Why should I bother trying to educate you when you won’t even leave the article you’re arguing over?
Puberty blockers have been well-studied and widely-used since the late 1980s. They have been routinely used to pause puberty in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, treat children who enter puberty too early and help adults living with a range of other medical conditions.
Links included in the article btw. Go nuts. But please, by all means, tell me how we don’t have almost 40 years of research on this proving this policy is unnecessary.
Doctors used to regularly treat patients with mercury and blood letting. Then more data came out to say it was bad so they stopped doing it. That’s how medicine works.
no, it wasn’t “more data”, it was just data. blood letting and mercury are pre-scientific treatments that were in use during the 1600s. puberty blockers were developed with a modern understanding of hormones, and extensively tested before they saw use in a clinical setting. you might as well have brought up magic as a legitimate medical practice that we eventually proved wrong. like, no duh, but it also has basically no bearing on the safety of a chemically synthesized hormone inhibitor invented in the 20th century.
The evidence is not there for puberty blockers and it isn’t there for mercury.
Either way the medical professionals have worked out what is best for the patient based on all the information and they have decided no to puberty blockers. No point talking about it anymore, the experts have spoken and neither of us has more data than them.
Which brings me back to my original question of why two countries suddenly closed the matter. What is your bar for who gets to decide what the truth is? Is it based on the size of the population they serve? GDP? Years as a country?
Both the health service in Sweden and Britain has recommended a complete stop to hormone blockers to children, citing lack of evidence to support the procedure.
And yet here you are, with studies and shit, saying the complete opposite. Maybe you can take your ‘evidence’ (and no, the linked article is not an unbiased source) to them; they might change their minds. Seems to me the right course of action since you are so invested.
Nah, you made the claim here, you have the onus of providing sources to back your claim first.
Or, you can just refuse to, but it makes your claim weaker.
That’s the way it works homie. If you make a claim, it can be challenged. If challenged, you’re supposed to back your claim up before saying “no, you”. If you can’t/won’t do that, you’re going to end up being ignored.
Which is fine, nobody has to play by the rules of public discourse, but you can’t act surprised when you get dismissed out of hand after refusing to do so.
You misunderstand, I wasn’t objecting to you having made the claim, nor the claim itself. I have zero interest in debating online, particularly when the person has been a dick in the rest of the thread.
But I do enjoy pointing out things that people might not be aware are expected so that they can be less of a dick and start engaging in good faith.
That being said, you can’t use the NHS to support NHS decisions. Also, that isn’t a link to a study or experiment at all. So it isn’t a valid source for online debate (and you’d get laughed offstage for trying that at an actual debate. Same with any given secondary source. That’s just making an appeal to authority, which can only be useful if and when the authority is being recognized as an authority for the purpose of the specific debate. Since the NHS’ decision is what’s being questioned, you just linking to their opinion isn’t useful. And I can’t read Swedish, so I can’t say anything about the other link, but I suspect it’s the same thing.
There’s methodology to a proper online debate. You aren’t following it, so you’re gong to keep running into people dismissing you, regardless of any validity or lack thereof in your attempts.
What you need to do to debate in good faith is to provide either links or correct citations for what you’re using to make your opinion a claim that others should listen to.
Basically, to sum up, a post that brought about objections to the decision was made. You said “but the NHS is an authority to listen to”. Others then said, “bullshit, they’re using bad science”. You then rebutted with, “nuh-uh this is their opinion, look at it again.”
That’s fine if your entire goal is to just keep saying that you trust the NHS and stand behind their opinion. That’s perfectly fine, we all gotta make choices like that sometimes. But you can’t pretend that doing so is a good faith effort at debate and discussion. You can actually state that directly, though, and then anyone wishing to argue with you can be told to piss off without any need for anything else. But it isn’t how you change minds.
We have decades of studies. You do not know what you are talking about.
Clearly NHS based their decision on different studies, but by all means feel free to share
Why should I bother trying to educate you when you won’t even leave the article you’re arguing over?
Links included in the article btw. Go nuts. But please, by all means, tell me how we don’t have almost 40 years of research on this proving this policy is unnecessary.
