"Gender Affirming Care" is a snare and a delusion

I am glad no one disputes that so-called "gender affirming care" is a snare and a delusion.  Further, that only whatabboutist sexual predators/deviants --- badger --- and chatbots --- that pink profile user whose name I have already forgotten --- disagree is a good sign.  

Because they do not exist.  No one actually believes this idiocy.  

Because it's entirely boring, it's almost like the only people who actually care about these wedge issues like "gender affirming care," puberty blockers etc. are conservatives. The more interesting question is whether the transgender / queer changes to the underlying concept of gender are valid, which is the subtext of this whole post. But conservatives prefer to use wedge issues like a shield to make their position easier to defend.

Why would we want to get into the weeds of issues that are clearly complicated medical questions that should be left to professionals to decide, in conversation with the individuals involved? However I agree with the OP that the field of psychology is largely comprised of nonsense.

You're right about that, because in general people who defend "trans ideology" do so on the basis that non-binary or trans expressions of identity are valid, not that every slightly feminine teenager should be castrated or whatever else you wrote about in the OP.

Why the need to mention conservative? Who mentioned the political divide? We need not any more division in society, do we?

So you didn't read the OP then. 

I’m trying to disentangle the point you’re making. It’s kinda weird and conspiratorial.

From what I can gather; you’re suggesting it was outrageous that doctors and psychologists didn’t treat homosexuals as if it was part of the natural spectrum of human existence and instead tried a bunch of therapies to try and cure their deviance. 

Because of this, you seem to be suggesting that doctors and psychologists shouldn’t treat or be accepting of transgender people as if it was part of the natural spectrum of human existence because apparently there is some vague overlap in some of the treatments and medication; even though the medications are given to a different set of people for different reasons to do different things?

Assuming for a moment that it’s possible for a human brain to develop with an internal structure that mismatches with biological gender - in a way that’s slightly different than for Homosexuality; what would the right treatment plan be for those who suffer from this condition to live full and happy lives?

You're way off. 

Conspiratorial is the new buzzword of the progressive radical to explain dissonance.

Anyway, I really liked you unique take on Foucault.

What did I get wrong; that seems to be your objection .

That homosexuals were treated one way - and that transgender have kinda similar treatments (but not really). Strongly implying that it’s some weird attempt by physicians to maintain the same sort of “oppression” or treatment tactics they used for homosexuals against transgender ; or at least pseudoscience.

The implication is that if the treatment of homosexuality in DSM-II was pseudoscientific and unfairly trying to “cure” homosexuality while they should be left to be who they want to be - then we shouldn’t facilitate care that helps the transgender be who they want to be?

By all means -  please help me make sense of this, it is not clear to me what you’re overarching point was in the first 3/4 of your post if this wasn’t what you meant.

Apparently, some people never learn to scrutinize authority. Even when the ulterior motives are glaringly obvious.

Ram often is. Often. 

Sometimes he talks like he is on something.

Everyone else seems to have understood it just fine.  Only you seem to have struggled.

That tells me we are in two possible worlds.  In the first possible world, your reading comprehension is below par.  In which case,  why would I bother since the level of abstraction involved here is likely to be over your head.  In the second possible world, your reading comprehension is just fine.  In which case, your ostensible confusion is an argumentative strategy, wherein you will misrepresent what I said and attempt to rebut some mischaracterization of it. 

I'll just tell you that I do not believe you have represented ostensible failure to comprehend what I wrote in good faith.  The degree to which you have already mischaracterized what I wrote tells me you are actively refusing to engage with the substance, which tells me you're probably dishonest and underhanded.  In fact, your conduct so far entirely reminiscent of Cathy Newman's behaviour in this interview.  I'm not going to play that game.  When you have something meaningful to say, I'll chime in.  Thus far, you have failed as evidenced by the wealth of other responses --- including those specifically addressing your own.

Bit of advice.  If you pull that shit in a professional context outside of academia, no one will trust you.  You will come across as a manipulative, shifty and underhanded trickster that refuses to communicate professionally or deal with colleagues or clients in good faith.  This character flaw of yours, however, is likely not inherent and therefore correctable.  After all, the only place you would have learned that method of mischief is by listening to someone who conducts himself or herself like Cathy Newman did in the interview I linked above. 

I have yet to see a constructive interchange between him and any other user on this site. That alone speaks volumes as to where the problem is.

