Another Attractive Republican Candidate Prepares to Run for President

Of course.

 

Then you have not been following my posts. I have NO, zero nada issues with going head to head with anyone on the science underpinning any medical intervention - just ask Steve N about the research study I critiqued the other day

 

Thanks for being honest. I didn't want to waste My time finding something for you that was just going to be scoffed at.

A lot of this stuff isn't easy to find and some of it is behind pay walls. Now I know I don't have to bother. You're already trying to discredit without having a background in the subject.

It's typically published in scholarly journals by people who study and practice this sort of thing where it can be challenged and debunked by people way more capat than you or me at determining appropriate interpretation and given methods.

I won't waste my time finding any studies for you.

But you think you are capable of spitting flaws that debunk the whole thing that the entirety of academia missed. The hubris is astronomical.

By which you mean one that affirms your bias. No thanks.

You can find it if you really care somehow I doubt you do so I won't bother.

 

Well I have zero knowledge on some other conversation you had, and likely if I got into it I would find that I had zero interest as well. I just don't think you have anything new to say on the subject.

 

Okay, why do you think plastic surgery and cross sex hormones will make someone better?

 

lol, leave it to you to pretend a completely reasonable response was biased. Makes me suspect you had nothing. I have the standard of care on my side.

 

And a killing field.

If you really are interested I'll be very generous and tell you use key words Swedish and 30 year.

It's absolutely more comprehensive that anything you can find.

If you aren't insist on your opinion and the opinion of misguided politically influenced "standard of care"

 

I think I've discussed that one before, unsure if it was with you. The issue is that the control group is people without gender dysphoria. To know whether the treatment helped, one would need to compare trans to other trans people who received a different treatment. From that study, I guess we could say that suicide rates were still high. But it doesn't tell us if suicide would have been better or worse or the same without surgery. The question is what approach provides the greatest benefit. That study cannot answer that question.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden - PMC (nih.gov)

 

definitely not me. I don't post studies because of discussions like this.

This is exactly why I don't do it. I have layman trying to debunk something with just their words.

Show me the studies of refuting it. Your opinion on it doesn't matter.

Exactly as I thought we didn't want to read this study you didn't want to learn you didn't want to discuss science you just want to debunk it.

So if ever you're in a discussion with me you ask me for it study and I say no it's because I don't want to hear your layman's excuses.

It isn't science it's biased it's more of a religion than knowledge.

People don't want to read about this stuff because it's dry and it's boring.

So in the future you'll know why I refuse to provide links to studies.

I don't care about Lehman's opinions they aren't relevant.

Just FYI I know this post seems a little abrasive that's not too attack you, I'm a layman too. I don't have the patience to sit and study this kind of thing. But in that regard I can't pick and choose what I like and what affirms my beliefs.

 

I'm not a layman. But even if I was, it's just about logic. You can't evaluate a treatment if your control group is people without the disease. Should we check breast cancer mortality after surgery with people WITHOUT a history of breast cancer as the control group? Uh, no. The authors don't contend this shows surgery doesn't help either, do they? They just suggested these people need close followup, basically.

Here they actually explicitly addressed it in the "strengths and limitations" section of the study: " It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit."

My mind has been changed by studies before. I explained to you why this particular study doesn't say what you think it does. Why not just debate the logic? Why get emotional about it?

 

Your next sentence proves otherwise

if it was we wouldn't have scientists Isaac Newton would have explained gravity perfectly and Einstein wouldn't have ever been heard of. You wouldn't have x-ray and the list goes on

it's not a disease.

Yeah your basic understanding of behavioral science isn't even in the realm of reality. It isn't a disease it's deemed a mental disorder. There is no treatment for them b because they is little understanding how they manifest or that there is just one cause.

It's not even close to something like cancer. Your attempt to compare it to that is lesser than amateur

Not interested in amateur evaluation. Present studies that have refuted.

I'm not interested in amateur opinion. Present scholarly refutation.

This is why I don't present studies. Amateurs struggling to justify their religious beliefs.

Further you don't have the first ****ing clue what I think so not only are you not smarter than the entirety of academia but you also aren't clairvoyant.

Good lord the arrogance of your post is astounding.

 

LOL. Dude, if you still refuse to see the logic, then I can't help you. Your opinion may be immune to critical thinking. MD/MPH, but it's not about credentials, I've noticed there have been a few other MDs on here and they're not right about everything, it's about the argument. I'll see if I find time to dig into more studies myself, but you had made a claim that your study didn't support and that's all there is to it. Academia doesn't support your position. Your study EXPLICITLY didn't support your position.

 

You compared a behavior pattern to cancer.

I can't see what doesn't exist.

you can come down off your cross I didn't present an opinion.

You did. A profoundly uninformed one.

I asked you for science not your version of "logic" refuting this.

I'm going to give you a cheat sheet on how to refute this.

Present studies that suggest strict protocol when diagnosing gender dysphoria. Do this would include clinicals surveys reporting psychologists so forth.

Then present data that shows that the only people who received so-called "gender affirming care" haven't met this clinical threshold.


Those two things are all you need to refute this study the way you attempted to.

I don't care about your opinion I don't care about what you think logic is I want to see data.

 

Your study is not in need of refuting. The authors explicitly state it does not show what you said it showed. But finding studies that support the standard of care to show to you it's not about politics? That's a legit request, just not quick and easy.

Actually I compared a psychiatric condition to cancer. Psychiatric conditions are medical diagnoses too.

 

I don't see much on his aims or goals.

 

He has a long public record. He's a pre-Trump conservative Republican.

 

Why do you want to intrude into people's daily lives?

 

Yeah, I've heard the name many times, I just haven't seen much of his goals and aims in relation to our current situation. Honestly "pre-Trump Republican{" doesn't encourage me much. Sound too much like the McConnell "good ol' boy" branch; which leads to Dems eating GOP's lunch.

 

No one has outwitted and outmaneuvered the Democrats more than Mitch McConnell.

 

Said unironically by a lefty.

The laughs just keep coming!

 

He did a few good things, I'll give you that. Lots of judges appointed, for instance. But blocking Garland for SCOTUS gave us him as AG; I'm not sure where he's a bigger threat and danger.

 

As you wish.

 

it's not my study started almost 10 years before I was born.

She didn't think it needed with refuting why did you try to refute it. That's what you're doing try to make the complaint that the subjects didn't have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Did you already forget what you were arguing about?

quote where I said what it showed.

I'm not interested in standard of care I'm interested in why that's the standard and how we got to that point.

That's what this discussion is about

you're playing with semantics. Mental disorder mental illness psychiatric condition psychological condition pattern of behavior these are all synonyms.

If you don't know that you are barely an amateur.

 

I would vote for him over Trump all day long

 

You don’t get it. Let me try again step by step. You initially asserted the following:

I then asked for studies. You alluded to the Swiss 30 year study. It’s a fine study, but since the control group is not trans, it cannot support your assertion that surgery leads to similar suicide rates for trans persons. Do you get it now? Are you just pretending not to get it? You don’t have to believe me, the study even says so.

Medical science is based upon using diagnoses to determine appropriate treatments as determined by the best overall outcomes from the perspective of the patients. Not about what some outsider considers correct.

Doctors should be careful of misinformation, sure.

Addressed above.

Fair.

You trying to draw some major distinction between psychiatric conditions and other medical conditions mostly shows you don’t understand medical science. It’s a medical diagnosis. Studies for standard of care address how treatments affect people with that diagnosis.