Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pediatricians Group Says Research Doesn’t Support ‘Gender Affirming’ Treatments


WVK

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

that's still an ad hom though... is a protest group always wrong? or just in this case? or just in selective cases?

the link is an ad hom and using the link as an argument is ad hom. an example of something with merit would be reading the evidence provided and disputing it with other evidence. now, to be clear, that doesn't mean that the original evidence is 'debunked'. it means there's the beginning of a discussion point. and i didn't even read what the ACPeds based their conclusion on. i'm not saying i found it to be convincing. i'm saying, the reaction makes me think a proper rebuttal was too difficult to obtain. that in itself can often be revealing (to a degree).

When they can't argue against the position, they attack the source.  

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, Edumakated said:

When they can't argue against the position, they attack the source.  

i'm sure there is a better argument out there. but we now know that when they provide it, it will be confirming their revealed biases. if i were to turn the tables, i'd say because they have these prior beliefs, whatever they provide is meaningless. i won't do that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

When they can't argue against the position, they attack the source.  

Which is funny because the last few posts are about PA attacking wikipedia.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

and we all know you can't be a jew/christian and a good pediatrician.

Due to conflicts, you have to bend one or the other.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Due to conflicts, you have to bend one or the other.

Doug

ok. are jews/christians the only ones with conflicts? is any ideology a potential conflict? are financial incentives conflicts? career ambitions? it's a game that goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Which is funny because the last few posts are about PA attacking wikipedia.

attacking the functionality of a service is different than saying since it's on wikipedia it is therefore only worthy of dismissal on that basis. that poster actually used the service to check the links and sources rather than just say 'it's on wikipedia so i don't care'. sure, they criticized the extraneous sources but i took that as more of a efficiency-preservation method since the sources didn't exactly provide direct evidence of claims given the context in which they were being used. i imagine if a direct argument was made it could be entertained on its merits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

attacking the functionality of a service is different than saying since it's on wikipedia it is therefore only worthy of dismissal on that basis. that poster actually used the service to check the links and sources rather than just say 'it's on wikipedia so i don't care'. sure, they criticized the extraneous sources but i took that as more of a efficiency-preservation method since the sources didn't exactly provide direct evidence of claims given the context in which they were being used. i imagine if a direct argument was made it could be entertained on its merits.

True and completed unrelated in the humor I found in Edumakated comment.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

ok. are jews/christians the only ones with conflicts? is any ideology a potential conflict? are financial incentives conflicts? career ambitions? it's a game that goes on and on.

All of the above.

The conflict is between being a Jew/Christian and following advice of a pediatrician.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

All of the above.

The conflict is between being a Jew/Christian and following advice of a pediatrician.

Doug

can you expound on the relevancy of that particular conflict given that all of the other conflicts exist within and among all pediatricians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Edumakated said:

When they can't argue against the position, they attack the source.  

Oh baby, we have been taking lessons from your Master Donald Trump!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Oh baby, we have been taking lessons from your Master Donald Trump!

So you admit leftists are just like trump eh?  :lol:

Edited by OverSword
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

So you admit leftists are just like trump eh?  :lol:

Naw,  certainly not.  When we talk among ourselves, we talk policy, and strategy.  When we listen to MAGA people, we have to translate their insults into positions.   We had to learn a second language as they can barely master one.:devil:😁

For example,  when Biden wins 82% of the vote in the Michigan primary and there is a 13% uncommitted bloc.  we say, good that is somebody the White House needs to pick up the phone and talk to.  It is not a disaster, but those folks may move the conversation  a bit in their direction where  Israel and Gaza are concerned.  Maybe the US needs to do that. MAGA people would say that is pandering to get votes  because they would rather rule with no backtalk than represent.

On the other hand when media says Trump cruises to an easy victory, beats Haley by 20%, it may not be that great.  Trump who claims the party is unified has 40% of his own party voting for someone else and about half of the 40% have become never Trumpers.  MAGA people cheer and then insult Nikki and Biden.  We translate that into denial or deep concern that the writing is on the wall.  