Doctors used to regularly treat patients with mercury and blood letting. Then more data came out to say it was bad so they stopped doing it. That’s how medicine works.
no, it wasn’t “more data”, it was just data. blood letting and mercury are pre-scientific treatments that were in use during the 1600s. puberty blockers were developed with a modern understanding of hormones, and extensively tested before they saw use in a clinical setting. you might as well have brought up magic as a legitimate medical practice that we eventually proved wrong. like, no duh, but it also has basically no bearing on the safety of a chemically synthesized hormone inhibitor invented in the 20th century.
Those weren’t evidence based treatments to begin with. When we got evidence we stopped using them.
Puberty blockers already have evidence. They’ve been used since the 80s.
deleted by creator
But they don’t do it for everything because things they did use it for they found out were bad, just like puberty blockers.
deleted by creator
The evidence is not there for puberty blockers and it isn’t there for mercury.
Either way the medical professionals have worked out what is best for the patient based on all the information and they have decided no to puberty blockers. No point talking about it anymore, the experts have spoken and neither of us has more data than them.
Which brings me back to my original question of why two countries suddenly closed the matter. What is your bar for who gets to decide what the truth is? Is it based on the size of the population they serve? GDP? Years as a country?
Both the health service in Sweden and Britain has recommended a complete stop to hormone blockers to children, citing lack of evidence to support the procedure.
And yet here you are, with studies and shit, saying the complete opposite. Maybe you can take your ‘evidence’ (and no, the linked article is not an unbiased source) to them; they might change their minds. Seems to me the right course of action since you are so invested.
Nah, you made the claim here, you have the onus of providing sources to back your claim first.
Or, you can just refuse to, but it makes your claim weaker.
That’s the way it works homie. If you make a claim, it can be challenged. If challenged, you’re supposed to back your claim up before saying “no, you”. If you can’t/won’t do that, you’re going to end up being ignored.
Which is fine, nobody has to play by the rules of public discourse, but you can’t act surprised when you get dismissed out of hand after refusing to do so.
NHS recommendation (British health/social services):
https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/puberty-suppressing-hormones/
Socialstyrelsen recommendation (Swedish health/social services):
https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/om-socialstyrelsen/pressrum/press/uppdaterade-rekommendationer-for-hormonbehandling-vid-konsdysfori-hos-unga/
They each provide sources that they base their decision on. Took me five min to find.
And your sources?
You misunderstand, I wasn’t objecting to you having made the claim, nor the claim itself. I have zero interest in debating online, particularly when the person has been a dick in the rest of the thread.
But I do enjoy pointing out things that people might not be aware are expected so that they can be less of a dick and start engaging in good faith.
That being said, you can’t use the NHS to support NHS decisions. Also, that isn’t a link to a study or experiment at all. So it isn’t a valid source for online debate (and you’d get laughed offstage for trying that at an actual debate. Same with any given secondary source. That’s just making an appeal to authority, which can only be useful if and when the authority is being recognized as an authority for the purpose of the specific debate. Since the NHS’ decision is what’s being questioned, you just linking to their opinion isn’t useful. And I can’t read Swedish, so I can’t say anything about the other link, but I suspect it’s the same thing.
There’s methodology to a proper online debate. You aren’t following it, so you’re gong to keep running into people dismissing you, regardless of any validity or lack thereof in your attempts.
What you need to do to debate in good faith is to provide either links or correct citations for what you’re using to make your opinion a claim that others should listen to.
Basically, to sum up, a post that brought about objections to the decision was made. You said “but the NHS is an authority to listen to”. Others then said, “bullshit, they’re using bad science”. You then rebutted with, “nuh-uh this is their opinion, look at it again.”
That’s fine if your entire goal is to just keep saying that you trust the NHS and stand behind their opinion. That’s perfectly fine, we all gotta make choices like that sometimes. But you can’t pretend that doing so is a good faith effort at debate and discussion. You can actually state that directly, though, and then anyone wishing to argue with you can be told to piss off without any need for anything else. But it isn’t how you change minds.
Holy fuck, lots of word for ‘zero interest’, especially seeing as you have damn no sources for your claims, lmao