Off Topic Politics Thread

[Osvaldorama]

Well wages still can be and are likely a contributing factors, and yep agree with the rest of your post.

I’m not sure what the answer is, as balancing business to be attractive enough to invest also drives the economy so we can’t just be tough to deal with, and unattractive for investors so there does need to be some balance.

But I do feel this Gov has been the worse on record for feathering their own nests, and are the problem and not the likely solution.

It’s an extremely tough predicament.

I was called a lunatic etc. for saying that the economic consequences of lockdowns & money printing are going to be worse than covid itself.

Yet here we are. I will be surprised if even 6% rates are enough.

The only modicum of comfort is that inflation is genuinely a global problem. The down side is that the governments still haven’t learned their lessons about spending too much.

I’m glad I have bitcoin to isolate me from the broken money system. I don’t think these problems can be fixed from within the system - especially on a long time horizon.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

I watched and was appalled, will complain about the bias, the unchecked hard boarder comment and ask why a rejoin/remain show isn't planned.

30% of the leave voting audience have changed their minds. Replicated across the UK it would mean a huge majority for closer ties with the EU. If not rejoin then join the customs union and single market with a deal similar to Norway and other European neighbours of the EU.

I'm dismayed at the Labour stance, they long ago lost my support.

Would be interested to see what response you get, I imagine it will be palmed off, claiming lack of public interest, relevance or something.

Labour are just the laxative to flush the Tories out at this point, they aren’t offering much else. I will vote for them, but it’s an anti-Tory vote rather than a pro-Labour one.

 

[......loading......]

But that's not the conversation that IOAG wants, nor the people pushing it. They want negation. IOAG said it himself: he does not believe that trans people exist, full stop.

And there is some irony in citing the rate of detransition, given that by far the most common cause of detransition is social pressure:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/

The NIH in the US did a massive study, and found that 84% of those who detransitioned did so for reasons other than fluctuations in their gender identity. In other words, they didn't do so because they ceased being trans: they did so because other people didn't accept them as trans. So further stigmatizing trans people isn't exactly going to make things better. It's just going to hurt more innocent people who are already being targeted for ostracization and violence.

(If you do the math, the number of trans people who i) detransitioned and ii) cited something other than external pressures (even just in part) for detransitioning is 357 out of 27,715, or 1.3% of the overall population of trans people surveyed. Which is not particularly much!)

It is a very emotive topic. I would struggle to accept that survey for a lot of reasons. Number one is that identity belief is very hard to let go of. An anorexic will retain the beliefs of ab anorexic even after they are cured, for example. This is a horrible comparison but detransitioning to mollify public unease makes less sense than being too scared to transition due to fear of public reactions. The truth will be that many people miss their old bodies and feel uncomfortable with the extra chemical load they are encumbering their bodies with.

Here is where maybe everyone is on the same page but shouting different words: you don’t have to physically change sex to be trans. For a start there are transvestites - who enjoy being one sex but dressing as the other. How does a child differentiate? They need to be allowed to grow up and understand themselves before making these choices.

Also, I don’t want to keep beating this bush but the rates if trans in autistic children is vastly higher than in other children. My niece believed she was a dog for a part of her childhood. Supporting your child does not mean doing what they want when they want or she would have been fed from a dog bowl. Autistic people are often looking for an identity that makes sense to them - and trans in its difference can seem an escape.

Anyway, the important thing is that we are all allowed to argue this. Nothing in society should be beyond reasoned debate.

 

[StJabbo1]

Would be interested to see what response you get, I imagine it will be palmed off, claiming lack of public interest, relevance or something.

Labour are just the laxative to flush the Tories out at this point, they aren’t offering much else. I will vote for them, but it’s an anti-Tory vote rather than a pro-Labour one.

I'm an overseas voter registered in the Henley on Thames ward one of he safest tory seats. It'll be tactical voting for me hoping the opposition parties work together so that the strongest candidate stands.

 

[Schad]

It is a very emotive topic. I would struggle to accept that survey for a lot of reasons. Number one is that identity belief is very hard to let go of. An anorexic will retain the beliefs of ab anorexic even after they are cured, for example. This is a horrible comparison but detransitioning to mollify public unease makes less sense than being too scared to transition due to fear of public reactions. The truth will be that many people miss their old bodies and feel uncomfortable with the extra chemical load they are encumbering their bodies with.

