The mind-blowing evil of slicing off young girls’ breasts.

you misinterpreted the study if that was meant to support your prior post. The control group is the general population. To assess the impact of gender reassignment, the control group would have to be people with gender dysphoria who do not receive gender reassignment therapy. This study may not exist because the harm to the control group would likely be great

 

circumcision is therapeutic for std prevention, see the cdc for details.

Suicide rates of who? This is a small segment of the population either way and so not a major impact on overall suicide rates

 

Besides, 80% of the control group would have desisted.

 

Where did I “mischaracterise JAMA? I missed the link originally but have neve mischaracterised the journal itself

And I never mischaracterised JAMA

It doesn’t - the JAMA a article says nothing about “slicing breast off”. But I am willing to stand corrected if you can point that phrase out

That is correct - there is a different standard for the letters section than there is for the rest of the journal articles https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors and the core readers know this.

No I have NEVER dissed on JAMA - just on the hyperbole of the original article and how it treated a limited and somewhat flawed study

 

Wellllll, since you put it like that!!!

 

SPIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You are being about as disingenuous as is imaginable.

Your claim was "it is not an actual research paper since it is published in the “research letters”.

That claim is 100% incorrect as evidence by the link I just provided to you from JAMA explaining that the letters section is basically studies that go through the exact same thorough peer review process, albeit in an abbreviated format.

There is not one thing here to say "that is correct" about. Your claim is not correct in any form or fashion. An abbreviated peer-reviewed study published in one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world cannot accurately be described as not being an actual research paper. It is a retrospective database analysis. This type of study does not require the length required to explain data collection techniques because the technique of looking at a database does not require an in depth explanation. This I no way takes away from the credibility of data.

The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming vast majority of studies are never published anywhere. Of those that are published, the overwhelming vast majority of those are poster presentations at medical conferences. A smaller percentage of studies are presented in various journals that are not peer reviewed.. An even smaller percentage are published in a peer-reviewed journal. An even smaller percentage are published amongst the select few top peer-reviewed journals in the world. This study is published in the latter. This puts it in EASILY the top 1% of all studies in terms of validity.

For you to pretend like it being published in the letters section somehow invalidates it in any way is nonsensical. For you to pretend that somehow you can say " that is correct" as if I had somehow just given credence to your "not an actual research paper" claim is off the rails ridiculous.

As someone that has in part presented medical studies for a living for several decades, there are avenues that one could use to attack this study ( as with virtually every study), but you are not anywhere near the neighborhood of being even remotely correct in your assertions. It is blatantly obvious that you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are saying. All you know is that you are in opposition and you are grasping at any straw that you THINK discredits the data.

This study is a straightforward retrospective meta analysis of a database that is published in one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the entire world. There is not really ANYTHING that is even remotely controversial about its findings. It is not drawing any conclusions, it just reports raw objective data. There are some well validated studies that draw conclusions that can legitimately be argued, but this is not one of them because it does not draw any conclusions. There is NOTHING to discredit, but that apparently is not going to stop you from trying.

 

And as far as I am concerned that is correct. There are levels and levels of research. If this were a more rigorous study it would have been published elsewhere

Peer review is not the be all and end all of research

Bottom line it is YOU a who is arguing nothing in the hope of…… what?



There is a taxonomy in research and this study barely makes it out of the lowest level - this is why it was not included in the main journal. There are a LOT of limitations within the study - some the authors identified but I can think of at least 5 other reasons why the data would be skewed

Oh! And learn what the term meta analysis means in research before you start throwing it around

 

I could not possibly have more thoroughly proven my point, and I am more than happy to let readers decide for themselves.

As such, I have no reason to continue with this exchange. Casting pearls before swine is an exercise in futility.

 

14 pages, wow! I'm truly learning a lot about the left in this thread. Its amazing how many of them support the bodily mutilation of children.
What if the child wanted to be a walrus? Would they do this to them?

 

Well, so am I happy with proving you are in error - as shown by your selective quoting. But then if you want to conveniently ignore most of my points to dance some kind of self congratulatory jiggle please feel free to do so in the long run it will not affect me

 

Yeah....sure (sarcasm)

 

“Child mutilation”

I really really have to wonder where some Republican minds are going with this fantasy. And it is fantasy.

it is very very telling though, that many of the same people screaming “child mutilation” are OK with plastic surgery on younger children in the name “beauty”

https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/repor...ausing-young-girls-to-grow-up-too-fast-166865

https://www.thelist.com/136545/the-untold-truth-of-childhood-beauty-pageants/

 

There's a difference. If a child says they don't like their nose the schools aren't pushing plastic surgery on them. If a boy likes a dresses or pink clothes then BOOM, puberty blockers.
Your whataboutism REEKS of desperation
STAY ON TOPIC, capisce??

 

Quit listening to people prone to lying or gross exaggeration.

 

Tell that to the girl who's live was ruined by having a masectomy pushed on her
https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
I know its hard to accept this stuff is really happening. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Don't let me ruin it for you.