When Trump says he is so rich he doesn't need to put up the bonds then proceeds to insult judges, plaintiffs, the government, witnesses and juries, we know he is broke.  He has nothing.  Will his vaunted reputation as a genius businessman be shaken?  Maybe.

With precious little time left, if Trump had a policy, he should bring it out, not tell stories about how many flushes it takes to flush a depends down a toilet, something any new mother knows better than to do in the first place. But again, as translated from the MAGA language of complaints and insults, they have nothing policy-wise either.

If you consider logic and policy, occasionally you have to cross party lines.  I must say, I admire Nikki Haley's incredible position.  She has garnered 40% roughly of the vote in the 4 primaries, and she may well continue that or better as time goes on.  Trump, in MAGA eyes the sure fire nominee may be exposed as a financial fraud, his dementia may become glaringly apparent, he might even be convicted and facing confinement, he will certainly be poorer.  As old and cheeseburgered out as he is, old age and ill health may be the end of him.

Biden has his own problems and at this point, who could jump in to get the Democratic nomination?  That puts Nikki in good position should the odds catch up to Trump and months ahead of  any stand-in for Biden.  With this experience and showing, she is also light years ahead of DeSantis or any MAGA wannabe in 2028.  :devil:

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Due to conflicts, you have to bend one or the other.

Doug

Strongly disagree.  It depends on the branch of Christianity you follow.

My physician is a very strong Christian (his offices are Christian themed) - which initially put this agnostic off.  But he's kind, honorable, and does a lot of free service to the poor and underserved (basically following the tenets of Jesus as shown in part of the Bible) and is not only an excellent diagnostician but in general someone who serves both Christianity and science.

Should also mention that my husband's neurologist is Muslim and again will follow the science.  He has some very traditional beliefs (I know from some of his phrasing) but is kind and caring and like my Christian physician also does charity work.

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Which is funny because the last few posts are about PA attacking wikipedia.

I didn't "attack" any source. I simply pointed out the bias inherent in Wikipedia. That's a step below the attacks from progressives in this threead. For example, I didn't dismiss Wikipedia with a "lol try harder", as some are wont to do, as demonstrated in this thread. I quoted the sources and pointed out their inherent bias. Is there any one of you who will disagree that Wired, Southern Poverty Law Centre, and Daily Beast aren't clearly and distinctly liberal/progressive, left wing organisations? 

Maybe if I did say "lol try harder" and then pointed to All Sides or Media Bias Fact Check to show their progressive slant, then you could accuse me of doing the same. Until then my comments are objectively different.

Lol, try harder...

See, if I ended my post with that sentence, you could accuse me of being dismissive. But I didn't. I crossed it out, see ;) 😛 

 

 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I didn't "attack" any source. I simply pointed out the bias inherent in Wikipedia. That's a step below the attacks from progressives in this threead. For example, I didn't dismiss Wikipedia with a "lol try harder", as some are wont to do, as demonstrated in this thread. I quoted the sources and pointed out their inherent bias. Is there any one of you who will disagree that Wired, Southern Poverty Law Centre, and Daily Beast aren't clearly and distinctly liberal/progressive, left wing organisations? 

Maybe if I did say "lol try harder" and then pointed to All Sides or Media Bias Fact Check to show their progressive slant, then you could accuse me of doing the same. Until then my comments are objectively different.

Lol, try harder...

See, if I ended my post with that sentence, you could accuse me of being dismissive. But I didn't. I crossed it out, see ;) 😛 

 

 

Aw, that's just silly word games.  It's like me saying, " I didn't call X stupid.  I just simply pointed out his intelligence is less than average.  That's a step below other people on this thread calling people morons."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Aw, that's just silly word games.  It's like me saying, " I didn't call X stupid.  I just simply pointed out his intelligence is less than average.  That's a step below other people on this thread calling people morons."