Here is where maybe everyone is on the same page but shouting different words: you don’t have to physically change sex to be trans. For a start there are transvestites - who enjoy being one sex but dressing as the other. How does a child differentiate? They need to be allowed to grow up and understand themselves before making these choices.

Also, I don’t want to keep beating this bush but the rates if trans in autistic children is vastly higher than in other children. My niece believed she was a dog for a part of her childhood. Supporting your child does not mean doing what they want when they want or she would have been fed from a dog bowl. Autistic people are often looking for an identity that makes sense to them - and trans in its difference can seem an escape.

Anyway, the important thing is that we are all allowed to argue this. Nothing in society should be beyond reasoned debate.

And the reasoned view of the medical community is that supporting transition is, by a massive margin, the strategy that most reduces harm. People keep acting as if this is barely studied; it's been studied rather a lot! And the result of that study is that every major medical association is on the same side.

I have no problem with having a debate, but that debate should be happening while people are able to access care, not before they access it. Because what we know at this time is:

- There is a large (in raw numbers, not so much percentage) number of people with a medically-recognized and well-established condition.
- Without treatment, the condition will result in a significant percentage of them dying, and will drastically reduce the quality of life of almost everyone in that cohort.
- There is only one treatment that has shown any real success in treating that condition, and it's very successful.
- Almost no one under the age of 18 receives treatments that are irreversible.
- That treatment has a much lower regret rate than a lot of other widely accepted procedures. Lower than hip replacements and breast augmentation and a whole host of other things.


Denying care to trans kids and young adults because we don't fully understand the triggers means a lot of dead kids and adults. That's not hyperbole: in a rather large study, receiving treatment reduced the rate of suicide attempts by about 40%.

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext

Plenty of other studies have shown the same. Supporting kids saves lives. Lots of them.

So, absolutely. It should be studied more. Every aspect of health care, both physical and mental, should. And good news: no one has stopped studying anything. But that studying should be in parallel to people receiving the only form of treatment that has any efficacy; the fact that there might be better treatments in 20 years for cancer doesn't mean that we don't use chemo today.

And yeah, the fact that there are people who want to have a reasoned debate does not negate the fact that the people driving this argument do not. We can argue about the minutiae at a time when there isn't a significant political movement baselessly smearing trans people as predators, egging on extremists to commit acts of violence, and outright banning care for both minors and adults, as they are now. I'd suggest that people who want to have the reasoned debate should probably focus their efforts today on beating back those who want to do their debating with a Molotov cocktail, so that there can actually be a reasoned debate later.

 

[......loading......]

And the reasoned view of the medical community is that supporting transition is, by a massive margin, the strategy that most reduces harm. People keep acting as if this is barely studied; it's been studied rather a lot! And the result of that study is that every major medical association is on the same side.

I have no problem with having a debate, but that debate should be happening while people are able to access care, not before they access it. Because what we know at this time is:

- There is a large (in raw numbers, not so much percentage) number of people with a medically-recognized and well-established condition.
- Without treatment, the condition will result in a significant percentage of them dying, and will drastically reduce the quality of life of almost everyone in that cohort.
- There is only one treatment that has shown any real success in treating that condition, and it's very successful.
- Almost no one under the age of 18 receives treatments that are irreversible.
- That treatment has a much lower regret rate than a lot of other widely accepted procedures. Lower than hip replacements and breast augmentation and a whole host of other things.


Denying care to trans kids and young adults because we don't fully understand the triggers means a lot of dead kids and adults. That's not hyperbole: in a rather large study, receiving treatment reduced the rate of suicide attempts by about 40%.

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext

Plenty of other studies have shown the same. Supporting kids saves lives. Lots of them.

So, absolutely. It should be studied more. Every aspect of health care, both physical and mental, should. And good news: no one has stopped studying anything. But that studying should be in parallel to people receiving the only form of treatment that has any efficacy; the fact that there might be better treatments in 20 years for cancer doesn't mean that we don't use chemo today.