And that Neumann interview was a classic example of a person wanting to be more "right" than correct.

Except for the mods. He brown-nosed them and it paid off, he made it onto the mod team eventually.

Your response is essentially name calling and telling me how wrong I am and refusing to clarify - behaviour that I’m sure would totally go down well in a professional environment…

The replies thus far seem to be generating pretty typical anti-transgender-treatment riffs off your anti-transgender-treatment conclusion; it doesn’t seem anyone has nit-picked or analyzed anything you said in any depth. But anyhoo …


Given that you’ve offered no clarification and you’re now stamping your feet about how unreasonable I’m being over four or so paragraphs ; yet omit the simple and humiliating proof that would send me packing that would take, say, 2 sentences

Let me walk you through my obviously poor comprehension. Perhaps you can see yourself clear to correct me where my interpretation of what you said is incorrect. I will hold your hand, metaphorically speaking.


So I’m thinking given the title, that you’re trying to show or argue that gender affirming care is a “snare” and a “delusion”. Not an unreasonable assumption, right? 

I also make the horrifying stretch of an assumption that this is with a view to suggesting we shouldn’t perform gender affirming care. Because, after 12 paragraphs seemingly against it, and then comparing it to the Nazis - kinda makes sense, to conclude you’re against it, right?


You start initially about self reinforcing instrumentalities - ok - then you state that psychology is one of those hierarchies - ok. You then go 6 paragraphs talking about mistreatment of homosexuals, chemical castration, treatment of deviants, etc, and how you’d be forced etc based on standards of psychology at the time. Ok.

You then say:

This is the only point you really make about transgender care - the topic of the thread.  I characterized this as:

Don’t know about you, but that seems an absolute straight up, bang on interpretation of what you said, right?

Then you follow it on with 3 bullet points that explicitly state they do the same thing.

So here’s me, reading four paragraphs of you explicitly arguing that trans and homosexual therapy are effectively the same thing - that one is the extension of the other: and I concluded that you think they’re essentially the same thing and one is an extension of the other. Fuck me, right?

You continue this line of thought in the remaining two paragraphs.

The only things you have said up to this point - is that treatment of homosexuals was pseudo-science (implied via Foucault admittedly)- and that the treatment regimen for transgender care are kinda (but not really - actually) similar. So, I have assumed your reasoning - in this thread - for thinking transgender care is a snare and delusion is because of its similarity to past homosexual treatment - because it’s literally the only point you actually seem to have actually made; how unreasonable of me; what a dick!


I mean - I could assume that elements of the final two paragraph statement and following on examples where you make accusations about children being able to “opt in” to the in group - that all seems to be built on top of the implications of the preceding two points, rather than something inherently separate.


Now; whilst you wholly object that I’m not engaging on any substance - not that it’s even really clear what your central thesis is from the original post; if you paid attention, I’m largely making two key points:

Firstly - you appear to agree that homosexuals are not deviants, and treating their condition as some sort of deviancy is wrong. I mean - why else are you railing against DSM-II and treatment of homosexuals in the first 6 paragraphs of your post, if this is not part of your point?

If not automatically treating homosexuals as if they are deviants - is the right thing to do; which is not a stretch to believe is your point. Then you’re providing some basis for the argument that perhaps it’s not completely unreasonable to also not treat the transgender as deviants either.

If transgender care was electroshock treatment, or telling everyone with that disorder that there was something wrong with them and to commit them until they agree that they are their biological sex - comparing to homosexuality would be an excellent argument - that would be a “snare” and a “delusion” - if I use the terms charitably. Obviously that’s not your argument 

So the issue is, that psychiatry treated homosexuality as deviancy that needs to be cured, and doesn’t any longer - and psychiatry now no longer treats transgenderism as some form of deviancy that needs to be cured; but instead care to help with their quality of life - so all should be right in the world. But as you appear to be against transgender care itself - that could either be because you think the treatment is invalid - or what they’re being treated for is invalid.

If it’s the former - that you think being transgender is not deviancy - the primary reason you’ve given thus far  is that the treatment is similar to that given to homosexuals in the past. If you think the latter - then you’re suggesting transgender is deviancy: I mean, after all - what other reason would there be not to provide affirming care unless what is being affirmed is invalid?

I don’t know which you’re doing, it’s not clear - the argument itself is not particularly well reasoned, or laid out; and leaves open a bunch of ambiguity in precisely what you’re trying to argue or say.

