this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Wasn't one of the reasons that the long term effects of puberty blockers weren't known, and therefore caution was advised? I might be misremembering though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I might be misremembering though

Yep, you are.

They started being prescribed in the 80s for the reason im talking about. For the US they were approved in 1993.

While not prescribed widely, there's been more than enough for a sample size.

When people say "studies need to be done" they're arguing for double blind studies where children might get the real drug, and may get a placebo. And they want the whole sample to be kids who may want to transition.

It's not ethical to do a study like that, and you literally can't do a long-term study like that with this, it's kind of obvious when puberty still happens.... The placebo group should just be kids not on puberty blockers compared to kids on blockers. And those studies exist and have for a long time.

The whole argument is dishonest and designed to make people not familiar with science think they're the reasonable ones.

They're not.

They're just ignorant and opinionated.

Which is the last demographic we should be listening to on scientific research.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Fair. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You should do though. Not necessarily on the topic, but a group who definitely know what you were just told when they spouted off about the lack of evidence, effectively tried to gaslight you with “scientific process”.

I think we need to normalise being pissed off at being lied to like this. You don’t need to become a pro-trans advocate but you can still say “fuck’em” to the people demonstrably deceiving you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

You're deceptive too. The motivations of this law are not purely transphobia and you damn well know that. This isn't that black and white. There's scientific conjecture on both sides of this issue. Not having a strong opinion on some things us what this society needs. Not outraged mobs like you.