I pointed out that Wikipedia is a source that is biased towards the political left. As evidence I submitted four websites quoted by Wikipedia (the first four quoted by Wikipedia). One of them is a broken link, the other three are all squarely left wing/progressive publications. Is that debatable or is that simply fact? 

I didn't get dismissive and write "lol, try harder", that would be the progressives dismissing right wing sources. I simply pointed out the bias. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I pointed out that Wikipedia is a source that is biased towards the political left. As evidence I submitted four websites quoted by Wikipedia (the first four quoted by Wikipedia). One of them is a broken link, the other three are all squarely left wing/progressive publications. Is that debatable or is that simply fact? 

Nah, all that was fine.  My laughter was more directed at Edumakated and this comment:

11 hours ago, Edumakated said:

When they can't argue against the position, they attack the source.  

I always hear about, They, them, etc..."   It was funny to me because you became one of the "they"s that he was implying can't argue against the position.

Which is doubly funny to me because he is basically attacking "them" and somewhat the subject of his own statement because he himself was not arguing against the position but rather attacking someone.

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Nah, all that was fine.  My laughter was more directed at Edumakated and this comment:

I always hear about, They, them, etc..."   It was funny to me because you became one of the "they"s that he was implying can't argue against the position.

Which is doubly funny to me because he is basically attacking "them" and somewhat the subject of his own statement because he himself was not arguing against the position but rather attacking someone.

I see why you think it's funny, but I argue there is a very big difference between pointing out the bias inherent in a source (like me) and saying things like "lol, try harder" as a means to totally dismiss the fact that this group of pediatricians belong to a conservative organisation. 

I could go into why each of the sources is inadequate. Wired and Daily Beast are simply reporting on what others have said. Especially Daily Beast, there's nothing in that source that isn't also available in the SPLC.... but even the SPLC doesn't provide enough information - for example, they claimed that this group of pediatricians support conversion therapy. But they only provided one quote to support that, a quote that is only a sentence long, and refers to the word "therapy", but never elaborates on what that entails, and the link they have to the original comment is broken, so I can't go and check whether that is "conversion therapy" as it is traditionally understood (that is, torture the kid until they are no longer gay), or whether they mean more basic things like counselling services, which many religious organisations offer to LGBTQIA+ youth who go through something like that and are not thought of in the same way as the horrid practices of some extremist organisations. Moreover, because the link is broken I also can't find out whether this was an official position held by this group, or whether this is simply an espoused belief of one particular member of the group.  

And because these sources are all firmly left wing, we'll never know. Either way, thanks for the chat, no point in arguing about this further, I was just adding my thoughts,

~ Regards, PA

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Strongly disagree.  It depends on the branch of Christianity you follow.

My physician is a very strong Christian (his offices are Christian themed) - which initially put this agnostic off.  But he's kind, honorable, and does a lot of free service to the poor and underserved (basically following the tenets of Jesus as shown in part of the Bible) and is not only an excellent diagnostician but in general someone who serves both Christianity and science.

Should also mention that my husband's neurologist is Muslim and again will follow the science.  He has some very traditional beliefs (I know from some of his phrasing) but is kind and caring and like my Christian physician also does charity work.

Once that might have been more of a norm than an exception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Once that might have been more of a norm than an exception. 

It still may be a norm...but I'm basing that on the people I know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

It still may be a norm...but I'm basing that on the people I know.

I also know quite a few people like that.  Maybe a coincidence, but none of them go to megachurches, no pastors with private jets or multimillion dollar homes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Strongly disagree.  It depends on the branch of Christianity you follow.

My physician is a very strong Christian (his offices are Christian themed) - which initially put this agnostic off.  But he's kind, honorable, and does a lot of free service to the poor and underserved (basically following the tenets of Jesus as shown in part of the Bible) and is not only an excellent diagnostician but in general someone who serves both Christianity and science.

Should also mention that my husband's neurologist is Muslim and again will follow the science.  He has some very traditional beliefs (I know from some of his phrasing) but is kind and caring and like my Christian physician also does charity work.