I would lean towards the latter given the things you’ve actually said, but rather than, you know, assume this is what you meant : I presented the logical conclusions to be drawn from what you said, and asked if this was the correct interpretation of what you were arguing or whether you wanted to clarify.

So after asking for clarification to deal with the first- I even assume the best possible case argument from what you actually said in the second - that you merely object to the treatment; which led to my second point - assuming transgender is actually a thing - what would treatment or valid affirmatory care actually look like?


So perhaps there’s more to your belief than what you said; perhaps you didn’t quite mean what you literally explicitly said; perhaps you missed out a key part of the logic - perhaps I’ve interpreted something you said incorrectly; I listed out how I came to that conclusion twice, and once in detail, and it doesn’t seem a particularly unreasonable inference. Or perhaps your argument as presented boils down to something that isn’t actually all that reasonable.

So perhaps instead of unending bad faith screeds and name calling; you can perhaps clarify what have I said that’s wrong, and why?

If not the overlap to treatment of homosexuals ; what other reason do you feel you’ve explained in any detail why affirming care is a “snare” or “delusion”? I can’t see one other than the choice of wording such as “mutiliation” to argue that the care is bad. We could talk about that instead - that would be fine - but that if that’s the actual issue you really have - that care is mutilation its own - than the entire OP is kinda irrelevant. The whole purpose of bringing up homosexuals at all is an irrelevant side track - you can just look at the treatment and say “this is bad”.

I mean - I’m also assuming you’re not merely suggesting that if an action is invalid in one circumstance it’s invalid in all others  - IE: because hormones were used to chemically castrate male adults against their will, that it’s use in transgender children in specific situations is just as bad despite being done with different impacts for different reasons in different circumstances - because that would be a silly argument.

But that all leads me back to my first reply - what would the correct care be assuming that transgenderism actually exist?

Lol, nice rant.

The point is, the only one in this thread who wants to "send people packing" ....is you. Most users do not have the dysfunctional personality of Kathy Neumann, even if you are deluded enough to think such a personality could be tolerated for long in a professional setting. In fact, the entire OP is a commentary about how the Psychiatric community is "sending people packing" because they arbitrarily dismiss alternative explanations for human behaviors. In that sense, you are the living embodiment of the very problems the OP addresses. Everything you say is probably going to be received as pure projection as a defense for your own radical beliefs. We already have enough excuses for why the torture of millions of homosexuals was justified. The world will go on just fine without more from you.

The rest of us are quite comfortable simply ignoring your constant dismissal of everyone's arguments.

And, really, that's the best approach. Ignore the troll. Not worth anyone's time.

Katherine Imborek, MD, has seen the gender-affirming care provided at UI Health Care’s LGBTQ Clinic in Iowa City change the lives of transgender youths and adults. “It decreases depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts,” says Imborek, co-director of the clinic. To her, that care is “a medical necessity, like providing insulin to a person with diabetes.”
But a growing number of lawmakers, including in Iowa, view some gender-affirming care as medically unsound for youths and even a form of child abuse. Iowa is among 15 states that have enacted or are considering laws to prohibit certain gender-affirming treatments for youths and to impose penalties on health care professionals who provide it, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law in California.The state actions focus on specific therapies under the umbrella of gender-affirming care: hormone-related treatments that delay puberty or promote development of masculine or feminine sex characteristics. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill last week that prohibits doctors from providing those treatments, while an order declaring those procedures illegal in Texas was halted last month by a court injunction pending the intervention of the state Supreme Court. The AAMC joined other medical organizations in an amicus brief opposing the Texas order, arguing that extensive scientific evidence exists to support those therapies and that the law would force doctors to risk endangering their patients by not providing that care.To put the controversy in context, several experts explain gender-affirming care. “It’s not just medication. It’s much deeper than that,” says Jason Rafferty, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist who provides gender-affirming care at the Gender and Sexuality Clinic at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.

Welcome back mr chatbot!

The name is Shila.

You cant spell Shila without AI

SHILA. There you go.

A human would get the joke, lol.

But parrots don’t 

Thank you!

You are full of appreciation for Shila.

You are most welcome.

So fucking boring. It's one for the antagonistic in general also. What's a woman? Bones loves this shit, can hammer a no-brain opinion all day long. That's a hobby entirely without art. 

Don’t forget you are a parrot.