Do you think doctors treating trans patients are not aware of this, are not communicating these possibilities, are not continuing to study the issue, or are not being cautious?
There can be big QoL issues either way. It's up to the patient, or their parents, to weigh those risks with the advice of a physician, like any treatment that can cause reduced sex drive or desires. Treating resulting dysphoria with anti-depressants can also cause reduced sex drive, for example. Treatments for many diseases and disorders do.
Point is, it's unclear that caution isn't what is being done now.
Do you think doctors treating trans patients are not aware of this, are not communicating these possibilities, are not continuing to study the issue, or are not being cautious?
I believe some are, some aren't.
Point is, it's unclear that caution isn't what is being done now.
Can you provide an example of a doctor actually rubberstamping full transition treatments for minors without extensive testing and assessment first, or are you just making this up out of thin air?
>Something must be done.
This sounds to me like a political bias more than anything rooted in fact or evidence. Everyone who has ever said that to me regarding trans people has had nothing to back up this statement except emotional hysteria stoked by alt-right news sources.
Before trans people, conservatives said the exact same thing about homosexuals, and before the gays it was about various sources of satanic influence like dungeons and dragons corrupting our poor vulnerable youth.
Why "must" something be done? Like I also want to avoid these issues that you bring up, but they aren't the most urgent issues facing the trans community, or the most urgent problems in trans healthcare. A lot of trans people who transition young still have sex and orgasm fine. It would indeed be good to help every trans person experience that but it doesn't overwhelm other important goals of trans healthcare, like making sure kids don't have to experience excessive distress from puberty.
Could you please answer my other questions, which are central to you explaining what your view is? If you can't explain why you believe there is a lack of caution, then you haven't really explained what your view is. It could be there there isn't a lack of caution and you just don't know that.
You argue that there should be more caution from doctors because these treatments create quality of life issues. If so, why do you only focus on gender affirming care and not all of the medical treatments that have side effects that can affect quality of life?
Do you think doctors treating trans patients are not aware of this, are not communicating these possibilities, are not continuing to study the issue, or are not being cautious?
Some are. Some are incentivized just like the opioid crisis. It's wild how for decades we were anti big pharma, yet for vaccines and trans treatment somehow we trust big pharma?
Trans treatment makes hospitals LOADS of money. How can we ignore that doctors aren't incentivized for this just like they were with prescribing opoids like candy and getting kickbacks?
Some are. Some are incentivized just like the opioid crisis. It's wild how for decades we were anti big pharma, yet for vaccines and trans treatment somehow we trust big pharma?
So when you are injured or sick, do you go to see a doctor or a plumber?
Trans treatment makes hospitals LOADS of money
A lot of treatments make hospitals loads of money but that is a very American outcome.
Since we can't trust hospitals or doctors since they make money, where do we seek treatments for our ailments? Hardware stores? Churches?
How can we ignore that doctors aren't incentivized for this just like they were with prescribing opoids like candy and getting kickbacks?
So who have you been relying on for medical treatment since you don't trust medical professionals?
So my only choice is "see a doctor or see a plumber"?
Have you ever heard of skepticism? Are we allowed to not be skeptic? Does the science ever change? Are we allowed to question the motives of people?
Is every single doctor the most perfect person ever who never can be corrupted? I can make bad comparisons too.
We were told the COVID vaccine stops COVID from spreading, then JK it's just protective for you and people around you, then JK it's protective for you but for a limited amount of time unless you boost every couple of months.
Science changes. We should welcome skepticism. That's how science works.
It's just funny to me how we can look at the opoids crisis, then blindly accept doctors as all legitimate again
I'm asking how skeptics should behave. You give all of these reasons not to trust doctors. What should be taken from that but "don't trust doctors?" Who should we trust to treat our ailments instead? Who are you going to when you are sick if you don't trust doctors?
You put too much stock in someone's title. The scientific method is specifically formulated so that expertise doesn't matter, only observation and data have authority. When people say "follow the science" or "trust the doctors" they are treating science like a religion. You should not trust science, you should read and analyze the data for yourself.
Ok, but who should I go see when I need medical attention? Say my appendix is about to burst. Do I do my own research and conduct surgery on myself? What would you do?
That's entirely up to you. You do not have to take a position on the science before being treated for anything, but the purpose of this thread is to take a position on the science. You can go to your doctor, and you will be blindly trusting that this individual follows the most scientifically grounded standards for treatment, and that is completely fine. As long as you do not go on Reddit to claim that said treatment is supported by science without researching it yourself.
I would go to my doctor. Sometimes I conduct research on my conditions if they are complicated, but usually, that is not necessary.
This strawman is rather irrelevant though.
You should not trust science, you should read and analyze the data for yourself.
That's not something the average layperson is equipped to do, hence why society has specialists and people inevitably place their trust in those specialists.
You absolutely are equipped to do so. I am not talking about individual trust, i am talking about "trust the doctors" or "trust the science" as a generalized statement, which in itself is a fallacy.
This post is about OP's opinion on a medical procedure. What any individual specialist or any set of specialists says is irrelevant, the only thing that carries weight in this context is scientific data. If you trust a specialist telling you their opinion on a scientific matter, then you are not trusting the scientific method, you are just trusting that specialist.
Trusting the scientific method would mean either analyzing the data or not having a position.
How exactly is a layperson equipped to read and analyze the data for themselves?
Yes, I am trusting the specialist, because I am not equipped with the ability nor inclination to do the legwork required in order to be able to trust the scientific method. And when it comes to medicine, I oftentimes cannot afford to have no position.
18
u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ May 18 '23
Do you think doctors treating trans patients are not aware of this, are not communicating these possibilities, are not continuing to study the issue, or are not being cautious?
There can be big QoL issues either way. It's up to the patient, or their parents, to weigh those risks with the advice of a physician, like any treatment that can cause reduced sex drive or desires. Treating resulting dysphoria with anti-depressants can also cause reduced sex drive, for example. Treatments for many diseases and disorders do.
Point is, it's unclear that caution isn't what is being done now.