There are some good and decent people who follow one god or another.  One cannot paint them all with the same brush.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2024 at 11:19 PM, DayoOlabisi said:

that's still an ad hom though...

Explain how an accurate description is an ad hom. 

On 2/28/2024 at 11:19 PM, DayoOlabisi said:

is a protest group always wrong? or just in this case? or just in selective cases?

Every case deserves individual assesment. Protestors don't have a vid or common law that they all adhere to. 

On 2/28/2024 at 11:19 PM, DayoOlabisi said:

the link is an ad hom and using the link as an argument is ad hom. an example of something with merit would be reading the evidence provided and disputing it with other evidence. now, to be clear, that doesn't mean that the original evidence is 'debunked'. it means there's the beginning of a discussion point. and i didn't even read what the ACPeds based their conclusion on. i'm not saying i found it to be convincing. i'm saying, the reaction makes me think a proper rebuttal was too difficult to obtain. that in itself can often be revealing (to a degree).

Then read it so you don't seem so uninformed. 

It's not an ad hom, your definition is incorrect. It's a descriptive evaluation of how the fringe group came to be. If you can't comprehend that much it's a you problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHS Ends the "Gender-Affirmative Care Model" for Youth in England

The gender-clinic model of care has been replaced with holistic support and appropriate care

Following extensive stakeholder engagement and a systematic review of evidence, England’s National Health Service (NHS) has issued new draft guidance for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, which sharply deviates from the “gender-affirming” approach. The previous presumption that gender dysphoric youth <18 need specialty “transgender healthcare” has been supplanted by the developmentally-informed position that most need psychoeducation and psychotherapy. Eligibility determination for medical interventions will be made by a centralized Service and puberty blockers will be delivered only in research protocol settings. The abandonment of the "gender-affirming" model by England had been foreshadowed by The Cass Review's interim report, which defined "affirmative model" as a "model of gender healthcare that originated in the USA."

The reasons for the restructuring of gender services for minors in England are 4-fold. They include (1) a significant and sharp rise in referrals; (2) poorly-understood marked changes in the types of patients referred; (3) scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making, and (4) operational failures of the single gender clinic model, as evidenced by long wait times for initial assessment, and overall concern with the clinical approach.

cont...

The NHS Ends the "Gender-Affirmative Care Model" for Youth in England | SEGM

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
On 2/29/2024 at 8:56 PM, psyche101 said:

Explain how an accurate description is an ad hom. 

Every case deserves individual assesment. Protestors don't have a vid or common law that they all adhere to. 

Then read it so you don't seem so uninformed. 

It's not an ad hom, your definition is incorrect. It's a descriptive evaluation of how the fringe group came to be. If you can't comprehend that much it's a you problem. 

it seems based on this post and your previous posts that you think that an ad hominem argument is one where you are specifically attacking someone. that can be the case, but it's not the definition. an ad hominem argument is one where you disregard the argument because of the source. the link didn't make an argument against their reason for the conclusion, just that because of who they are, they shouldn't be listened to. the reason we caution against ad hominem arguments is because they are so tempting. we know there are sources that are motivated toward dishonesty. yet, we should still address the dishonesty directly and not assume dishonesty because we believe they are motivated toward it. otherwise you'll end up believing many false things because your opponents likely agree with you 90% of the time. "don't cross the street here, traffic is going to hit you" might be followed by an ad hom "don't trust him. he's part of a group that tried to get rid of the crosswalks in this neighborhood". even if true, it doesn't address the safety of crossing the street there. considering the source is useful. but it's not a useful argument absent directly addressing a claim.

you seem quite an angry person, as well. or perhaps just insecure? accusing me of not comprehending things etc. when it's really your lack of awareness. you did not know what an ad hominem argument really was and made accusations against me because of it. chill a little bit. i'm direct, but quite nice and fair.

Edited by DayoOlabisi
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.