 

Not any more disgusting and mind blowing than mandated pedophilia.

 

No really - your beliefs about who is right and who is wrong do not affect me personally

if YOU fell you need to “prove” something and that then makes you fell better then there is no harm as it has taken nothing from me.

I know what I have said is correct - there is a taxonomy of research - this is at a low level - that does not mean it is useless just that we have to use a proverbial grain of salt.

And nowhere has anyone “proven” that the thread title is supported by the research findings - my original contention

 

Which “beauty pageants” are in my estimation

 

You indicated that if a boy wears a pink shirt he’s going on hormone blockers.

Let’s remember, for context, these are not huge numbers. It’s a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. It’s like a 10,000th of a percent of the population that is impacted. These are incredibly personal decisions happening to a couple hundred people a year.

This should be between doctor and patient, but since the whole country is now an expert in every topic known to man, these huge, personal decisions are now made with hundreds of millions of people weighing in.

Im against any cosmetic surgery on kids before they are fully developed. I’m glad she’s speaking her story and I hope it serves as a cautionary tale.

I hate to watch the real people struggling with these painful issues being chastised by people with their toilet degree from Google.

When you say things like pink dress equals hormone blockers, you are doing exactly that. Making light of kids with real issues.

 

I had to buy my daughter one-pc swimming suits online because they only had bikinis for toddlers. Why are we putting bikinis on babies?

Republicans: We need to raise the voting age to 21 because "18-20s are not mature enough to vote".

MJ: 18s can enlist in our military and buy weapons.

Republicans: No female has the right to her body autonomy and all pregnancies will be forced to deliver.

MJ: There are a lot of old white, married men that like to rape little kids. They usually hide behind some leadership in a perv party (church).

Republicans: Everybody be afraid of people of color and LGBTQ.

MJ: If you force little girls to have their rapist's baby, it will interrupt her education, which is not unlike what the Taliban did once we left Afghanistan.

Republicans: Ignore the "woke" and "libbeeeuuuuuurrrrralsssss".

MJ: Do you frown upon education because people move further left the higher their education goes?

Republicans: No. We know what our imaginary Sky Daddy wants for everybody so shut up.

MJ: So, you don't have any answers based in reality?

Republicans: Heathen! Get right with god!

MJ: We have Freedom of Religion which also includes Freedom FROM religion and I don't believe in your imaginary god and it appears you don't either.

Republicans: That's not okay. I'm going to bitch and moan about enforcing my (fake) beliefs on your rights.

MJ: OK, but part of the agreement in obtaining tax-exempt status is you stay out of our SCOTUS.

Republicans: We don't want to do that.

MJ: So, we agree your perv party (church) should pay taxes which would add approx. $71,000,000,000 to our nation's wallet.

Republicans: No, we don't pay taxes because our church is about God's word and love.

MJ: But that only seems to apply on Sundays for about an hour and only if the other people look, love and worship like you.

Republicans: Everybody be afraid of people of color and LGBTQ.

MJ: Blue states subsidize red states so the people you hate provide for you.

Republicans: Bullsh!t.

MJ: It's online or at any public library in your area. You can find the statistics directly on the White House page.

Republicans: Everybody be afraid of people of color and LGBTQ.

MJ: OK. So, let's make a deal. How about we just have a no-fault divorce?

We could divide up the states and you can have your guns, rape as many people as you want while pretending to be godly, go bigger than books and burn down all libraries so the rest of us can not be f*cking terrified to send our kids to school and live in peace with one another? Of course, that would mean you need to figure out how to live indoors and have food but you are clearly "out of love" with us so you will be unencumbered by our presence in your own red nation. Plus, you already have your own flag design.

Republicans: No. We want you all to $ support us but we will still hate you.

MJ: That's not really working for us.

Republicans: Everybody be afraid of people of color and LGBTQ!!!

 

Mine too. Does it not occur to you that this being wrong doesn't make mutilating breasts as in the OP before they are old enough to consent to it ethical?

 

What is the relative incidence? If we go back to the original research on the OP they identified less than 1500 out of 300,000 teens identifying as transgender who are having this surgery

https://transreads.org/wp-content/u...e-Adolescents-in-the-US-From-2016-to-2019.pdf

 

Why is that relevant? If something is wrong, then it is wrong, no?

Somehow its frequency of occurence makes it more or less ethical?

I don't think so.

 

Well, I am not a pervert, but you just admitted you are a pervert. This makes sense, as you keep referring to girls as women. Again, we are not talking about women; we are talking about girls. The title of this thread is "The mind-blowing evil of slicing off young girls’ breasts." Girls can't give consent to make these life-altering decisions, and adults should not be making life-altering decisions for them. These girls--again, girls, not women, you pervert--may regret this decision, which was made for them when their prefrontal cortices are highly underdeveloped, and many of those who undergo these procedures eventually regret it.