And yeah, the fact that there are people who want to have a reasoned debate does not negate the fact that the people driving this argument do not. We can argue about the minutiae at a time when there isn't a significant political movement baselessly smearing trans people as predators, egging on extremists to commit acts of violence, and outright banning care for both minors and adults, as they are now. I'd suggest that people who want to have the reasoned debate should probably focus their efforts today on beating back those who want to do their debating with a Molotov cocktail, so that there can actually be a reasoned debate later.

Not to poke the bear but this seems a particularly emotive topic for you. If we burrow down into your numbers the key term seems to be support. It is hard to scientifically and logically separate the support from the gender change.

What do you mean, Loading? I mean we have a group of ‘outsider’ children, teens and young adults. We then separate them into those denied ‘help’ and those given ‘help’. Which will feel happier? Is it the transition or the social acceptance making them happier?

The numbers in your studies are incredibly low, but when more than 10% realise they were not trans to begin with - yet got all the way to changing sex - you have to admit that societal fears of harm are not entirely unjustified.

If I lost my penis to a mistake, it would be life destroying. These are not small (pun not intended) issues. All I am saying is that this argument cannot be shut down until we are 30 years on from here and can see what really happened in the light of day. Even the study you linked said there is NO major study on the topic. How can there be? We are talking about a major social change happening now.

I appreciate you are worried about violent arseholes hurting people, but I am not arguing with them. I have looked at both sides here and discussed the pain of being an outsider and our societal role to defend those who don’t fit it. I need to be allowed to come to my own conclusion the best way to do that.

Edit: this is what struck me most reading your study:

“Those who had parental support for their gender identity comprised nearly 80% of youth who received GAHT. Among those who wanted GAHT but did not receive it, 38% had parental support“

 

[Osvaldorama]

Not to poke the bear but this seems a particularly emotive topic for you. If we burrow down into your numbers the key term seems to be support. It is hard to scientifically and logically separate the support from the gender change.

What do you mean, Loading? I mean we have a group of ‘outsider’ children, teens and young adults. We then separate them into those denied ‘help’ and those given ‘help’. Which will feel happier? Is it the transition or the social acceptance making them happier?

The numbers in your studies are incredibly low, but when more than 10% realise they were not trans to begin with - yet got all the way to changing sex - you have to admit that societal fears of harm are not entirely unjustified.

If I lost my penis to a mistake, it would be life destroying. These are not small (pun not intended) issues. All I am saying is that this argument cannot be shut down until we are 30 years on from here and can see what really happened in the light of day. Even the study you linked said there is NO major study on the topic. How can there be? We are talking about a major social change happening now.

I appreciate you are worried about violent arseholes hurting people, but I am not arguing with them. I have looked at both sides here and discussed the pain of being an outsider and our societal role to defend those who don’t fit it. I need to be allowed to come to my own conclusion the best way to do that.

Edit: this is what struck me most reading your study:

“Those who had parental support for their gender identity comprised nearly 80% of youth who received GAHT. Among those who wanted GAHT but did not receive it, 38% had parental support“

It’s a very emotive topic because many people find it abhorrent that the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to prey on vulnerable young children to this extent

 

[......loading......]

It’s a very emotive topic because many people find it abhorrent that the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to prey on vulnerable young children to this extent

I don’t know about that. I would like to see a British study as it is not impossible that a medical system which didn’t monetise procedures would be different.

It is a fascinating topic. Particularly since views are changing very quickly. In 2004 the weight of medical evidence was sex change operations did not reduce the suffering of trans people.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

But now they seem to say the opposite.
What will they say in 2050?

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[......loading......]

You must log in or register to see images

Bit mean on Schad since I was also discussing it…

 

[StJabbo1]

You must log in or register to see images

You need to apply that to Os in the first instance.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Bit mean on Schad since I was also discussing it…

I might not always agree with you but your posts have some balance to them, and you don't write in a condescending manner.
Also, I couldn't fit your name in as well.

 

[Osvaldorama]

I don’t know about that. I would like to see a British study as it is not impossible that a medical system which didn’t monetise procedures would be different.

