simple as a confounding variable? Seriously, this is *basic* scientific methodology, *especially* in medical research (the subject of this thread). I did *not* say that the suicide rates after surgery are irrelevant, I said that the results are highly likely to be confounded by self-selection.



*Again* Please provide sources for these claims. And peer reviewed science only, please... Your record of scientific integrity on WP is *extremely* poor.


Cute. Now grow up. You are 24, not 14.


Your memory is almost as bad as your science. My statement was a snarky counter-claim to you claiming the exact opposite:



No need to discuss this particular issue any further with you, though. It is as productive as debating Flat Earthers and Creationists.


So, you *did* get an F in Statistics...

EDIT: Grammar.

Last edited by GGPViper on 28 Oct 2013, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What makes me suspicious of them, is that they care more about the baby seals on the North Pole or the pretty flowers in the Rainforrest than the victims of the Bhopal disaster.



If I remember correctly, the coal plants are still spewing out tonns of it as we speak. They're highly regulated in cars, but not in coal power plants.



They're the main source of acid rain. NOx reacts with water and creates nitric acid, SO2 reacts with water and gives us sulphuric acid.



They're still used in the third world, and very little is being done to clean up the mess made with previously legal pesticides.



Correct. Coal mines are screwing over people because of mercury and various molecules that create acids, though.



If 13% of all third world death is because of non CO2 pollution, then it's screwing over billions.



Two degrees is the median.



Coal is responsible for 60-80% of all manmade CO2. Most oil reserves will be gone by 2070.