It is a fascinating topic. Particularly since views are changing very quickly. In 2004 the weight of medical evidence was sex change operations did not reduce the suffering of trans people.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

But now they seem to say the opposite.
What will they say in 2050?

Seems fairly obvious to me that mutilating someone’s genitals will only end up in more negative thoughts than positive ones.

But hey, what do I know.

 

[Schad]

Not to poke the bear but this seems a particularly emotive topic for you. If we burrow down into your numbers the key term seems to be support. It is hard to scientifically and logically separate the support from the gender change.

What do you mean, Loading? I mean we have a group of ‘outsider’ children, teens and young adults. We then separate them into those denied ‘help’ and those given ‘help’. Which will feel happier? Is it the transition or the social acceptance making them happier?

The numbers in your studies are incredibly low, but when more than 10% realise they were not trans to begin with - yet got all the way to changing sex - you have to admit that societal fears of harm are not entirely unjustified.

If I lost my penis to a mistake, it would be life destroying. These are not small (pun not intended) issues. All I am saying is that this argument cannot be shut down until we are 30 years on from here and can see what really happened in the light of day. Even the study you linked said there is NO major study on the topic. How can there be? We are talking about a major social change happening now.

I appreciate you are worried about violent arseholes hurting people, but I am not arguing with them. I have looked at both sides here and discussed the pain of being an outsider and our societal role to defend those who don’t fit it. I need to be allowed to come to my own conclusion the best way to do that.

Edit: this is what struck me most reading your study:

“Those who had parental support for their gender identity comprised nearly 80% of youth who received GAHT. Among those who wanted GAHT but did not receive it, 38% had parental support“

The 10% that detransitioned on their own accord aren't generally people who did so post-surgery, though. Reverse-engineering it from the numbers in that study:

- 2,242 people out of 17,151 people reported detransitioning at some time.
- Of those 2,242 about half (1,117) hadn't received any medical intervention at all. No hormones, nothing. They just socially transitioned.
- Of the remaining 1,125 that had medical intervention, less than a third (371) progressed to any form of surgery.

The reasons for detransitioning aren't broken down based on when in the process they detransitioned, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 10.5% that detransitioned because of fluctuations in gender identity applies across the board. That'd mean that 39 people out of a population of 17,151, or 0.23% of the population as a whole, would fall into under the scenario you describe of 'losing your penis by mistake', though realistically it's lower...the percentage that detransitioned declines at every step, and it'd stand to reason that the percentage who are unsure of their gender identity would decline as well, given how long of a process that is.

For the bottom end, another NIH meta-study, where the regret rate for gender-affirming surgery was a shade under 1% of people who received it:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968550/

So applying those two frameworks, you'd get somewhere between 3-39 people out of 17,151 who'd be in the 'losing your penis by mistake' cohort. Which isn't nothing, but statistically it's absolutely nothing-adjacent, and certainly not worth delaying treatment for the other 17,000+. Balance of harm isn't even close on that one.

 

[......loading......]

The 10% that detransitioned on their own accord aren't generally people who did so post-surgery, though. Reverse-engineering it from the numbers in that study:

- 2,242 people out of 17,151 people reported detransitioning at some time.
- Of those 2,242 about half (1,117) hadn't received any medical intervention at all. No hormones, nothing. They just socially transitioned.
- Of the remaining 1,125 that had medical intervention, less than a third (371) progressed to any form of surgery.

The reasons for detransitioning aren't broken down based on when in the process they detransitioned, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 10.5% that detransitioned because of fluctuations in gender identity applies across the board. That'd mean that 39 people out of a population of 17,151, or 0.23% of the population as a whole, would fall into under the scenario you describe of 'losing your penis by mistake', though realistically it's lower...the percentage that detransitioned declines at every step, and it'd stand to reason that the percentage who are unsure of their gender identity would decline as well, given how long of a process that is.

For the bottom end, another NIH meta-study, where the regret rate for gender-affirming surgery was a shade under 1% of people who received it:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968550/

So applying those two frameworks, you'd get somewhere between 3-39 people out of 17,151 who'd be in the 'losing your penis by mistake' cohort. Which isn't nothing, but statistically it's absolutely nothing-adjacent, and certainly not worth delaying treatment for the other 17,000+. Balance of harm isn't even close on that one.

Sorry, I can’t resist throwing this back at you. Trans people make up approximately 0.0175% of the world’s population. By your reckoning they are statistically nothing adjacent. But neither of us believe this. For me, 3-39 people losing their sexual organs who shouldn’t have is a problem. I don’t think referring to them as statistically unimportant helps?

 

[Schad]

Sorry, I can’t resist throwing this back at you. Trans people make up approximately 0.0175% of the world’s population. By your reckoning they are statistically nothing adjacent. But neither of us believe this. For me, 3-39 people losing their sexual organs who shouldn’t have is a problem. I don’t think referring to them as statistically unimportant helps?

Again, balance of harm. You'd rather there be no harm at all, absolutely. But if you help 17,112 people and harm 39, you are very much on the right side of the ledger. The rate of people who regret most other elective surgeries is an order of magnitude higher, yet we still perform those surgeries, because on balance it's a significant net benefit. There are precisely zero medical treatments where 100% of the people report feeling better thereafter in perpetuity, unless you find a doctor that'll prescribe you a pony.

 

[......loading......]

Again, balance of harm. You'd rather there be no harm at all, absolutely. But if you help 17,112 people and harm 39, you are very much on the right side of the ledger. The rate of people who regret most other elective surgeries is an order of magnitude higher, yet we still perform those surgeries, because on balance it's a significant net benefit. There are precisely zero medical treatments where 100% of the people report feeling better thereafter in perpetuity, unless you find a doctor that'll prescribe you a pony.

You know harm balances both ways. The measurement of harm in quantity but also the measurement of harm in severity on the individual.

I am not against sex change operations, to be clear. I am not even against teenagers having them if they are absolutely sure. Some people know in their gut from being a toddler. But there are others. There is the idea which spreads. Which is why I keep coming back to the autistic community- who make up a statistically large proportion of young people currently asking for these changes. From my experience, and those of professionals I have worked with, these are a group easily obsessed with an idea and incredibly stubborn in holding on to it.

And at the end of the day it isn’t my life. But it is not a black and white story about progress vs hate. It is a lot of concern about something fairly new - which may ruin some lives. As you say, it is about risk. In 2004 studies showed gender reassigned did very little to help. Now studies show they do a lot. What will they show in 20 years?

 

[Schad]

You know harm balances both ways. The measurement of harm in quantity but also the measurement of harm in severity on the individual.

Seems like a pretty easy one to me, too. On one hand, you have 3-39 people regretting surgery. On the other, extrapolating out the numbers, in that same population size you would have almost 1,500 people who are not attempting suicide because they received care. I'd argue that each of those suicide attempts represents considerably more severe harm to the individual in any instance, but also: there's 40 kids who are no longer suicidal for every one that regrets surgery. There's a reason all of the medical associations are on one side, the numbers overwhelmingly favour affirmation.

 

[Schad]

Seems fairly obvious to me that mutilating someone’s genitals will only end up in more negative thoughts than positive ones.

But hey, what do I know.

Fun note: Os' favourite sex trafficker pressured women to 'mutilate' their sexual organs.

https://torontosun.com/news/world/a...-to-get-boob-jobs-for-hotter-porn-prosecutors

 

[......loading......]

Seems like a pretty easy one to me, too. On one hand, you have 3-39 people regretting surgery. On the other, extrapolating out the numbers, in that same population size you would have almost 1,500 people who are not attempting suicide because they received care. I'd argue that each of those suicide attempts represents considerably more severe harm to the individual in any instance, but also: there's 40 kids who are no longer suicidal for every one that regrets surgery. There's a reason all of the medical associations are on one side, the numbers overwhelmingly favour affirmation.

You are ignoring half of my points, but fair enough.

The issue here is we are talking about psychological issues with psychological negative outcomes being treated with physical surgery. Suicide ideation and gender ideation are being presented as two halves of a coin - but I am still not convinced that we know enough about what is going on. The boom in kids asserting they are trans is either incredible evidence of a newly permissive society or some other damage playing out.